The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pqp_8XLC6c

The premise is that climate change is an Hyperobject, in that it surpasses comprehension by our pea brains.

The title suggests that grammar is sometimes the same.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Now you are being just as intentionally over simplistic the other way. Electricity production and storage from rebuildable sources is not without losses. Round trip electrolytic Hydrogen production is 30% for example. And you are ignoring the fact that the recent examples I gave have already stated total energy requirements that were cut to 1/2 of the current levels. Which is what the studies have shown would be real world feasible with a complete and ideal electrification of everything.
.
And you are repeating the same mistake that the media has taught you by saying that "we need only 900-GW worth of CAPACITY for our requirements".
.
When in fact the capacity factor for the best solar farm in the USA is 31%. And onshore wind in ideal locations will be similar. Solar farms in my area average 13.7% capacity factor. Onshore wind barely more.
.
So we would need 3-TW CAPACITY of rebuildable energy capacity using your number. 5-TW using mine. Plus storage. We are not that far apart. Either one is immense in real world scale as I have shown repeatedly.
.
I wish we could stop these back and forths. It is a waste of time.
.
I'm not anti rebuildable energy. I'm pro math.

The 900-GW figure has nothing to do with capacity factor.Basically 2/3 rds of the primary fossil fuel energy is lost in conversion,from chemical to heat.
I have a hard time accepting an across-the board average 50% thermal efficiency.Some people above our pay grade,who deal with these numbers for a living have a problem with it also.
If you're truly pro-math,then you'll want to dust off that old thermodynamics textbook.
The media hasn't taught me a thing.I went to college primarily to study this stuff,and I've been purposefully looking at it since October,1973.
In addition to the renewables at hand,we need an additional 900-GW to cover our total needs,if you were to fix the landscape in 2014.
If,and only if,capacity factors across the board were locked-in at 30%,and there could be no additional geographic distribution of power generation,or improvements in power generation technology,or end-user efficiency could we categorically say that,we need X-amount of anything!
With the stroke of a pen,the ISO standards can be modified for all residential,commercial,and industrial construction.National laboratories can be tasked and funded for emergency energy efficiency research and development on top of what they're already doing.We can have additional fees,disincentives,regulations,restrictions,morato riums,whatever was needed to get results.It's a fluid battlefield.A reading of American history will show you that the federal government has a precedent for such activities.It's probably where the 'Green New Deal' came from.
If YOU can come up with 100% carbon-capture and sequestration,plus removal of extant atmospheric greenhouse gases,down to pre-industrial revolution levels,then we're there.
Until that day,the US Constitution says that we MUST pursue something akin to the Green New Deal.And anyone against that is a public enemy,by default.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The premise is that climate change is an Hyperobject, in that it surpasses comprehension by our pea brains.

As are many other things like the scale of current energy production, scale of food and fiber production, scale of raw material production and the embodied energy in the final products, scale of the time frame that we wish to see humans and dolphins and lions and dragonflies cohabit.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The premise is that climate change is an Hyperobject, in that it surpasses comprehension by our pea brains.

The title suggests that grammar is sometimes the same.

I would only add,that a subset of 'our' brains have a pretty good handle on the issue,and can be deferred to for expert advice.
I personally find it quite interesting,sophisticated,all-encompassing,and the literature full of clear,concise,logical,coherent,rational linear narratives,to describe the minutiae.

[aerohead]

Here's another resource for us,if you're unfamiliar with it:
Center For Automotive Research,Ann Arbor,Michigan,USA.
They cover developments in climate-related fuel economy legislation,or lack thereof.
Last night on the PBS NewsHour, one of their representatives discussed how automakers are still attacking California's State's Rights.American citizens aren't allowed to have any say in their lives.And when they try,The 'Small Government' people go running for protection under the skirt of Big Government,imploring that it make the bad thing go away.Two-faced Janus!

[aerohead]

Harvard Kennedy School,John F. Kennedy School of Government,Cambridge,Massachusetts,USA,also has some work to offer on energy and climate change.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I would only add,that a subset of 'our' brains have a pretty good handle on the issue,and can be deferred to for expert advice.

I'd point to Fuller's Synergetic Geometry: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=synergetic+geometry

Until that day,the US Constitution says that we MUST pursue something akin to the Green New Deal.And anyone against that is a public enemy,by default.

Fair enough, let's make it minus the communism.

I personally find it quite interesting,sophisticated,all-encompassing,and the literature full of clear,concise,logical,coherent,rational linear narratives,to describe the minutiae.

It sounds like you watched the video. You are consistent with the video, our brains are optimized to focus on shiny objects but we shy away from things like the Boötes void.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'd point to Fuller's Synergetic Geometry: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=synergetic+geometry


Fair enough, let's make it minus the communism.



It sounds like you watched the video. You are consistent with the video, our brains are optimized to focus on shiny objects but we shy away from things like the Boötes void.

No communism necessary.
With cubes of spacetime,200-million light years on a side,the mass is uniform across the observable universe.It may not be in the visible spectrum ,but it's there.

[freebeard]

Democratic Socialism, National Socialism, Communism are all arrayed against anarcho-capitalism (see We Build The Wall*).

How about a Green Nuclear Deal?

*edit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxwTfQRf18

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The 900-GW figure has nothing to do with capacity factor.

900-GW average production for the USA would be a good start and would get us close if we had a perfect electrification of everything to go with it. But you stated that we needed "900-GW capacity" of rebuildables when in fact if we want to average 900-GW of power, then we actually need 3-TW of nameplate capacity built out.
.
This is constantly misstated in the media and leads to misrepresenting the progress of the transition and the pricing by a factor of 3 (by a factor of 6 for solar in my area).