The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Communism is just doing what it has to to survive. Socialism is no better as it can only survive by becoming Communism, then doing what Communism has to to survive. You can't allow shining cities on hills to be an example of what you could have with liberty.

Well,there is a 'Third Way.' It's a hybrid system,like Russia and China,with the provision of private ownership,but central planning,command and control.Hitler did it.Just the savings from not advertising would make it impossible for capitalism to compete against it.That's why it's hated by capitalists so much.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Absolutely! A worldwide Green New Deal is essential immediately on January, 2020. Taking what we learned from the mitigation of the Great Depression with minimum and maximum incomes to pay for it all and the example of the repurposing of industry that the USA undertook for the build up to WWII with rationing cards, ect. It must be coordinated word wide so there is no tax haven race to the bottom for rich individuals and global corporations to just relocate. There is only one planet and we are all in this together.
.
By the way, I forgot to mention that all current wind and solar build out is heavily dependent on carbon fuel for the mining, refining, manufacture, and installation. It remains to be seen how much of this and what remaining scale of the already insufficient amount will remain as we are faced with diminishing ER/EI of liquid fuel, and then natural gas, or choose to try to leave it in the ground, over the next coming decades.

It took 30-years for the automobile to supplant the horse and buggy.Scientists are talking about 30-year timescales.Why don't you?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No we can't. We don't have EV dump trucks, excavators, bulldozers and cranes. Even if we did, the machines that mine the raw materials to build them aren't electric. The enormous concrete pads that are poured to support wind turbines emit large amounts of CO2 during the chemical process than hardens it.

I bet we're a minimum of 50 years out from having electric heavy machinery.

Tell that to a mechanical engineer.If you dare.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Do tell.
So how do you make steel with out coke or glass and cement with out natural gas?

The first electric rock trucks have already been released and were met with a pretty cold reception. Turns out few mines are interested in an electric rock truck that costs substantially more than a diesel and might run for 8 hours if you're lucky and then needs to charge for several hours.

How did they make it before there was natural gas?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I suppose it all comes down to what Neil considers to be "next generation of solar panels and wind turbines". If whatever is out 50 years from now is next gen, then that may be correct.

A few examples of electric heavy equipment and the stationary machinery that has been electric for a long time does not represent the bulk of the work done to mine, refine, and transport raw materials into finished goods. It all relies on fossil fuels even if parts of the process are electric, or diesel electric (which is diesel then).

So tell us how the 'Arsenal of Freedom' couldn't pull that off.

[freebeard]

Well,there is a 'Third Way.' It's a hybrid system,like Russia and China,with the provision of private ownership,but central planning,command and control.Hitler did it.Just the savings from not advertising would make it impossible for capitalism to compete against it.

I said something similar at Permalink #7458, and got hard push-back from RedDevil.

Originally Posted by aerohead

It took 30-years for the automobile to supplant the horse and buggy.

Famous pictures show the streets of New York City in the 1900s. It took thirteen years.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How about a wind and solar replacement for amfo?

If a rock truck "doesn't need that much power" then please explain the latest version cat 979 haul truck. It's engine is a 20 cylinder, 4 turbocharger monster that makes 4,000 horsepower.
It carries 400 tons at over 40mph.
Fuel capacity is 2,000 gallons on 2009 and up cat 979F.
It's a truck with a train engine.
Explain how a truck with a 2,000 gallon fuel tank and 4,000 horsepower engine doesn't really need that much power.




I have seen that. The world's biggest power shovel runs electric, but the distance it moves is measured in feet if not inches over hours.
It's almost stationery.
The rock truck is more like a taxi, for ore.

that 4,000-hp engine requires 26,666-hp worth of energy,from 'well' to wheels.With straight electric power from renewables,you skip the the 85% waste.And that's also why we don't need to build a renewable power grid with the capacity of current demand.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by sendler

They are doing the thing. Conflating the terms "energy" and "electricity".

No, they are well aware what those mean.

Originally Posted by sendler

Electricity is only a small fraction of total primary energy consumption.

No, it is a substantial amount of primary energy consumption. And as it is used with way more efficiency, the effective use of electricity is even more substantial.

Electricity is shifting away from fossil fuels and towards renewables; and as transportation and other sectors are on the verge of electrification, electricity will become ever more important.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Batteries for all of these new electrified machines will be the choke point.
.
Scale
.
We are up to 1.3 billion light vehicles on the roads in the world today. Replacing them all with EV's with 60kWH batteries requires that we build out 78 TWh of batteries. just to replace the cars and light trucks already in use. Not to mention providing a car to the other 5 billion people in the world that want one, but never had one.
.
How many TWh will be needed for all of these earth movers, farm tractors, tractor trailers all over the world?
.
We need hundreds of TWh of batteries but marveled at the announcement of the first GigaFactory which was said to upon it's completion (Is it complete yet? After how many years?) at once double the world manufacturing capacity. With .035 TWh/ year! Has it ever come close to this number yet? The next big rave I am hearing about is a proposed joint venture in Germany with a hoped for capacity of .1 TWh/ year. These are immense projects when viewed on the ground, but pale when considered in the scale that would be required to replace all liquid fueled infrastructure that keeps us alive right now.
.
World battery production capacity is said to be .4 TWh/ year right now (all hauled with liquid fuel). I'm not seeing that much anywhere but will have to take their word for it. And is projected to grow to 1 TWh/ year by 2025. It must be remembered that the exponential growth that we have seen in solar, wind, and battery build out is easy to double when you start with next to nothing and will level out at some point. So even if it did double in 6 years, and double again by 2030, it will take 40 years to make enough batteries just so the rich 1.5 billion people of the world can have cars. Then we can get started on putting batteries in earth movers and tractor trailers. If there are any minerals still within reach.

Make friends with a mechanical engineer.They live for these challenges.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you can't get a mine open that's a problem.
The nimby useful idiots here are trying to block a new cobalt mine and it looks like they might win.
If they can open the mine it will take best case scenario 2 years but the nimbys will probably be able to keep it tied up in court for years.

If it's a matter of national importance,the mine will open tomorrow.