The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

This new battery report from 2018 confirms my suspicions that the .4 TWh/ year world total that I have seen quoted elsewhere is way high given for example that GigaFactory 1 is only at .02 TWh/ year for example. The report is showing data for 2015 delivered quantities in all sectors for Lithium cells of various chemistries as .060 TWh for the year. And projects the total to be just .22 TWh/ year at 2025. This is a far cry from satisfying the demand for 100 TWh total that we need just to replace all cars and light trucks. Not to mention stationary storage, farming, mining, and transport.
.
https://www.rechargebatteries.org/wp...8-April-18.pdf
.
.

.
.

So,where is Ford,GM,Fiat-Chrysler,Volkswagen AG,Tata,Renault,Rivian,etc..?
Why is the smallest company on Earth expected to save the Earth single-handedly?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

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.

As we come to understand space weather and telluric currents, electricity will become ever more important.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's weather not climate.
The absolute minimum ipcc definition for climate I have seen in a report is 30 years.
It would appear you are totally not reading the ipcc reports at all.

This is beyond a 10-day forecast.And the phenomena agree with the models which can hindcast,as well as forecast.The non-linear behaviors witnessed,favor the more 'low' probability scenarios of more radical change.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

How did they make it before there was natural gas?

Glass and cement were so expensive they were reserved for public works, infrastructure or the rich.
Steel was so difficult to make with out coal that it was reserved for weapons.
Glass remained a luxury until people started using coal and a few other advances. Coal made it good natural gas made it what it is today.
Steel was more valuable than gold by weigh until the start of the industrial revolution. One of the best examples I am aware of is when Alexander the great won one of his major battles he was rewarded with not silver or gold, but 30lb of steel.
Cement was difficult to produce with out natural gas. Wood was burned to dehydrate lime and volcanic ash was carried by animal cart to where it was needed.

Basically it sucked and we are better off now.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

I wasn't talking about efficiency I was talking about power.
Now that you bring it up say a 2,000 gallon fuel tank could be replaced with a battery that holds the equivalent of 500 gallons. That would be 18.5 mega watt hours.
But then you problem only want to charge and run it between 20% and 80%. So would need more like 22mwh.
The power connection to recharge would need to be running like 2mw minimum.so you could recharge it in about 10 hours.

A power sub station for a 20mw is pretty substantial. That's what we have where I work. It cost millions of dollars and millions more to run the power for 20 miles.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We have the data, the report is finalized in 2022.

Weak response.

??? It's in their name.

Linked rather than embedded because language: The Rageaholic: The Socialism of National Socialism - A Rant
https://youtu.be/9-SLqdhkvJo

The ownership of corporations in the Third Reich was private,not public.
General Motors,Ford,BMW,Daimler-Benz,Auto Union,Adler,Junkers,Krupp,Thyssen,I.G.Farbenindust rie AG,Tesch und Stabenow,Standard Oil,Texaco,Telefunken,GAF,Olympia,SKF,Carl Zeiss,Agfa,Continental,Mauser,Messerschmitt,Focke-Wulf,Dornier,.................etc.,all remained in private hands,producing for Hitler.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

.What you defend the most is what we need to end as fast as we possibly can.
.

I'm not defending anything but truth and data. The truth can't hurt. I'm sorry but I can't stand by and let people say that some magic pen can electrify everything like it is a simple thing to do. Neglecting to mention the $1-200 trillion of built out infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt or replaced. And then state that this will reduce primary energy demand by 85%. There is no study anywhere that supports this. The reports I have seen have stated a 45% reduction in primary energy from the full electrification of all human energy use.
.
Wishful thinking and misrepresented statements about the takeover rate of wind and solar lead to false ideas which produce undue animosity and produce faulty plans and timelines. Promoting a "Green Growth" false narrative. But wind and solar are not going to scale to replace half of the 17 TW we are blowing through right now. And battery production is not going to build out 80 TWh just for cars. Current world production is .06 TWh/ year. We are bragging about the next great GigaFactory in Germany proposed to have a capacity of .1 TWh/ year. Still a drop in the bucket if it can really come to pass. This remains to be seen since the current GigaFactory 1 is running at .02 TWh/ year.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I guess I am not reading ipcc stuff with fire and brimstone glasses on.
I read hundreds of pages of the 1,170 page oceans and cryosphere report until I found that it was based in junk science and part of another one that Greta liked to quote that is only a few years old.

That showed me that global warming isn't settled science and that the climate cult definitely isn't reading these reports.

So why are you so worried about the climate based on a report that we know is based on junk science?
Retraced in nature is roughly one step below out right criminal fraud, to me it looks like the difference is in the later they can prove intent.

Would you like to share a specific citation? The only junk science I'm aware of was that financed by the Koch Brothers and Exxon.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Would you like to share a specific citation? The only junk science I'm aware of was that financed by the Koch Brothers and Exxon.

Wow really?
The The "quantification in ocean heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper has been retracted in nature.
Since you don't know what the "quantification in ocean heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper is obviously didn't read the ipcc report.

So what about the ridiculous ipcc cherry picking?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Too broad a question, as climate change isn't manifest as a singular catastrophe, but affecting an infinite number of systems in an infinite number of ways.

If we "solving" climate change means being net-zero CO2 while maintaining the level of wealth we have, then the technology does not exist currently. Perhaps nuclear stands a chance and supplying the bulk energy needs, but that remains to be seen, and requires a transition in many sectors of the economy, such as transportation. That opens many other cans of worms because battery technology is terrible in comparison to a petrol fuel tank, for instance.

I sound pessimistic, but only in the short-term. Long-term I expect we'll figure out how to replace fossil energy with other sources.



The main point I was making is that Nietzsche philosophy is the basis for modern philosophy, which basically states that there is no intrinsic good. The "good" then is open to interpretation, with the majority of people more or less adopting a John Stuart Mill Utilitarian philosophy, which says that morality is whatever serves the interests of the most people... which has some connection with socialism. It's a relatively small step to posit that the greater welfare would be served by doing away with some smaller group of people.

In my view, socialism is neither good nor bad, just like most any tool. It all comes down to how it's implemented and what the fundamental basis for it is. If the basis is to make everyone equal or the same, then it's evil.

Switching gears to philosophy will require a trip home.I've only read one work by Nietzsche.I wasn't impressed.And I'm not sure that he had the magnitude of impact on philosophy as you infer.I'll have to revisit Wooten's work.
What you describe sounds like neo-platonism,which I consider liquid evil.The put relative in cultural relativism.
Socialism is just an economic model.It's not god nor bad.It just is.It is associated with equitable distribution of wealth,as was enjoyed in America's Golden Age,between 1945 and 1973,when there was more public services.