The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So you can't name names or show where in the reports?
Just the end is near.

With your now,legendary command of all things IPCC climate science,why would any of us waste your certainly important,precious time on obviously redundant data which we'd presume, is always close to your thoughts.Out of complete respect,we'd never consider such a social breach of etiquette.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I've read studies by many authors. Most of them that can understand the complex interrelationships of the workings of modern civilization happen to be interdisciplinary scientists with an original formal training in engineering, physics or chemistry. Just as you correctly recommend. I suggest you take your own advice.
.
I have offered many suggestions on what to do. Which interestingly, are closely aligned with the vague references that you keep alluding to. But my information is supported by actual data and seeks to put forward an inventory of our actual opportunities and constraints. Reality. Which seems to have ripped at the images of your unsupported dreams and shocked you into a supercilious and defensive rabbit hole from which there is no return.
.
So, it has become obvious that engaging with you is continually wasting our time and I must resign to just placing you into an ignore status.

Please do!

[aerohead]

As of 2016,the data I have shows Total U.S.Energy Consumption at 3.6-Terra Watts.
If the energy portion currently provided by fossil-fuels were replaced by renewables,erasing the stack,cooling tower,cooling ponds,cooling rivers,and cooling ocean losses; the U.S.could do the same with 2.437-TW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the U.S. were driving Battery Electric Vehicles instead of ICE,the annual consumer savings would allow a 2.259-TW of installed renewable capacity over the next 30-years,at zero cost to consumers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can operate 5-times as many electric vehicles (564,805,330) on the same energy as our current ICE fleet (112,961,266).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminating the cost of pipelines,refineries,and oilfield services would finance 17.5-TW of installed renewables in 30-years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Green New Deal,on a 30-year timescale appears to have an economic impact on the order of what Americans currently spend on tobacco,donuts,beer,bottled water,chocolate candy,cookies,soft drinks,and potato chips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passive solar home design can cut heating and air conditioning loads by 50%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Sourced Heat Pumps can reduce what heating and air conditioning loads that remain by 50%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If coal-fired electricity was priced to reflect it's hidden costs,the difference would finance 115,000 2-MW wind turbines a year.230,000-MW/year.As part of a Green New Deal,and 30-years,we'd have another 6,900,000-MW.Or 6,900-GW.Or 6.9-TW.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Push-back to the concept is fascinating.

[redpoint5]

All of those things sound great. I already maximize solar gain through windows to reduce heating load, and minimize it in the summer.

I'm in the market for an EV currently.

I've researched ground source heat pumps; and they only work if you've got room and a lot of extra cash up front, and live in a non-temperate climate.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

A Green New Deal,on a 30-year timescale appears to have an economic impact on the order of what Americans currently spend on tobacco,donuts,beer,bottled water,chocolate candy,cookies,soft drinks,and potato chips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Push-back to the concept is fascinating.

The push-back is, or at least should be, not the economics. It attempts to supplant an effective and scalable anarcho-capitalist approach with socialist democratic socialism.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

All of those things sound great. I already maximize solar gain through windows to reduce heating load, and minimize it in the summer.

I'm in the market for an EV currently.

I've researched ground source heat pumps; and they only work if you've got room and a lot of extra cash up front, and live in a non-temperate climate.

In an efficiency-driven environment,National/ISO Building Codes could require their inclusion in new construction and retrofits,where applicable.They'd be embedded into the 30-year mortgage, and could be 'incentivized' by a government who's object was to get the best,lowest operating-cost technology into as many households as possible.
As of 2015,paybacks were: 4-years on a electric-resistance system replacement,
5-years for an oil-fired system,and 12-years for a natural gas unit.
If 'hidden costs' were incorporated into utility kW-h pricing,all paybacks would be accelerated.
I've got an operational,window unit that's 33-years old.I don't see any reason why the heat pump wouldn't last throughout and beyond the mortgage period,paying deep dividends long after break-even.

[redpoint5]

Well, we do have efficiency requirements in building codes, and they continue to increase the efficiency in those codes.

Utilities already bake in efficiency improvements into the bill and offer incentives for replacing inefficient stuff, or improving insulation.

I got a "free home efficiency inspection", some low flow showerheads, LED bulbs, and $50 for buying a smart thermostat.

Recently I purchased a FLIR camera, so I'll be inspecting my home soon. Perhaps utilities should have loaner FLIR cameras that they ship to people with prepaid return shipping.

EDIT: Just realized this thread went 2 years with just 2 posts, and now it won't go 2hrs without a post. Good discussions here. I've learned a lot since my original post even if I haven't significantly changed my opinion yet.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The push-back is, or at least should be, not the economics. It attempts to supplant an effective and scalable anarcho-capitalist approach with socialist democratic socialism.

What's been their movement on climate change since 1958? I know of no extant,ongoing state experiment which has embraced this model philosophy.
Historically,social democratic states have produced the greatest social equity at the lowest cost.Why bet on an abstraction when we have the bonafides on a proven winner? Ockham's Razor.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Well, we do have efficiency requirements in building codes, and they continue to increase the efficiency in those codes.

Utilities already bake in efficiency improvements into the bill and offer incentives for replacing inefficient stuff, or improving insulation.

I got a "free home efficiency inspection", some low flow showerheads, LED bulbs, and $50 for buying a smart thermostat.

Recently I purchased a FLIR camera, so I'll be inspecting my home soon.

In a climate change mitigation scenario,I'd be pushing for orders of magnitude in savings.I'd set more aggressive parameters,and if a home designer could bring the home in,complying with the standard,then any 'slop' left over could allow for aesthetics or whatever.But the standard would have to be met (just say 'no' to Barbie).No state pension fund would be allowed to own stock in a building materials manufacturer and utility provider, and then make it a law, that all new homes must include those materials in their construction,and use that utilities energy,as is done in Texas.Higher sale price would eventually be offset by lower life cycle operating cost,ultimately paying for the advanced technology,and afterwards monthly dividends.No builder could skirt the regulations.A level playing field.
Once the country was at zero-carbon,we could discuss relaxation of constraints.

[aerohead]

Here's more of capitalism's dark under belly.
You marry your nation to petroleum,then when prices tank,operators go belly-up,abandon their wells,leaving the taxpayer to pay for proper capping of the wells.
$2.88/foot-to-$31.73/foot.
In Wyoming,costs run from $569-to-$527,829 per well,depending.
That will be hard to do with solar and wind.