The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Some scientific studies on the "Electrification of everything".
.
Be patient. Persistent. And accepting of the scale of the transformation. Wishful thinking and picking time frames out of a hat do not change the physical requirements on the ground.
.
"Electricity’s share of total final energy in 2050 reaches 41 percent in the high scenario, up from 19 percent in 2016 and 23 percent in the reference scenario. The shift to electricity in the high scenario also found fuel use reductions of 74 percent for gasoline, 35 percent for diesel, and 37 percent for natural gas in 2050. Because electricity end-use technologies are typically more energy efficient to provide the same service per unit of final energy than other technologies,” noted Mai, “that leads to an overall final energy use reduction of about 21 percent by 2050.”
.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ty-consumption
.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70485.pdf
.
.

.
.

The scenario doesn't go far enough.It perpetuates waste.It accelerates global warming.

[freebeard]

Low voltage would require a larger conductor and waste of copper,so as not to suffer voltage drop over distance.

A central light source with distribution by optical fibers?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.



.

It's unfortunate that both Idaho and Georgia Tech have been impacted by Zika Virus.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

On a related note about "consensus", I've been quoting Crichton for years in various contexts; "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." I'm sure I've shared it in this thread several times already.

What I hadn't known is that he spoke publicly on the matter, so I listened to what he had to say. Some of which I didn't find very compelling, but much of it was, and mostly he shares my standpoint that predicting the future well-being of humanity on climate trends is a fool's errand. The stock market is a much simpler system, and yet nobody can create a model that will even slightly beat random chance with regards to acting on certain events. What makes us think we can model climate 100 years into the future and know with enough certainty what that means for humans, especially that it means only net negative things, that we must act to forstall warming?

Then I listened to him on Charlie Rose:

It's fun to see how much overlap our thinking was considering he's my favorite author. Wish the fella was still around to hear more from him.

Yale,or Harvard gave Crichton the distinction of something like,the only science fiction writer to produce a dishonest novel.
He plagerized fake science,without fact-checking, lying under oath, during testimony before Congress.I'm glad he's dead.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Bridge fuel for the 30 year life of the plant and dispatchable load balancing to supplement future high percentages of wind and solar with the new Mitsubishi JAC gas turbine.
.
“Enhanced Air Cooling takes our JAC to the next level, and establishes the JAC’s position as the new industry standard. In 1x1 combined cycle configuration, a 60 Hz JAC power plant will now have a generating capacity of over 600 megawatts, providing over 64% fuel efficiency and 99.5% reliability. According to a market survey report, the JAC now holds the top global market share for gas turbine orders in 2018(Note).
.
[url]https://www.mhps.com/news/20180625.html?_ga=2.189457583.526320215.1572044648-150091544.1572044648[
.

.
.

Carbon dioxide and foreign war.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Low voltage would require a larger conductor and waste of copper,so as not to suffer voltage drop over distance.The current solid-state power supply which drops and rectifies the AC,to low-voltage DC is probably already optimized.

I kinda doubt it's "optimized" considering the low cost of each bulb, and the fact that each and every bulb requires that electronics to be installed to work. Then again, "optimized" is a subjective term. There is waste every time an LED bulb dies because the optimized (cheap) electronics get tossed along with it.

My suggestion for low voltage is for safety and ease of installation by homeowners. With LEDs, you can get tremendous lighting for 100W of power. My 17.5W bulbs output 1600 lumens. At 48v, a 20 AWG wire could supply 10A, or 480W of lighting. Sure, we could keep it at 120v or more and use something like 28 AWG, but that's getting mighty thin and you risk breaking it while pulling.

My other suggestion is to switch to 240v AC as the standard, then all household wiring sizes could be cut in half.

[oil pan 4]

The cheap led power supplies are inefficient and burn out way before the actual LED. The LED might last 50k hours but the cheap electronics last maybe 10k hours if you're lucky.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Carbon dioxide and foreign war.

We don't fight anyone for natural gas.
The only country we buy natural gas from is Canada.
Our army nation guard could conquer canada.
As soon as we rolled heavy armor across their boarder they would surrender.

I have read hundreds of pages of the oceans and cryosphere report before I found out it was thrown out for being based on junk science and read a couple chapters of a report that Greta likes to quote from 2016. That 2016 report is already obsolete no point in reading the whole thing.
I have read hundreds of pages more than a typical beliver.
The first thing you will lean from reading these repots is all the people freaking out over these reports aren't actually reading the whole report.

[freebeard]

gas turbine
....
Carbon dioxide and foreign war.

What are you saying here? Gas turbines cause foreign war? More efficiency leads to more CO2?

Whichever LEDs you choose, put them in a old laptop screen to make a 'false window'/anti-SAD happy light.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The cheap led power supplies are inefficient and burn out way before the actual LED. The LED might last 50k hours but the cheap electronics last maybe 10k hours if you're lucky.



We don't fight anyone for natural gas.
The only country we buy natural gas from is Canada.
Our army nation guard could conquer canada.
As soon as we rolled heavy armor across their boarder they would surrender.

I have read hundreds of pages of the oceans and cryosphere report before I found out it was thrown out for being based on junk science and read a couple chapters of a report that Greta likes to quote from 2016. That 2016 report is already obsolete no point in reading the whole thing.
I have read hundreds of pages more than a typical beliver.
The first thing you will lean from reading these repots is all the people freaking out over these reports aren't actually reading the whole report.

We import LNG from Indonesia and Algeria.The US Navy would have an eye on that.As well as all shipping lanes in between.
If you had specific information on 'junk science' in the IPCC report,that might be of interest.How can you read about a report if it's thrown out? What does Greta quote? I've only heard her say,to listen to the scientists.
I don't know any typical believers,so I don't know what you're talking about.
I won't be learning anything from the reports,as I won't be reading them.I don't know anyone freaking out about the reports.I don't know anything about them.And don't care to.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

What are you saying here? Gas turbines cause foreign war? More efficiency leads to more CO2?

Whichever LEDs you choose, put them in a old laptop screen to make a 'false window'/anti-SAD happy light.

They produce carbon dioxide.Foreign energy supplies are always a catalyst for war.You may have heard last night, that we just sent armored forces into Syria to guard oilfields?