The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[redpoint5]

I often think after pulling myself out from under a vehicle that knowing how to change the oil will be as useful in the near future as me knowing how to hitch a stagecoach is now (I don't know how to do it).

Market demand and technological progress is likely to be a bigger influence on affecting climate change than politics, unless the politics destroys economies or reduces the population.

I've heard it said that if we launched our most capable spacecraft today towards our nearest star, with the aim to get there as quickly as possible, it would likely arrive after a spacecraft launched 10 years later, because the likely improvements in technology would allow the slower craft to be overtaken despite a head start.

That hypothetical scenario makes sense to me, and likewise I would expect our capacity to efficiently and effectively address climate change in the future will be vastly greater than it is today. What is needed then is to not get in the way of technological progress.

[aerohead]

One I like is the 'rule of holes.'
I it's getting too deep, stop digging.
Which is what the scientists are saying. And they've given us a 30-year window, which is 2.5X the time-frame capitalists ask for, when talking about divesting and reinvesting.

[freebeard]

Did someone say technological process? Slashdot.org today.

news.slashdot.org/story/21/11/05/The US Has Big, New Plans To Pull CO2 Out of the Air (theverge.com)

No comments moderated above 2.

news.slashdot.org/story/21/11/05/Half World's Fossil Fuel Assets Could Become Worthless by 2036 in Net Zero Transition (theguardian.com)

Six comments moderated 3 or higher::

Re:Criminal Ignorance on a massive scale (Score:5, Interesting)
by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Friday November 05, 2021 @03:39PM (#61960919)
But when do you even reach "Net Zero", when all current predictions and plans are an utter fantasy compared to the reality of energy production [twitter.com] today.

It's a good graph to look at, but you have to stare quite carefully. What you can see is that the red - renewable curve, is on an exponential growth. Like when the virus has infected 0.5% of the population next week it will be 1% and the week after it will be 2% and then. We're talking about doubling every couple of years, not weeks, but the effect in the end is the same. The switch over has begun and it will only gain pace. Last I heard there was 85% year on year growth.

Just five years ago, fossil fuel made electricity was cheaper than renewable. Now both solar and onshore wind are cheaper than coal, the cheapest fossil fuel. Within the decade, both offshore wind and concentrated solar are going to be cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels. Remember that the marginal costs of renewable are trivial - almost all of the cost is in capital investment. Once you've built it you might as well run it. That means that in most energy applications renewable produced electricity is going to wipe out all other forms of energy production completely. At that point, all fossil fuel reserves become distressed assets. Although there will still be some need, you are in a buyer's market and getting any decent price for them will be impossible.

Hydrocarbons are really good for aviation. I'm not going to make a prediction against that, however once the market for road-transport use of hydrocarbons collapses there will be a whole load of changes to the economics of the market. Does small scale extraction really make sense. It may actually become cheaper to synthesise the hydrocarbons than to find, extract and ship them. If this did happen, then none of the current hydrocarbon assets will ever find any value.

[redpoint5]

Except that the trick to eliminating fossil fuels for electricity production doesn't just require renewables to deliver cheaper electricity; it has to follow load, something it can't do, which requires all of the traditional generators to remain in operation.

If a technology makes other technology that can't be dispensed with more expensive, it's a lie to say that technology is "cheaper". For a technology to even be considered "alternative", it must at least be capable of all the same tricks of the old technology, at which point the old can be abandoned. We're not there yet, and it isn't clear what the pathway(s) forward will be. There is no single solution for all markets unless some breakthrough like fusion so cheap nothing else can compete is developed.

[oil pan 4]

Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is dumb, get it at the source. Run the intake pipe for your CO2 capture process to a smoke stack at an oil refinery.
Until most of the stationary CO2 emitters are being captured there isn't any point in trying to pull it from the air.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

We were at 280 ppmv before the Industrial Revolution kicked off.
Currently, climate sensitivity, at a 'doubling' of carbon dioxide ( 560 ppmv ) will lead to the 3-C world ( 5.4 F warmer ).
Presently we're at around 412-ppmv.
Any use of the word 'life', in the context of justifying no climate action, would require some context.
Conditions supporting only single-cellular life on Earth may be a turn-off for some. Although it would be 'life.'

Have to get well above 1,600 ppm for that.
So looks like we are barely 1/4 of the way there.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Except that the trick to eliminating fossil fuels for electricity production doesn't just require renewables to deliver cheaper electricity; it has to follow load, something it can't do, which requires all of the traditional generators to remain in operation.

If a technology makes other technology that can't be dispensed with more expensive, it's a lie to say that technology is "cheaper". For a technology to even be considered "alternative", it must at least be capable of all the same tricks of the old technology, at which point the old can be abandoned. We're not there yet, and it isn't clear what the pathway(s) forward will be. There is no single solution for all markets unless some breakthrough like fusion so cheap nothing else can compete is developed.

Solar / wind facilities are already 'smoothing' output and providing ' spinning- reserves' with grid-scale power storage strategies.
If clouds come over, or the wind flags, electronics seamlessly tap into storage. Lights never flicker. And it will only get better, and cheaper.
We already have 'fusion' power. It's called the 'Sun.' Transmitting power, 93,000,000-miles, free of charge, 24-7-365, for maybe 5-billion more years until we're toast.

[redpoint5]

If the traditional generation plants cannot be decommissioned permanently, then the renewables are not "cheaper". They are performing reliably enough to be considered an "alternative" when there is nothing backing them up and utility rates are stable and comparable to previous rates. If the price goes up, then it's considered luxury brand electricity.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Have to get well above 1,600 ppm for that.
So looks like we are barely 1/4 of the way there.

* That's an extremely remarkable claim. No where in the scientific literature is such a value entertained.
* At 412 ppmv, we've raised the planet's average surface temperature from, 58.0-F, to 59.8-F. The poles have gone up 3.96-F.
* By 2100, we're looking at a global average 62.86-F.
* There won't be a North Pole, except water.
* Antarctica will be ice-free.
Can you turn us onto a source for the 1,600 number? Perhaps it was a simple typographical error.
* At a 160ppmv increase = the 'doubling' of carbon, and the 3-C warming( 5.4-F ).

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If the traditional generation plants cannot be decommissioned permanently, then the renewables are not "cheaper". They are performing reliably enough to be considered an "alternative" when there is nothing backing them up and utility rates are stable and comparable to previous rates. If the price goes up, then it's considered luxury brand electricity.

The ' hair's not on fire' scientists say, total permanent decommissioning within a 30-year window, or you can just stick a fork in us.
Horses disappeared from the streets of New York City within 13-years of the introduction of the automobile.
The Great Depression ended with World War-II.
Go to war with carbon oxidation, and you'll see the next golden age in the global economy.
I lived pretty well on fusion energy for a decade. It's become nothing but better since then. 13- cents / kWh, and the big-dogs do all the heavy lifting, repairs, replacement, distribution, and metering.