We will see how China handles this, as there seems to have a lot of will, from top-down authority as well as from common people, and certainly the know how and resources. China's biggest hurdle/challenge is the massive population, every mouth wants to be fed and every body likes comfort, and deservedly so. Hopefully our wasteful lifestyle import can be tempered. Solar & wind plus storage can support a certain populous at a certain lifestyle. Homo sapiens are just out of balance and Mother is spanking us
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,736
It's like governor of California or mayor of Oakland issuing a mandate to wear masks indoors regardless of vaccination status.
Then immediately going to a party maskless.
And declaring, "It's OK, everyone here is vaccinated."
Remember the time U.S. automobile CEOs flew by private jet to Washington with their hands out for a federal bailout?
They were told leave, come back by car.
The example these obscenely rich guys show is worth more than any agreement made, such as 1st world doing without and paying money while (formerly) 3rd world expands coal-powered generation.
The rest of us have been meeting by Zoom.
The climate conference could have been held by Zoom, except for those who could attend in person traveling by electric rail.
"Carbon Offsets"
Meaning what, he bought power generation credits from the PV panels I have in my yard?
He paid to have trees planted somewhere (after the bookkeeping was complete, they were cut down by locals)?
As it said, (partially) renewable fuels. Meaning palm oil, from a plantation grown where rainforests were burned down to get the agricultural land?
To the extent these guys built companies providing home delivery of products (with less emissions that you driving to the mall), making cars that run on renewable energy, computers and data centers which are more efficient, that is their contribution.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Loved this video from @Supervstech, thought they did a good job on it.
One of the things that struck me as odd in the COP26 stuff I've read is the lack of anything decrying Climate Change as hoax. There was plenty of arguing and disagreement that made me think the 1.5C line wouldn't hold, but not because people weren't believing. Pity Russia & China didn't make it.
One of the things that struck me as odd in the COP26 stuff I've read is the lack of anything decrying Climate Change as hoax. There was plenty of arguing and disagreement that made me think the 1.5C line wouldn't hold, but not because people weren't believing. Pity Russia & China didn't make it.
Green fuels are sustainable, so it seems like a reasonable way to go about it to me. But, to each their own.
I differ in opinion on that. One is sustainable and carbon neutral. The other is hypocrisy. Sure, takes more money to be green on your private jet, but takes money to have a private jet too. No crime in being rich and I'd only think them hypocritical if they weren't green in the process.
Last edited:
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,736
The fuel they used in their jets to fly to a conference about climate change wasn't sustainable, green fuel. It was a blend, partly good old fossil fuel.
I don't think any aircraft are run 100% on sustainable fuel.
skynrg.com
It can be blended up to 50%
www.bp.com
So they're only being half as wasteful.
Betcha there isn't enough sustainable fuel to blend 50% with all jet fuel. They used some, reducing what could be used in other, fully loaded flights.
If so, all told, their impact on fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission was identical to if they flew their private jets with 100% fossil fuel.
I don't think any aircraft are run 100% on sustainable fuel.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel | SAF | SkyNRG
Sustainable aviation fuel is made from sustainable resources that can be mixed with fossil jet fuel to reduce emissions. Learn more about SAF.
skynrg.com
It can be blended up to 50%
What is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and why is it important? | News and views | Air bp
Sustainable aviation fuel – what is it and why is it important? Tom Parsons, Air BP’s Biojet commercial development manager, explains what sustainable aviation fuel is (SAF) and gives his view on whether SAF really is the answer to reducing aviation emissions.
So they're only being half as wasteful.
Betcha there isn't enough sustainable fuel to blend 50% with all jet fuel. They used some, reducing what could be used in other, fully loaded flights.
If so, all told, their impact on fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission was identical to if they flew their private jets with 100% fossil fuel.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
| Was looking for some information on Methane and found the graphic to the right in a CSR. Interesting that while CO2 is going up, we've actually reduced CH4 by nearly 10%. Most of that has been from landfills and tightening up the fossil fuel sectors.  The amount of "fugitive" vs. "vented" is interesting. Seems like the vented is something we should be able to get a handle on. I did see something regarding biosolids (microbes in the dirt) that can eat the methane and convert it into CO2 before it escapes a landfill. |  |
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Couldn't respond in the other thread as it would be off-topic.
But, from post #9 methane is a bigger contributor than CO2 by 375% at its 2019 concentrations. Methane has a half-life of 9.1 years, so it's not like everything we release today is gone within a decade (e.g., the 800 MMT in 1990 accounted for 200 MMT 20 years later). Unfortunately, it breaks down into CO2 which can be sequestered by natural processes (although the half-life is very long).
Half-life is relatively unimportant when you're putting in more than comes out. E.g., you put 10 drops in and one leaks out... you still have a buildup of 9 drops. So, as long as we're emitting it'll be adding to the surface temperature and we'll always be emitting some. From the graphs above, looks like some of that (~100 MMT) is low-hanging fruit.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Do you have a better link? Never seen anything about that (there are aticles that methane kills grass though).
That link lists an author, but i couldn't find anything about grass pulling methane from the air.
Everything I see (ref) is the usual yada yada:
BTW, the same reference does say managed grasslands are better (even if the overall net is positive).
thanks for posting this, didn't appreciate that non-Energy sector has a sizable contribution. CH4 mitigation does seem like a low hanging fruit. Is livestock methane accounted for as Enteric Fermentation ?
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
I was surprised too! I can see why they're going after it. Ran across this satellite methane map which was sort of surprising. What surprised me is some states (e.g., North Dakota) have no-venting laws, CA reports very low emissions (but looks pretty high), Colorado is beautifully divided by the mountain range, etc. |  |
Technically it's any anaerobic fermentation by bacteria, but that chart splits out some, such as rice, landfills, composting, and wastewater treatment.
So, as I read it that 200 MMT from last year is primarily burps and farts from livestock.
Another benefit of fake meat is that less livestock means less livestock food production which means less fertilizer, which means less N2O (which is even a more powerful GHG than CH4 and has a century-long half-life).
Everyone misses reality...
Even if man made climate change is leading us to disaster the concept that the Government could, or would be able to manage it is downright crazy talk. If anything the Government will spend massive amounts of non renewable resources and make the problem worse far sooner than if they had not been allowed to use "global warming" as a election/control move (by the voters).
I've only given money to one "politician" ever. John Huntsman. If we'd elected "leaders" like him (if he'd stayed true to his word) then maybe we'd had a chance.
Try and live your life "right" and try to teach others to do the same. Try to remind people to vote with morals (and not their pocket book/sex life).
My belief is that something will happen (outside of climate change) that will reduce the population size (considerably) and that will either end us or do what Government won't do (reduce the human population size).
One example, Congress is paying a LOT of money for poor families to have MORE kids atm. Citizenship no longer required to get that money. How is this a good thing for "climate change"?
Even if man made climate change is leading us to disaster the concept that the Government could, or would be able to manage it is downright crazy talk. If anything the Government will spend massive amounts of non renewable resources and make the problem worse far sooner than if they had not been allowed to use "global warming" as a election/control move (by the voters).
I've only given money to one "politician" ever. John Huntsman. If we'd elected "leaders" like him (if he'd stayed true to his word) then maybe we'd had a chance.
Try and live your life "right" and try to teach others to do the same. Try to remind people to vote with morals (and not their pocket book/sex life).
My belief is that something will happen (outside of climate change) that will reduce the population size (considerably) and that will either end us or do what Government won't do (reduce the human population size).
One example, Congress is paying a LOT of money for poor families to have MORE kids atm. Citizenship no longer required to get that money. How is this a good thing for "climate change"?
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
And yet they're are doing things to reduce GHGs, see 117th Congress & Solar/Storage/Energy
Not crazy IMO... Government can accomplish a lot, especially when it works together: Send a man to the Moon, Eliminate CFC production (thus saving the planet once already in the 70s), Ensure safe drinking water standards, Created a highway system, created social security program, protected many wilderness areas, established FEMA for fast response to disasters, reduce pollution, established a national & reliable energy grid, etc.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,736
... Promote destruction of rainforests to grow biofuels, built public transit that costs more per ride than what the riders earn in a day at their job, subsidize ethanol fuel so it is profitable to consume more BTU of fossil fuel than the ethanol produced ...
Don't forget to add Daylight Savings Time to that list.
let's keep in mind that, at least in the US, the "gov't" is elected by us, and thus WE hold the key. In fact, "we have met the enemy, it is us".
The Draw Down book mentions methane from cattle can be reduced up to 80% with some seaweed/kelp mix in the feed. That's a huge reduction.
The Draw Down book mentions methane from cattle can be reduced up to 80% with some seaweed/kelp mix in the feed. That's a huge reduction.
Instead of promoting a national rail system for the masses, which is far far far more environmentally friendly and would have killed far far far less of the citizens....
Sent a person to the moon... Yet 40 years later we still struggle with doing just that and we've no figured out how to make micro environments work, either socially of from a biological perspective...
"created social security program" I rely on the VA for "health care". What a joke. Not only is it very expensive but its a failure. I tweaked my knee about 4 months ago and the only way I've been "seen" by them in via "teleheath" over a month ago. Anyone who's anyone knows you have to actually have hands on to diagnose a knee injury. This is only my most recent failure of "socialized ran government" "healthcare"... back in 2008 I was covered under "government" "workers comp" and broke/fractured 19+ bones. 8 months into it they kicked me off, no payout of any kind, and said I was 100%. The Government appointed Lawyer (you can't hire one in their system and have to use their lawyer) didn't even respond and the Judge sided with the Government (ironic he's a part of the same Government, isn't it?).
Someone else mentioned the biofuel thing, I can second that. What a nightmare that was/is.
As far as CFC are concerned. Getting it right once means? One of the downside to this though was people who used over the counter asthma inhalers were forced to get prescription ones after this at ten times the cost. For the same product...and can't just pick one up when needed.
"safe drinking water standards" Guess this is why we don't read about large areas having substanard drinking water? Also why we don't read about how Congress is trying to spend massive amounts of $ to fix local problems with drinking water? I could use this example as to exactly why we do it wrong. Maybe cities should not be so large as to have the need for massive water/sewage systems and maybe one way to have this is for the citizen to ALWAYS bear the cost of all of these systems (including the highways one, or subsidizing fuel, or, medical care, or, retirement). I'd argue the debt fueled the outrageous waste we have in our country. When a person can have a $10,000 fridge filled with nothing but icecream and their a "public" servant... I work daily at the moment to provide myself a water system that will provide myself and my farm water year round using no electricity (outside of what it takes to make/install it). Imagine if society thought like that versus "let the government handle it" at all cost...
"established a national & reliable energy grid" I guess I might as well talk about this one also (I've done so on this forum already). Locally we loose power a LOT due to poorly maintained power lines. I've watched them burn on the road many times, people even still driving under them. I can point out areas that clearly need maintained (and have done so) to the Government and yet those areas are not maintained. A "fix" would be to move the hardest part to maintain over one valley where most of it actually already is (this would remove it from above the State route as well) and in the long run would be far cheaper and less hazardous (by far). So, what has the "federal" government (or even local) done to help "fix" this problem? Worse yet I've driven then some areas before, during, and after, that HAVE burnt and looked at how poorly citizens maintain these areas. Dead long grass running right up to wooden fences that run right up to their homes....for miles and miles. Government doesn't help here, nor do the actual citizens. Which brings me back to my start. Its..hopeless. One part of me wonders if deep down inside people think "let it burn, the Government will rebuild it for me for free!".
Keep on believing what you want....No idea why I wrote this, reality won't change it for you.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Well, they caused the rail system to be built too. As to the rest, most of the problems are local implementations (e.g., water quality, poor grid maintenance). Not like those in charge of them didn't know what was going on...they were just bad managers in that they couldn't find the $ to fix it but were happy to keep getting their bonuses and wait for a federal bailout.
Disagree. The science seems good, seems like we have a lot of the solutions in hand already to get the job done, more and more are realizing it is real and starting to work together, and there are a lot of plan Bs in the wings in case we can't. Future looks bright to me.
Possibly looking for a little hope?
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
What about NF3?
| From the Google Headlines: This is mostly false news and the typical "hysterical media" doing anything to get a hit on a web page. But as with any hysterical news, there are correct and false facts and it seems true that the manufacturing techniques of some flexible panels may be bad for the environment. From this ref NF3 has a half-life around 550 to 740 years, it is man-made and does not occur naturally. It is ~17,000x more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. So yes, NF3 is a nasty GHG. | NF3 Concentrations are different latitudes
|
But from the same reference:
But lumping all solar panel manufacture in with thin-film manufacture is disingenuous. Thin film is mostly for flexible panels and as there are far more LED screens it's doubtful the majority of the GHG comes from the solar industry.
I saw nothing regarding the usage of NF3 on normal rigid solar panels and as it is an added (and expensive) cost without knowing more I wouldn't assume that NF3 is released from the production of all solar panels. That is solar isn't as bad a GHG producer as the media would have you believe except possibly in the case of flexible panels. There are over 400 papers examining the life-cycle and they all find some net reduction on GHGs, best estimates are that solar is ~40 g CO2 eq/kWh, compared to coal at ~1000 g CO2 eq/kWh.
There's good news regarding NF3:
- Current concentrations are still really low (see image above).
- It was recognized and included in the Kyoto Protocol (An international treaty to reduce emissions of GHGs).
- There are effective replacement technologies (Found one from 2008, NF3 is expensive and manufacturers are financially motivated to eliminate it).
Last edited:
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
Why?
Similar threads
