Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

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"?

NwCali said:

Everyone misses reality...the concept that the Government could, or would be able to manage it is downright crazy talk....

Click to expand...

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.

... 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 ...

Hedges said:

... 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 ...

Click to expand...

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.

svetz said:

Created a highway system

Click to expand...

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.

NwCali said:

Instead of promoting a national rail system...

Click to expand...

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.

NwCali said:

...Its..hopeless....

Click to expand...

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.

NwCali said:

....No idea why I wrote this...

Click to expand...

Possibly looking for a little hope?

What about NF3?​

But from the same reference:

Nitrogen trifluoride is primarily used to remove silicon and silicon-compounds during the manufacturing of semiconductor devices such as LCD displays, some thin-film solar cells, and other microelectronics. In these applications NF is initially broken down within a plasma.

Click to expand...

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.

Using a higher irradiation estimate than 1,700 kWh/m2/yr (i.e., 2,400 kWh/m2/yr which is typical for the Southwestern U.S.) would result in proportionally lower GHG emissions. (that is ~28 g CO2 eq/kWh).

Click to expand...

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).

The bad news is that what we've already created has a half-life of several hundred years, so it'll affect the climate for centuries.

it's quite depressing with the going on in the Senate. Kinda pinning my guarded hope to see how China fares out going forward. It's too bad that there are so many mouths/bodies to maintain over there.

summit said:

It's too bad that there are so many mouths/bodies to maintain over there

Click to expand...

Why?

because it's a tall order. Every human born deserves a decent life, and thus energy/food/waste/heat/etc... Imagine hypothetically current China population of half a million, net neutral with current solar/wind generation probably approaches reality ? am just guessing. Am struggling to do it on a tiny scale: my house-hold; and there's a lot of push back.

I keep thinking of one of Dan Brown's book, the "Inferno". Covid certain proved the feasible vehicle.

summit said:

because it's a tall order. Every human born deserves a decent life, and thus energy/food/waste/heat/etc... Imagine hypothetically current China population of half a million, net neutral with current solar/wind generation probably approaches reality ? am just guessing. Am struggling to do it on a tiny scale: my house-hold; and there's a lot of push back.

I keep thinking of one of Dan Brown's book, the "Inferno". Covid certain proved the feasible vehicle.

Click to expand...

I wish we as a human race, could somehow figure out how to better distribute our global food production too (so everyone gets fed)... We have abundance, we just don't manage it very well.

According to climate scientists, the world has warmed less than 2 degrees F since 1850.
Why does that worry you guys ? Seems like a gigantic waste of time to sit around worried about something we have so little control over.
We only contribute 4% of the total CO2. Some scientists say that's a good thing.
It's our nature to worry. They've been making dire predictions since 1980 and I haven't seen one prediction come close to being true.
Don't worry, be happy.

Samsonite801 said:

I wish we as a human race, could somehow figure out how to better distribute our global food production too (so everyone gets fed)... We have abundance, we just don't manage it very well.

world wastes 40% of all food - Google Search

Click to expand...

It's always politicians/dictators who get in the way of proper distribution of food. Especially in Africa.

Samsonite801 said:

wish we as a human race, could somehow figure out how to better distribute our global food production too (so everyone gets fed)... We have abundance, we just don't manage it very well.

Click to expand...

Actually food availability is way up over the last few decades and starvation/malnutrition is going down worldwide.

Economic mobility in various places has increased (even in China) and better economic conditions have helped.

So today if food availability is viewed as an A or B situation we not only miss the good news that falls between A and B, but also the ability to learn from the improvement and figure out how to raise standards of living further.
There’s still plenty of populations where at risk people have inadequate or insufficiently dependable food supply.

More wealth (economic stability and mobility) helps to create sustainable food supplies in various cultures, and we still have needs to philanthropically sustain people until cultures are able to develop a sustainable economy in their country. If peoples can afford to buy food the economic motivation to profit from food distribution will solve the distribution issues just like it did in ‘the colonies’ where sea trade of goods were attractive to both buyers and sellers - and shipping concerns.

Just as a note to those new to the thread, this thread examines the issue in detail with references to sources rather than wild imaginings.


The IPCC has also done a good job historically modeling the temperature changes. The chart below is from 2006, the red dots represent actual measurements and the thin dotted lines their projected accuracy. Where you've heard crazy things it wasn't from the IPCC, but from people making wild predictions without understanding the data:

BMcL said:

Why does that worry you guys ?

Click to expand...

Because we have the foresight to see how expensive the impact is going to be if we don't act now. You should re-examine the data rather than just believe what you've heard to be true. It will surprise you (it did me).

BMcL said:

Seems like a gigantic waste of time to sit around worried about something we have so little control over.

Click to expand...

We do have control over it, the "covid dip" is proof of that. The problem is your next bit is just wrong:


We've been creating more CO2 each year. From all sources combined in 2019 the world added 51 Billion tons of greenhouse gases.
In 120 years, natural carbon sinks would reduce that one-year's worth of production to only 25 billion tons.

Compared to the overall mass of the atmosphere it's not much, but because of the half-life being so long it accumulates. The more it accumulates, the more greenhouse effect we get. In 1960 the CO2 concentration was 315 ppm and the current concentration is 415 ppm.

What we do matters a great deal.

BMcL said:

They've been making dire predictions since 1980

Click to expand...

Don't confuse crackpots of the 80s with crackpots today.

BMcL said:

and I haven't seen one prediction come close to being true.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, you never will. Countries around the world worked hard to eliminate CFCs and restore the ozone layer. Currently they're working hard to be carbon neutral by 2050/60. While some are still laughing at the issue, many more are working hard to ensure it doesn't come to pass.

A dutch politician has analyzed the claim that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is a dangerous problem."
He looked at the report that was based on and comes to the conclusion it's really 1.6%.

svetz said:

Just as a note to those new to the thread, this thread examines the issue in detail with references to sources rather than wild imaginings.

Click to expand...

BMcL said:

According to climate scientists, the world has warmed less than 2 degrees F since 1850.
Why does that worry you guys ? Seems like a gigantic waste of time to sit around worried about something we have so little control over.

Click to expand...

Here is a surprisingly well balanced view of the global warming resistance situation that not only may enlighten you but you might find enjoyable. There’s quite a difference between diverging from “the quacks of today” and ignoring science or facts altogether due to the ducks.

BMcL said:

It's always politicians/dictators who get in the way of proper distribution of food. Especially in Africa.

Click to expand...

It’s not always what you see. Or think.

I positively hate the ol’ teach a man to fish saw not because of the principle but because of the misunderstandings in our culture and vernacular. It’s less about the fish (food) or the idea that everyone needs to be some kind of farmer.

The economic principle of industriousness and prosperity is in vacancy in many cultures. The only prosperity they’ve ever seen is politicians, law enforcement, wealthy citizens, and in some cases cartels. In poverty stricken countries the bulk of those classes are corrupt, class-driven, and prejudiced against commoners with the casual cruelties that accompany that. These impoverished cultures need, for example, the same educational efforts and investment into their populations that occurred after the US civil war. We don’t need to force them to be like North America but they need to learn enough to make choices above their present conditions. They need sustainable practices just like India or even “the western” countries where environmentally sound and sustainable practices need to exist.
(Please, people: leave your opinions of this period of history out of this thread: we all hold our own varying views and the point of mentioning this at all is that various groups were very interested to see that the emancipated citizens had the tools to succeed as most were capable but few were educated)

Manufacturing isn’t the answer to everything but what if they started producing things? Without contributing to global pollution loads?

Vietnam jumped on the stage with several things including textile production. Today a lot of us are impressed with the solar products from Vietnam. India started with several things including poorly made knives and bad cast steel and iron and moved to medical fields, IT, and call center services.

Of course those two countries aren’t the meccas of human rights or pollution-control award winners but that’s not the point.

We need to globally stop doing new things in the old-thing ways that we know are bad choices. By doing them in new places we can help them start out without bad habits that are expensive or impossible to correct.

Global warming- or not- as we get ‘greener’ and quell bad habits why not raise the standards of living and education levels for impoverished peoples at the same time? We get the environmental results, they get the needed economic and wealth boost, and we get truly low-carbon-footprint solar panels and charging equipment.

BMcL said:

A dutch politician has analyzed the claim that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is a dangerous problem."
He looked at the report that was based on and comes to the conclusion it's really 1.6%.

Click to expand...

Didn't watch, but I think it's amazing how one man can look at a report that others wrote and come to a different conclusion than the authors.
Oh wait! He's a politician, so while not more qualified than the scientists that wrote it; he is probably good at swaying others and probably has an agenda.

Post #41 talks about the number of scientists that agree with climate change and why those numbers are inaccurate.

12VoltInstalls said:

Here is a surprisingly well balanced view ...

Click to expand...

It's just one guy's philosophy. I only watched a smattering of it ... it seemed to be along the lines for what I believe is emerging as the new position for the republican party. Some of what I saw I agreed with, some seemed short-sighted (e.g., thinking some old-ways will persist based on today's economics) ... but at least the narrative is moving off denial. The stance is still evolving from both parties, I definitely agree with spending on mitigation (e.g., like Miami is doing), but I also agree with the democrats spending on research and general infrastructure. Not so crazy about the democrats lumping all sorts of social agendas into climate policies (but I like a bill to be about one thing and not a hodgepodge of pork).

12VoltInstalls said:

...why not raise the standards of living and education levels for impoverished peoples at the same time...

Click to expand...

I hope that becomes more the norm as we move into the future.

Samsonite801 said:

I wish we as a human race, could somehow figure out how to better distribute our global food production too (so everyone gets fed)... We have abundance, we just don't manage it very well.

Click to expand...

I think that is the problem, not the solution.
If a population is larger than local food production can support, and you ship more food, you'll just end up with a larger starving population.

I think that should be limited to disaster relief.
And I think the world human population should be considerably smaller, what can be supported without decimating wild populations.
Perpetually growing population is not good, and has gone on too long.

svetz said:

Didn't watch, but I think it's amazing how one man can look at a report that others wrote and come to a different conclusion than the authors.

Click to expand...

This has been known for years. The 97% claim was totally fabricated by some guy named John Cook.
You are so biased, you are totally unaware of how these pro-climate change professors will lie to achieve their goals.

Did you know, we give grants, millions of dollars to scientists (professors at colleges) and ask them to come up with a pre-determined answer ?
If they find that climate change is not a problem, their funding is taken away ! Is that how science works ?

We have the best scientists money can buy ! You guys really need a huge dose of skepticism.
But your life may not have meaning without this problem ?

...continuing on a crusade that 98.4% of scientists believe climate change is a hoax (as proposed by a dutch politician by reading a study from scientists that report the opposite) the conversation delves from facts to personal attacks because there is nothing else for them to fall back to:

BMcL said:

You are so biased, you are totally unaware of how these pro-climate change professors will lie to achieve their goals.

Click to expand...

I am biased by the facts. Grow up and do the research rather than spew nonsense. I'm not saying there aren't people that will do anything for money, but it's not 98.4% of any group. There are probably more self-serving politicians IMO than scientists and your dutch reference is either one of them or just hasn't bothered to review the facts. Notice it's "one" dutch politician even though the Netherlands has been a signatory of every major climate change treaty? In fact, they have aggressive plans to cut CO2 emissions by 49% by 2030.

You can't dump 51 billion metric tons annually of anything anywhere without expecting it to eventually cause problems. GHGs are real.
Even the majority of both the democratic and republican elected officials agree its a real problem we need to work on.
Fortunately, governments around the world are working to get their countries to be net-neutral.

We human have gotten ourselves into a predicament, having built our system based on cheap fossil fuel, leading to surely unintended or at least unforeseen problems: wasteful consumption, climate consequences, supply chain system, and even a transportation system spreading a virus globally. Mother nature has a built-in feed-back mechanism to maintain over growth though, either via starvation, diseases, or in-fighting/killing; ultimately to keep everything in balance. But adaptation is also a gift, we just need to cease it.

I am quite impressed that with one breath, the Panda had built practically a trans-continent DC transmission line from the windy western region into the eastern mega-cities; and there are so many solar acres over there. The UK is building a underwater transmission line to Morocco solar farms. That's adaptability. The US can do so much more, and we have to know how, resources and human capital; can we waking up the old sleeping giant again ?

BMcL said:

According to climate scientists, the world has warmed less than 2 degrees F since 1850.
Why does that worry you guys ? Seems like a gigantic waste of time to sit around worried about something we have so little control over.
We only contribute 4% of the total CO2. Some scientists say that's a good thing.
It's our nature to worry. They've been making dire predictions since 1980 and I haven't seen one prediction come close to being true.
Don't worry, be happy.

Click to expand...

I worry way more about my son getting exposure to chemicals through air, water, and food than I do about global CO2 stuff. To me, it just feels like a more immediate and threatening problem.

If there's enough pesticides and fertilizers floating around in the environment to decimate the insect population, imagine what breathing that in for an entire lifetime will do you. Roundup is terrifying stuff, it gets into everything. Monsanto tries to claim that glyphosate (Roundup) doesn't have a very long half life, but the chemical that it decomposes into is just as toxic as its parent and has an extremely long half life.

I specifically picked the neighborhood that I moved into because nobody seems to take care of their lawns, which means no airborne chemicals all summer long. ? And there's no farms nearby.

There's estrogenic chemicals in the soybean oil that's in almost everything, not to mention the antibiotics, corn products, and other chemicals used to stabilize food. I'm not so much worried about any one of them individually, but cumulatively over a lifetime they have to add up.

If you want to look up something really scary, check out the chemical "C-8" that was a byproduct of Teflon manufacturing. Dupont poisoned half the state of West Virginia with the stuff.

svetz: You can't dump 51 billion metric tons annually of anything anywhere without expecting it to eventually cause problems.
This chart is from 2001 and it was published by the IPCC.
It shows much different figures than you are claiming (23 million tons), but it's not surprising considering how the IPCC has been caught playing with numbers over the years.
The US has dropped our CO2 contribution since 2001 due to natural-gas fired generation replacing a lot of coal.
I think we are the only large country to accomplish that, and we weren't signed on to any treaty that forced us to do that.

IMHO, there is no positive news if you immerse yourself in environmentalism. It's nothing but negative and doomsday stuff.
If more countries would move away from socialism/communism, more wealth would be generated and the environment would be cleaned up. It takes wealth to clean up the environment.