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

Bob B said:

...why would you mandate EVs until reliable infrastructure is in place to support their use?

Click to expand...

There is no federal "mandate" in the U.S.. The one Biden proposed occurs a decade in the future to give time to build infrastructure and it doesn't eliminate ICE vehicles at all, it just sets EV production targets for U.S. automobile manufacturers in line with infrastructure building.

If anything, it would help U.S. manufacturers sell cars abroad and in states where there are mandates. For example, an EU law will require all new cars sold to have zero CO2 emissions from 2035, and 55% lower CO2 emissions from 2030, versus 2021 levels (note again it's in the future to provide time to build infrastructure without disrupting the economy). Similarly, nine states in the U.S. have adopted laws to ban sales of ICE by 2035.

You'll always be able to find something on the internet that supports the viewpoint you want to find. But real science provides real explanations for observable phenomena that lead to accurate predictions. Although, a lot of predictions you'll see (e.g., Florida underwater) are from people that don't actually understand the science (or are purposefully trying to undermine it). Real predictions (like the IPCC one above) provide the range of accuracy so you can tell how likely that prediction is; anything else should probably be disregarded as sensationalism.

Bob B said:

.... just the journals and the scientists chasing the money.

Click to expand...

Sure Bob! Those damn journals make so much money as say compared to the fossil fuel industry. Those journals are tricksey too, they make money regardless of what the science says! They can make money on the pooping science of fruit flies. Not like those poor unfortunate fossil fuel companies who only scrape by from people that burn their products (it's okay though, they're diversifying into CDR - the least efficient and most expensive form of carbon capture).

Claim: University Researchers Feel Powerless to Take Personal Climate Action​

“Barriers” to climate action include pressure to travel, and a lack of financial incentives to embrace low carbon approaches to research.

Climate change: university researchers feel powerless to take action – survey
Published: January 31, 2024 2.38am AEDT
Briony Latter
Researcher in Climate Change Engagement, Cardiff University
University researchers in the UK, across all disciplines and at all career stages, are struggling to take action against climate change despite wanting to do so.
Many academics worry about climate change but face several barriers to changing their habits, including the pressure to travel. In one case, a climate researcher conducting field work abroad wanted to use slower and more sustainable forms of transport rather than fly back to work at a research institute in Germany. He was fired.
…
The majority think their university does not give them enough information about how to conduct research in a sustainable way. Funding processes, such as applications for grants to carry out research, do not incentivise low-carbon approaches either, they say.
…
Different barriers to climate action appear at different career stages. Early career researchers in particular lack institutional support (such as job security or the encouragement to act), are involved in few projects about climate change (whether as part of research or outside of their roles) and feel uncertain about what they can do.
Mid-career researchers were more likely to complain of a high workload thwarting their ambitions. When asked if senior researchers should have a high responsibility for addressing climate change in universities, senior researchers themselves were more likely to think so than early and mid-career researchers, suggesting that they recognise their own potential role.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate...s-feel-powerless-to-take-action-survey-221830

Click to expand...

Why are academics yielding to pressure to travel frequently, if every flight brings us closer to a lethal climate tipping point? Why is keeping their job so important, if the world is on the brink of climate catastrophe?

Why do university academics want OTHERS to spoon-feed them information on how they can be more carbon neutral? Why can’t they take 5 minutes to look up low carbon lifestyle and professional alternatives for themselves?

If this pathetic effort is all the energy and concern university academics can muster to address the alleged climate crisis, there is no reason for the rest of us care.

aenyc said:

Claim: University Researchers Feel Powerless to Take Personal Climate Action​

“Barriers” to climate action include pressure to travel, and a lack of financial incentives to embrace low carbon approaches to research.


Why are academics yielding to pressure to travel frequently, if every flight brings us closer to a lethal climate tipping point? Why is keeping their job so important, if the world is on the brink of climate catastrophe?

Why do university academics want OTHERS to spoon-feed them information on how they can be more carbon neutral? Why can’t they take 5 minutes to look up low carbon lifestyle and professional alternatives for themselves?

If this pathetic effort is all the energy and concern university academics can muster to address the alleged climate crisis, there is no reason for the rest of us care.

Click to expand...

Rules for thee and not for me.

If you think they feel concern I have a bridge to sell you.

Just keep in mind that Bill Gates Gulfstream burns 540 gallons per hour, and that is at cruise, but we will use that number for fun.

Now think of your cars MPG. How long does it take you to go through 540 gallons? That would be roughly 10 hours from the west coast to Davos. Then another 10 hours back. FOR ONE JET....ONE GUY.

Keep that in mind when they start to tell you that YOU must cut back on your fossil fuel use.

I wonder what the flight time to Jeff's island? He made that trip often enough.

fpgt72 said:

Just keep in mind that Bill Gates Gulfstream burns 540 gallons per hour, and that is at cruise, but we will use that number for fun.

Click to expand...

Sort of a moot point since Bill uses "green" fuel and has carbon offsets to be "green".

fpgt72 said:

...Keep that in mind when they start to tell you that YOU must cut back on your fossil fuel use.

Click to expand...

Can't speak to 'they', but what does it say when Bill pays out of his own pocket to more than remove the GHGs he creates? Some that talk the talk do walk the walk.

It says Mr. Gates has more money than God.

What exactly is Bill buying with his Billions of Bills?

Perhaps the renewable energy credits that door to door solar lease salespeople generate by getting people to put PV panels on their roofs? Meaning, Bill single handedly undoes all the Climate Good which has been accomplished in the past decade across the US (buying PV panels made in China where environmental regulations are lax, hoping in vain to save on their utility bills.)

Renewables are worse.
Climate change is a replacement for religion. Church of Doom and Gloom. “Climatism”
Climate Extremist

‘“‘Michael Shellenberger is an environmentalist, author, and advocate for pragmatic solutions to climate change. He joins Steven Edginton to talk about the ‘religion’ of climate change for this week’s Off Script podcast“‘’

“Climatism”
Greta Thunberg - Joan of Ark wanna be…. Narcissism ….
Shield so no one will confront her ….”how dare you” tell a child they are full of crap.
She is 21 now so can say everything she should have been told growing up.

Climatism = radicalized children

D71 said:

Renewables are worse.
Climate change is a replacement for religion. Church of Doom and Gloom. “Climatism”
Climate Extremist

‘“‘Michael Shellenberger is an environmentalist, author, and advocate for pragmatic solutions to climate change. He joins Steven Edginton to talk about the ‘religion’ of climate change for this week’s Off Script podcast“‘’

“Climatism”
Greta Thunberg - Joan of Ark wanna be…. Narcissism ….
Shield so no one will confront her ….”how dare you” tell a child they are full of crap.
She is 21 now so can say everything she should have been told growing up.

Climatism = radicalized children

Michael Shellenberger - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

I am liking Michael Shellenberger more every day ..... gonna have to get his climate change book.

He is coming from the viewpoint that even if you accept the CO2 theory of climate change the "religion" of climate change is very destructive .... and wrong.

The argument in favor of cows.


Oh.... and the one thing he left out of the video .... they are tasty also.

svetz said:

Sort of a moot point since Bill uses "green" fuel and has carbon offsets to be "green".


Can't speak to 'they', but what does it say when Bill pays out of his own pocket to more than remove the GHGs he creates? Some that talk the talk do walk the walk.

Click to expand...

"green fuel".....please tell me you don't really think that.

fpgt72 said:

"green fuel".....please tell me you don't really think that.

Click to expand...

You don't think renewables work? Or, you don't think he's using them?

svetz said:

You don't think renewables work? Or, you don't think he's using them?

Click to expand...

They don't work when imbeciles are flying around in their private jets buying energy credits to say they are doing their part while the average population has shit forced down their throats that's completely biased.
Bill is leading by example, that's why I burn coal and harvest solar. The solar offsets the bad bad anthracite coal....
Can't wait to buy an EV for tire roasting torque so I can roll off the tires but save fuel.

What ever happened to common sense? People need chest waders the shit is so deep anymore.

I'm shocked there isn't a climate change vaccine yet...

Off for more coffee brewed with electricity from the nuke plant that feeds my work.

When arguing with Svetz, always remember:

FAKEST GLOBAL WARMING STORY OF THE YEAR
— The World Health Organization for “Over 40 million health professionals demand bold health and climate action at COP28,” which claims that “more than 40 million health professionals” around the globe are supporting the WHO in their call to assume total dictatorial control over your body and your health in the name of saving Mother Earth (or something like that) . . . but quietly conceding in a hyperlinked footnote that the “40 million” number is complete baloney cooked up by adding all 40 million members of The International Council of Nurses and The World Medical Association without their knowledge or consent to the “thousands” of health professionals who actually actively support the climate health emergency scam.

— Bill McKibben’s Substack for “No Human Has Ever Seen it Hotter,” which begins with the claim that Monday, July 3rd, 2023, was the hottest day on planet earth in 125,000 years!!! . . . before immediately conceding that satellite temperature records only go back 50 years. Predictably, he completely failed to mention that the concept of an average global temperature is cockamamie nonsense and that the temperature records we do have are all manually “adjusted” BS.

— And German broadcaster One, which solved the problem of making people more scared of global warming by taking their once-green maps and making them fiery red (even when they are showing cooler temperatures)! Boo! Are you scared now!? If not, the fake news liars of the lying lamestream media will doubtless find ways to make the reports seem EVEN SCARIER! in 2024.

“I Overhyped Climate Change to Get Published.”

Yes, in an incredibly unusual display of honesty, Patrick Brown—a PhD climate scientist and co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at The Breakthrough Institute— admitted this past September that he deliberately left out important information in his article, “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California.”

As Brown writes:

“I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because [. . .] climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.”

So why did Brown feel compelled to lie by omission? Because he wanted to be published in the “prestigious” Nature journal and he knew that reducing the sum total of the complex issue of wildfires to “climate change bad” would fit the overly simplistic witch doctor morality tale about appeasing the weather gods that’s fashionable at the moment.

Hmmm. Perhaps Brown should talk to Jim Steele, the former director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus of San Francisco State University, who detailed on The Corbett Report years ago how bad global warming “science” was actually hurting the environmental movement by ignoring the array of important cyclical events and land use issues that affect the delicate balance of natural ecosystems in favour of unfalsifiable woo-woo “Mother Gaia is angry” charlatanry.

svetz said:

Sort of a moot point since Bill uses "green" fuel and has carbon offsets to be "green".

Click to expand...

Got a reference that says his jet is powered by 100% renewables?
Or is that just a blend?

What I see is he has invested in a company, might make a profit from green jet fuel in the future.
And that he pays money for indulgences such as private jet flight.





I've always wondered if creating/discharging carbonic acid underground might dissolve limestone and cause large swaths of inhabited land to subside.

Hedges said:

Got a reference that says his jet is powered by 100% renewables?

Click to expand...

How about the link you provided? In it you'll find:

...and yes, he offsets his flights and family's carbon footprint....

Click to expand...

... so even the article slamming him admits he offsets his GHGs.

42OhmsPA said:

They don't work when imbeciles are flying around in their private jets buying energy credits to say they are doing their part

Click to expand...

So, if a Jet produces 2 tons of CO2 per day, and someone installs solar panels that reduces a natural gas power plant by two tons per day, what's the net gain towards climate change? Of course, there's the carbon footprint of the jet that needs to be taken into account too.

42OhmsPA said:

...What ever happened to common sense? People need chest waders the shit is so deep anymore.

Click to expand...

If a solar power algae farm absorbs 6 tons of CO2 per day to convert into jet fuel for that same jet, isn't that a 4 tons reduction per day?

So, how is that not sensible? We can do it, but it's not economical when compared to natural gas without carbon offsets. If you believe that global warming is real, which would make sense as it's the commonly accepted explanation for observable data, then GHG emissions need to be factored in.

“Renewable” jet fuel vs what fuel?

Scientists say all fuels are renewing.

Word salad …. Doom and Gloom salesmen are at work securing their wealth from the ignorant masses supporting this fake religion called Climatism. The world was recorded by someone some how 10-15 million years ago with 100 ft higher sea levels at same CO2.

‘’’’’’
At this time, the accepted consensus explanation is that, historically, orbital forcing has set the timing for ice ages, with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.[37][38] However, CO2 releases since the industrial revolution have increased CO2 to a level not found since 10 to 15 million years ago, when the global average surface temperature was up to 6 °C (11 °F) warmer than now and almost all ice had melted, raising world sea-levels to about 100 feet (30 m.) higher than today's.[39] ‘’’’’’’

Must of been all the humans causing that problem too.

svetz said:

So, if a Jet produces 2 tons of CO2 per day, and someone installs solar panels that reduces a natural gas power plant by two tons per day, what's the net gain towards climate change? Of course, there's the carbon footprint of the jet that needs to be taken into account too.


If a solar power algae farm absorbs 6 tons of CO2 per day to convert into jet fuel for that same jet, isn't that a 4 tons reduction per day?

So, how is that not sensible? We can do it, but it's not economical when compared to natural gas without carbon offsets. If you believe that global warming is real, which would make sense as it's the commonly accepted explanation for observable data, then GHG emissions need to be factored in.

Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't sensible.

What doesn't make sense to me is putting a bandaid on a problem because you have piles of money... Those with money buying carbon credits aren't fixing a problem they are worsening it.
How about instead of spending all that money on carbon credits and private jet flights they put the money towards fixing things and improving life for everyone... That wouldn't work for the lifestyle...

It also doesn't make sense to me the amount of money involved... Rich are getting richer over it.

At the end of the day earth experiences warming and cooling cycles that have been around long before humans and will be around long after.


This article is suggesting temps could have started to warm back in the 1860s.
That was before the big industrialization... That could mean something else is the main driver for warming...