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

Hedges

I See Electromagnetic Fields!
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
8,397
Is a graph like that available that doesn't call CO2 "pollution"?
I think pollutants (which directly affect health and environment) have decreased far more than -65%
Greenhouse gasses aren't pollutants, but large amounts may eventually cause some climate impact.
(How much compared to the ice-age cycles, I don't know.)
Presumably, all the CO2 we're releasing from fossil fuel were part of the atmosphere eons ago, before plants turned into fossil fuel, which occurred after they grew and poisoned their atmosphere with O2 and altered their climate bringing on plant-caused ice age.
(Good thing they didn't tax each other out of existence to stop it, or we wouldn't be here.)
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
Now I see why you believe higher taxes will make hurricanes and extreme weather go away. (y)
You used to be a skeptic ? Really Svetz ?
The discussion isn't about me and I've never said the stuff in the first line. Please see the bit on the forum rules in #194.
 
Last edited:

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
And don't forget the majority of scientists don't believe the warming is a serious problem anyway.....
This contradicts previously cited references, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs if you want them considered seriously.
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
Is a graph like that available that doesn't call CO2 "pollution"?
Sure! NOAA just calls it a GHG, From https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/:
aggi.fig5.png

The concentrations at different altitudes and temperature is important too, more on that in #50

Greenhouse gasses aren't pollutants...
It's a quibble, but the definition of pollutants is:
the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
Climate change is normal so I can sort of see that. But I can also see the counterpoint that the current accelerated rate could be considered harmful as there's less time for adaptation.

(How much compared to the ice-age cycles, I don't know.)
Post #78 has the temperature swings, post #72 has the extinction cycles. We're a little over +1. Doesn't sound like much, but last time we were around +4 there were crocodiles living above the Arctic Circle. #4

Presumably, all the CO2 we're releasing from fossil fuel were part of the atmosphere eons ago
I don't think it all started in the atmosphere at once. This says the original atmosphere was probably hydrogen/helium and lost over time. CO2 and other gases were released over time. I think the original may have been a soup of hydrocarbons. Over time those hydrocarbons were reduced to their more stable form, CO2. E.g., CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O.

But that took oxygen, which needed the first microbes to free it up. Somewhere along the way photosynthesis took hold and the CO2 became the construction molecule for their bodies which got sequestered.

(Good thing they didn't tax each other out of existence to stop it, or we wouldn't be here.)
I know you meant it as a joke, but there's a truth to it.

Evolution favors the meaner / faster / adaptable. So in a way, they did tax their predecessors out of existence and that is why they're here.
 
Last edited:

Hedges

I See Electromagnetic Fields!
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
8,397
Sure! NOAA just calls it a GHG, From https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/:

(Is a graph like that available that doesn't call CO2 "pollution"?)

What I was hoping to see was how much "pollution" (not including CO2) had gone down.
At least regarding smog from cars in cities, I expected -99% not -65%
With particulates and mercury from coal, maybe not as large a percentage.
You end up having to apply a weighting factor to each pollutant. And maybe depending on how it spreads, where it falls out? to report as a single number.
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
What I was hoping to see was how much "pollution" (not including CO2) had gone down.
Oh!

At least regarding smog from cars in cities, I expected -99% not -65%
Considering how much gasoline consumption has gone up (nearly 3x in LA in the graph below), a -65% decrease might not be that bad.
Depends on how they measure it and location probably... saw these around "smog" that might interest you:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/lead_graph_v2.9-01_0.png
https://www.pe.com/2016/04/12/smog-study-fewer-bad-air-days-for-asthmatics-other-children/
https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2012/images/119_0809.jpg

There's https://www.airnow.gov/ for local levels, but I didn't see details on what the pollutant concentration levels are.

These six pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), and sulfur oxides.
So, the six in your chart probably don't include CO2.
 
Last edited:

Hedges

I See Electromagnetic Fields!
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
8,397
Most of those only showed ~ 50% reduction, but VOC down from 100 ppb to 2 ppb over 1960 ... 2010 is exactly what I was talking about.
My qualitative observation of air quality in Oakland was in line with that.
I've been elsewhere in the world - Mexico City, Lima, etc. you can practically scoop the air pollution with a shovel.
While I found smog check annoying, I really appreciate the air I can now breath.

And my own cars are behaving better these days. One, a '97 Sable, had been passing but running high on emissions. After OBDII complained about "catalyst low efficiency" and I watched live graphs of O2 over time in secondary O2 sensor (on my $120 Harbor Freight OBDII reader), I bought a new California approved two-catalyst Y pipe. Didn't fit. Bought one that did fit, rejected at smog station for not approved number for my car. I individual cats bought, same number for either applications. My '97 car apparently had '96 parts (like transmission) but '97 CARB sticker. The Referee station at Evergreen Valley College looked into it, tested my car, added a sticker authorizing the other number part.
 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
451
Is a graph like that available that doesn't call CO2 "pollution"?
I think pollutants (which directly affect health and environment) have decreased far more than -65%

The 6 pollutants are listed below.
CO2 isn't called pollution, it's an emission (see below).

Don't forget this graph includes population growth (41%) and growth of the economy (153%),
so pollution has gone down more than 65% "per capita."

Comparison_of_Growth_Areas_and_Emissions_1980-2015_US_EPA.png



Percent Change in Emissions
1980 vs 20201990 vs 20202000 vs 20202010 vs 2020
Carbon Monoxide-75-70-57-29
Lead*-99-87-76-30
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)-70-68-64-46
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-60-48-29-20
Direct PM10-64-31-28-19
Direct PM2.5----38-44-22
Sulfur Dioxide-93-92-89-76

 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
451
Svetz:
Climate change is normal so I can sort of see that.
But I can also see the counterpoint that the current accelerated rate could be considered harmful as there's less time for adaptation.
----------------
Since 1850, climatologists claim the world has heated 1.5 degrees F.
Despite the fact there is no way to know what the world's temp was in 1850.

Assuming they are correct, why does such a small increase scare you ?
The oceans are known to be rising over the last several thousand years
. We can't react to that ?
Why the depression and doom ? I think it's criminal what our schools have done to our kids telling them the world is ending.
 

Pappion

Retired Engineer Tech
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
263

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything with a battery break-through?

Air Conditioning must become more efficient.
Imagine solar heat pump panels that cool and also provide shade. Imagine they could provide heat in the winter too.
 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
451

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything with a battery break-through?

Air Conditioning must become more efficient.
Imagine solar heat pump panels that cool and also provide shade. Imagine they could provide heat in the winter too.
Not really. Solar can power standard heat-pumps.
 

Pappion

Retired Engineer Tech
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
263
We exceeded CO2 saturation a long time ago.
At saturation more CO2 will not change the amount of reflected infrared. A good portion still gets thru.
Fortuitously, it is just a narrow slice of the wide bandwidth reflected back to space.
Below upper atmosphere heat is transferred by conduction not infrared.
Computer models are consistently wrong to the high temperature side. They really can't model clouds at all.
Could take a hundred years for CO2 levels to come down, with no more from humans.

It's not the end of the world. 1c rise at equator, 4c rise at the poles.
What's normal for earths changing climate? Miami under water is normal.
CO2 will benefit plants, especially in arid areas. Leaves won't need a many pores and will lose less water.

Freeman Dyson on benefits of Co2


 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
We exceeded CO2 saturation a long time ago.
CO2 levels and temperatures have been far higher in the past (see #78), it's not saturated yet. But you're right that it's not constant. From this ref, the image to the right does show shifting at different concentrations, note how gap is wider at 1000 ppm than 100 ppm.
1635030472656.png

Computer models are consistently wrong to the high temperature side.
I don't see that from the IPCC models (#32). From that chart, the last four actual temperatures have been above the prediction and the prior three below, possibly just an old reference? The IPCC model predictions have always been within the predicted accuracy so sort of moot.

They really can't model clouds at all.
That was my take from the models too. More than just clouds though (e.g., what's the reflectivity of ground when ice retreats?). It seems like the models have a number of "tunable" parameters besides clouds for things we don't / can't accurately predict. More on that in #53. I have seen things that indicate clouds will go away at 1200 ppm and that would have huge impacts, but it's only a few studies so I don't put a lot of faith into it. Hopefully, it'll never get that far.

That said, the models do try to take a lot into account including clouds, different atmospheric layers, concentrations of GHGs at different latitudes, albedo, etc. But, the models generally warn that there could be break-downs at tipping points or where things don't behave as expected. For example, #64 talks about how noctilucent clouds are occurring more frequently, that might help moderate the increase.

What's normal for earths changing climate? Miami under water is normal.
It's actually sort of funny as the image in #78 shows the current temperature is well under the average temperature of the last half-billion years. But just as we've been terraforming by accident, we can do it intelligently by design too. Not sure it'll be in time to save Miami (or a lot of Florida) without drastic measures.
 

Pappion

Retired Engineer Tech
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
263
It's actually sort of funny as the image in #78 shows the current temperature is well under the average temperature of the last half-billion years. But just as we've been terraforming by accident, we can do it intelligently by design too. Not sure it'll be in time to save Miami (or a lot of Florida) without drastic measures.
Great responses. I will admit my info is several years old, and I have not reviewed it recently.
To save Miami, etc, will require actively removing huge amounts of Co2 from the atmosphere.
Anything less fails, impoverishes us, and puts more power and money (carbon credits) in politicians hands.
 

Pappion

Retired Engineer Tech
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
263
A cold-fusion story
Back in 1989 chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah did an experiment. They hypothesized that hydrogen fusion was taking place at room temperature in their apparatus. The press went wild, the experiment was attempted elsewhere, and the two were debunked as charlatans. All reputable scientists said it was fake (sound familiar?). They were so vilified that the term cold fusion represented a classic example of pathological science.

Yet they were right.
The problem was they were trying to measure the energy of a closed system with temperature. The slightest unaccounted for thermal leak would through the results off. Imagine trying to accurately measure a thousandth of a volt. Combine that with disbelief that it is possible. Talk about doomed heroes.

Flash forward 30+ years and you find admission from some that tried to duplicate the experiment that they fudged the numbers a bit because they knew it couldn't be real. It wasn't until a Navy researcher stopped trying to measure the temperature and used sensitive film to look for the radiation traces that must occur during fusion where it was conclusively and successfully-repeatedly demonstrated.

Now NASA and others are looking into if it can become a safe way to make power, currently, it's more a curiosity.
My professors (night school) were excited about cold fusion and faxed ideas back and forth (no internet). They had 2 conclusions:
1. It's bad science. They will be shamed and one will grab the money and run.
2. It's real and dangerous. They will be shamed and one will disappear with a convincing amount of money.
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
Thanks! 😁

...To save Miami, etc, will require actively removing huge amounts of Co2 from the atmosphere...
Not necessarily. Everyone's hoping of course that the world can work together and solve the problem by being net-zero by 2050 (which AFAIK doesn't have humans actually removing CO2, just not producing as much). It took over 30 years for countries to get that agreement so maybe it'll stick.

But I doubt the government would sacrifice Florida (or all the other coastal regions) as the new Atlantis. Likewise China/France/Russia. There are many Plan Bs. Most of which sound plausible to me at least on the surface. But I'm an optimist. 😉

...puts more power and money (carbon credits) in politicians hands...
Wartime profiteering has always been a thing. Fortunately, it's a felony subject to up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to twice the illegal profits of the crime in the U.S. I wonder if we should write our congressmen about climate-change profiteering? There was talk about suspending some patents because of it, but that seems more draconian to me.

...They will be shamed and one will grab the money and run....
This might not be true...but what I heard is close to what your professors predicted. The story goes that neither Pons or Fleischmann wanted to publish, they wanted to study it more. But the Dean wanted the publicity for the college. Afterwards Pons & Fleischmann moved to France, essentially disgraced. So, both were shamed and ran, and the unknown party remained behind with the $. Although, I feel certain that Hypatia, Bacon, Abano, Ascoli and so many others would argue we've come a long way.
 

summit

New Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
34
We actually already have the technology and know-how to get quite close to zero fossil fuel. Heck in even my little world, my panels eliminate almost 75% with EVs, heatpumps, induction stoves... For an individual living in the US, we can do quite a bit. Our energy consumption can, be roughly divided into thirds: 1/3 driving, 1/3 home, 1/3 - all other stuff. Solar PVs can easily address the driving & home, that's ~66.7% right there. The last third can be addressed with food choice, life-style, stuff consumption, fly less, ...

There are plenty of sustainable energy, us human are only now considering them. In addition to the OP solar & wind, there are also tide (free courtesy of our moon) and earth core. Back in the era of oil embargo, there was a special workshop at NASA Ames in CA to dream of solution to the energy crisis. One solution I was pretty excited about, orbiting mirror to have 24/7 sun-shine. But then given the 1kw/m^2 insolation already coming to earth (at the equator), apparently there's sufficient energy coming in an hour to power the planet for a year.

Ultimately we have to reign in the Cruela-de-Ville's (aka Mother Nature) prime directive of constant procreating. The Drawdown book/project lists Educating Girls/Women as the number #1 step. Fortunately the Chinese (not the gov't) and may be the Indian are heading in that direction. Like Covid, we're in it together whether we like it or now.

Still, project likes this give me hope:
 

Hedges

I See Electromagnetic Fields!
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
8,397
Ultimately we have to reign in the Cruela-de-Ville's (aka Mother Nature) prime directive of constant procreating. The Drawdown book/project lists Educating Girls/Women as the number #1 step. Fortunately the Chinese (not the gov't) and may be the Indian are heading in that direction. Like Covid, we're in it together whether we like it or now.

My proposal in this regard is we divide the world into multiple sub-populations. Let some enter self-limiting mode while protecting quality of life for others. That is, U.S. should become self-sufficient in terms of energy, food, etc., even in the face of climate change. Maintain sufficient military might and armed populace to ensure rest of world can't come take what's ours. If others outgrow their food source, they starve. We don't.

Within the U.S., allocate resources to you and your offspring. Your offspring (however many that may be) get to inherit and divvy up your share. Those family lines which experience exponential growth will enter self-limiting mode. (may need to grab their guns if their behavior warrants.)

The alternative is, entire world population enters self-limiting mode and fights tooth and nail for the scraps others have.
Mother Nature wins in the end (after whatever periods of industrialized agriculture temporarily expand capacity.)
It's kind of like having a financial budget, and living within your means. Except, no one to bail you out or at least run a soup kitchen if you don't.
 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
451
I think we need to figure out how to put a big stopper in something like this.
One eruption wipes out 10 years of progress :mad:

 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
I think we need to figure out how to put a big stopper in something like this.
Please be aware that double posting is generally considered a violation of the forum rules. You're already discussing the Mt Edna eruption and it's impact to climate change here.
 
Top