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

[summit]

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.

 

[Samsonite801]

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.

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

 

[BMcL]

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.

 

[BMcL]

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

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

 

[12VoltInstalls]

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.

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.

 

[svetz]

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.

According to climate scientists, the world has warmed less than 2 degrees F since 1850. True, but most of the warming has been in the last 40 years (ref), see image right. The half-life of CO2 is about 120 years, every year we churn out more than the carbon sinks can remove and that results in an atmospheric buildup. That buildup (along with other GHGs) increases the temperature. 2 degrees doesn't sound like much, but it has a profound effect. During the age of Dinosaurs, when the temperature was perhaps 4 degrees higher than today, there were crocodiles living above the Arctic Circle. More on the impacts of a 1.5C temperature increase.

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:

Why does that worry you guys ?

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).

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

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

We only contribute 4% of the total CO2. False. This is a half-truth based on totals rather than the annual amount (originally all CO2 is considered "natural" rather than man-made). It's stated that way to make you believe that volcanoes, termites, ocean release, and other "natural" phenomena release 96% of the CO2 and we only generate 4%. From the chart to the right you can see CO2 emissions were fairly static and in balance with carbon sinks until humans started burning fossil fuels.

CO2 Annual Emissions

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.

They've been making dire predictions since 1980

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

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

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.

 

[BMcL]

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%.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[svetz]

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%.

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.

Here is a surprisingly well balanced view ...

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).

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

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

 

[Hedges]

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.

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.

 

[BMcL]

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.

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 ?

 

[svetz]

...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:

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

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.

 

[summit]

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 ?

 

[A.Justice]

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.

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.

 

[BMcL]

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.

 

[curiouscarbon]

toxicity in environment is up : test and filter your water

people want healthy families

clean water clean air clean food stable climate stable ecosystem stable life

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.

super agree.. there are people alive today who need protection from direct harm from pollution exposure

it's most urgent to me to "save the living people today from pollution and toxic discharge into environment" than "provide a toxic and potentially stable climate for future generations", maybe even "create a less toxic and more stable climate"

ingenuity is the new resource needed to extract from the world, its inside each person

ingenuity is the key to ensuring climate change remains mild enough to not have another mass extinction cascade

 

[svetz]

This chart is from 2001 and it was published by the IPCC.

The chart says the numbers are from the 1990's. Frightening how we've more than doubled CO2 production since the '90s. No surprise though, take a look at the exponential curve in the chart in #267, we like our electricity, concrete, beef, etc..

If you just look at the CO2 in that row it shows 11 billion tons accumulation in the 90's. Assuming the same absorption rate (unlikely with cutting down forests for cattle) then that's about 40 billion tons accumulation per year now.

Volcanoes on the other hand average out to about 0.3 billion tons per year. So in the 90's the ratio of CO2 from volcanos to humans was around 1%. Today it's about 0.6%, not because volcanoes are spewing out less - but because we're spewing out more.

...The US has dropped our CO2 contribution since 2001 due to natural-gas fired generation replacing a lot of coal... So, there should be a dip starting in 2001 in the image to the right.... hmm, measurements don't seem to validate that hypothesis. The half-truth you're referencing is that natural gas does produce less CO2 per btu than coal. But the demand for energy has been increasing which more than offsets it. Again, reference the chart in post #267, clearly, annual CO2 has not been decreasing anywhere and the PPM measurements more than prove it.

...It's nothing but negative and doomsday stuff....

I disagree. I think we're on the right track and doing the right things.

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.

The "big" communist nations like Russia, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all signators of the Paris agreement and are putting together plans to be carbon neutral. It's something pretty much most of the world agrees is a big problem.

BTW, if google the poorest countries in the world the top ten are listed as "republics". If you go by GDP, one of those communist nations is in the top two.

 

[BMcL]

Svetz: Frightening how we've more than doubled CO2 production since the '90s.
-----------
You use the word "frightening". I think you have bad data.

Co2 emissions are 32% lower over a 15 year span since 2005 according to this article :

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that over the past 15 years, the shift in power generation fuel to natural gas from coal is largely responsible for 2019 sector carbon dioxide emissions that were 32% lower than those of 2005.

Actions to Reduce Emissions Continue to be Led by Natural Gas

Among U.S. efforts to address the risks of climate change, the dramatic shift to natural gas to fuel electricity generation stands out over everything else. That includes renewables, electric vehicles and the seemingly endless target-setting by various bodies. In terms of measurable progress...

www.api.org

svetz: The "big" communist nations like Russia, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all signators of the Paris agreement and are putting together plans to be carbon neutral. It's something pretty much most of the world agrees is a big problem.
---
And you think a communist dictator will do what he promises ?
China was exempted from the Paris agreement and that's why Trump refused to sign it.

Our enemies want us to commit economic suicide. Stop using coal, oil, gasoline
and natural gas? Are you kidding me ?

 

[Hedges]

You don't think China was quietly watching and learning, while the U.S. spent the USSR into bankruptcy?

I'll bet both were sitting back laughing when Bush went and blew a $Trillion on Iraq. And for what??

 

[wattmatters]

Co2 emissions are 32% lower over a 15 year span since 2005 according to this article

Global CO2 emissions have risen strongly since 2005.

Annual COâ emissions

Carbon dioxide (COâ) emissions from fossil fuels and industry. Land-use change is not included.

ourworldindata.org

This excludes land use/clearing factors (which are not pretty and are responsible for about a quarter more on top).