12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
It is sad we’ve been going so far backwards for twenty years
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
U.S. Long Term Strategy to Net-Zero
(title above is an html link to the source doc)Green fuels look to be the solution for the rest. A lot of people will be happy they don't actually have to give up the ICE.
Yikes! No wonder there's so much pushback.
Rather than a cutback on cattle and food production for cattle (to reduce CH4 and NO2) the long-term strategy calls for "research". Apparently "3-NOP" has a number of peer-reviewed papers showing as much as a 60% decrease. People don't even like GMOs, don't have to wonder how they'll feel about NOP cows....
There's a bit about carbon sequestration in forests, wonder how that balances against droughts, forest fires, and trees needing to age a decade before being a real carbon sink.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
| In trying to find some updates regarding climate changes I've come across some interesting websites. Climate Action Tracker (CAT) is tracking what countries are actually doing versus what they say they'll do. For example, the "thermometer" to the right shows where we are at now to where we'll end up based on current policies. That is it differentiates between what politicians say and what's actually being accomplished. But they're not all the same. For example, Climate Interactive estimates a best guess, median warming level of 3.5°C, significantly higher than the CAT estimate. 2.7°C sounds more in line with the IPCC, but it's got to be very hard to measure the impacts from recent developments (e.g., Ukraine). |  |
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
This week's IPCC report is about Mitigation Options. It has a number of interesting facts.
A quick reminder that most scientists believe we need to cap the temperature under 1.5°C to mitigate the worst of the changes. If all the countries were net-zero by 2050 via the Paris Agreement, it's a 2°C rise. Those not working towards existing goals are most likely pushing us more towards 3°C. it's technically possible to cap it at 1.5°C, but many believe we won't take it seriously or put aside differences to work together. Some countries have said they can't make 2050. But other countries have not only forged ahead and made tremendous strides, but they also grew their GDP simultaneously.
Wind & solar are cheaper than fossil fuels and the IPCC report shows that they've really taken off in the last decade. But, despite that, the numbers are far less than where they need to be.
Finally, just a reminder there's no need to panic that we're going to go extinct over this as a species. If you haven't seen it, @Supervstech posted a fairly good synopsis video. But yeah, we already have starvation and disasters in the world that displace thousands each year and the predictions are that it will get worse. Many cities like Miami and the keys are already spending large amounts to mitigate flooding from sea-water elevation increases.
A quick reminder that most scientists believe we need to cap the temperature under 1.5°C to mitigate the worst of the changes. If all the countries were net-zero by 2050 via the Paris Agreement, it's a 2°C rise. Those not working towards existing goals are most likely pushing us more towards 3°C. it's technically possible to cap it at 1.5°C, but many believe we won't take it seriously or put aside differences to work together. Some countries have said they can't make 2050. But other countries have not only forged ahead and made tremendous strides, but they also grew their GDP simultaneously.
Wind & solar are cheaper than fossil fuels and the IPCC report shows that they've really taken off in the last decade. But, despite that, the numbers are far less than where they need to be.
| The report doesn't say what any country should do, instead it talks about the various decarbonization technologies. The complicated chart to the right show what each technology could cut emissions by in 2030. The longer the bar, the more emissions that technology can remove. Here's a bigger excerpt:   The black line is the "uncertainty", so solar for example is between 2 to 7 gigatons of CO₂ equivalent. Colors represent the cost-effectiveness of the technology, where blue is less expensive than current technology and you save money by replacing it. Orange to darker colors (it's spelled out in the legend) are higher costs than current. So, why do bars shift colors? Wind and solar shift because at some point you need to start adding energy storage for reliability, so the more energy storage added the more expensive it becomes. The IPCC doesn't consider "break-throughs", the costs are based on current data. So some things like carbon capture, which look horrible in the IPCC report, might yet still have breakthroughs. Considering the report says some sort of carbon capture must occur at the rate we're going, it isn't the best news. |  |
Finally, just a reminder there's no need to panic that we're going to go extinct over this as a species. If you haven't seen it, @Supervstech posted a fairly good synopsis video. But yeah, we already have starvation and disasters in the world that displace thousands each year and the predictions are that it will get worse. Many cities like Miami and the keys are already spending large amounts to mitigate flooding from sea-water elevation increases.
Yes and no.
It is possible if we stopped emitting the waste products of burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
But it doesn't look like there is much appetite for that and we seem to be more interested in waging wars over the resources, for the benefits of billionaires. We will need to adapt (migrate, genetic engineering) Or artificially lower the average temperature of earth by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. (Cheap but a bad idea as a country like India might decide to lower the average temperature of earth for the benefit of their citizens and gain votes)
There are cheap batteries possible, but will they be cheap enough, or will we have to look for small nuclear?
www.pnnl.gov
asia.nikkei.com
www.nrcan.gc.ca
It is possible if we stopped emitting the waste products of burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
But it doesn't look like there is much appetite for that and we seem to be more interested in waging wars over the resources, for the benefits of billionaires. We will need to adapt (migrate, genetic engineering) Or artificially lower the average temperature of earth by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. (Cheap but a bad idea as a country like India might decide to lower the average temperature of earth for the benefit of their citizens and gain votes)
There are cheap batteries possible, but will they be cheap enough, or will we have to look for small nuclear?
‘Freeze-Thaw Battery’ Is Adept at Preserving Its Energy
Scientists have created a battery designed for the electric grid that locks in energy for months without losing much storage capacity.
Japan battery material producers lose spark as China races ahead
Former market leaders turn to recycling and next-gen tech to regain lost ground
asia.nikkei.com
Canada’s Small Modular Reactor Action Plan
Small Modular Reactors: the next wave of nuclear innovation
www.nrcan.gc.ca
Climate Change? Climate has been changing since the beginnings of time!
Human Made Climate Change you say? Watch what they do, not what they say. When all of these hypocrites stop flying private jets and start eating bugs, maybe then i will start thinking about it (not really).
Human Made Climate Change you say? Watch what they do, not what they say. When all of these hypocrites stop flying private jets and start eating bugs, maybe then i will start thinking about it (not really).
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
Now that is a good observation.
My take on it:
- Global warming is real
- Climate change dichotomy is not real
- Present warming cycle causation is scientifically unclear
- Climate prediction models are myriad; they often correlate because they use the same data and original assumptions. The bulk of them indicate moderate changes
- Stopping all carbon emissions today at 12:00 noon is likely to have near zero impact on 50-year and 100-year temperatures of the climate.
- Neither “climate change” deniers nor disciples of the contemporary climate change posit are correct
- Sea levels have been rising for 2000+ years- archeological digs explore under water 45’ below sea level in the Mideast, for example.
- We are at the last gasps of the last ice age here in 2023, and warming trends that free water are one factor that starts another ice age; in 5000 years ‘we’ could be debating how to combat global cooling…
- One-sided, dichotomous problem solving with politics and economic nefariousness mixed in can’t actually solve any problem because those involved are adding 2 + 2 and insisting that it must equal 3 or 5 because ‘the models’ say so.
- Why does no one and nobody factor in how clean the air and water in our cities has become since the seventies? Like you can be driving into Boston today and see the harbor, the ocean, the skyline from a distance. People say the same for LA and Chicago. We’ve come a long way.
- We can carefully change energy usage without risking sending nations who had starving people in 1990 back to hunger and impoverishment. Which is what the current fervor is trending towards along with inspiring young people who believe- due to climate- that they will die before they reach age 30 to throw soup at artwork and superglue themselves to a wall.
Imho
some are ill-informed, some dont' want to face reality, some give up. Climate is always changing, to reach an equilibrium, a balance within the system. Unfortunately, the eventual balance will be different and may not be so pleasant, for some of us.
Those who don't or can't adapt, or don't accept new findings/knowledge will perish, think extinction. The unfortunated thing is that there will be by-stand casualty as it is a planetary problem.
People need to start educating themselves on "man made climate change". As with all things my advise is to start following the money
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
It will surprise you to learn then that some (e.g., Gates, Musk) use carbon offsets to "fuel" their lifestyles (e.g., more expensive for them to use green fuels for their jet, but does no additional harm). When the rich start shelling out, it's time to pay attention. Musk also puts solar panels on the tops of his factories. Why? It makes economic sense. We all know solar is cheaper than fossil fuels, it's the battery that is the killer. With improved battery storage coming (e.g., sodium ion battery due out this year) it'll make sense everywhere soon. |
|
Honestly, doesn't make a difference how unnatural it is. Our economy has multi-trillions at risk just from flooding. Tack on the wars and refugees costs and it'll destroy countries...it won't be a fun time. Us adding it to it just makes things worse.
The science isn't easy, but it's pretty clear with a lot of evidence as to what greenhouse gases do to a planet's temperature.
Not so. The models have ALWAYS been within the range of predicted accuracy and they paint a grim picture. Post #32 talks about the accuracy of the IPCC temperature models. Not surprisingly, since the 70's the models have gotten a lot better too. Sure, we don't know everything; but
the safe bet is to use what you know - not hope for the best with what you don't know. And, this is a damn big bet.
You might also be interested to know that ALL of the major oil companies have press releases agreeing with the IPCC global warming science and have mitigation plans as do most countries.
It's not that stopping changes things, it's that not slowing changes things...for the worse.
The half-life of CO₂ is ~120 years (depending on deforestation). So, in about 100 years, almost half would be gone.
Of course, we can't stop 100% right now, but we do have a plan to hold the line and eventually reduce to where the production and the half-life are about are equal.
Air pollution and CO₂ are different things. Air pollution from the '70s was mainly particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. According to measurements taken by NOAA, CO₂ levels have risen quite a bit since the 70's. The surface temperature of Venus is 467°C, but if you removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere it would be -42°C. Venus's ppm of CO₂ is only 71x greater than ours. |  |
A few countries (primarily Scandinavian) are not only ahead of their carbon-neutral plans, but they're growing their GDP at the same time.
I believe scammers and politicians will definitely line their pockets, but that doesn't make it not real. It just makes them criminals.
Last edited:
The debate and discussion can continue, but it's best to err on the safe side and act while there's possibility. If current science is wrong, the good life continues. But what if the denial is wrong, and by the time it's obvious; the window to prevent catastrophy is in the rear.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,472
That they pay money to be "allowed" to "pollute"?
Do they also pay indulgences to be allowed to use butter during Lent?
Until they actually use renewable green fuel to power those jets ...
Still, think of how much more he would do for the environment if he spent his money on carbon capture, planting trees (which will be cut down as soon as you turn your back), etc. and then flew coach like the rest of us.
I have PV panels on my roof and export net surplus to the grid. Does that mean it's OK if I buy a Hummer to drive to the grocery store?
You can buy whatever you want. Why not? Ppl buying these overly expensive EV are no better.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,472
Of course, there's nothing wrong with "a dollar or two a day"
That is enough pay to live and feed the family.
Same is true for Vietnam, was true for China.
All it reflects is currency exchange rates and obstacles to flow of goods and services.
For a dollar a day they can't afford to buy food from the U.S., where retail prices are far higher.
Maybe agriculture over there could deliver food to the U.S., where we would pay a higher price. That could raise their income, except most of the money would go to middlemen.
Same is true in the U.S., where chicken ranchers might be paid $0.10/lb. and have gross profit of $0.01/lb. while consumers pay $1.00/lb. (and more if it is cut into different parts.) And therefore, putting arsenic in chicken feed was used to significantly increase that $0.01/lb. gross profit. (I'd happily pay $0.10/lb. more for a chicken that didn't contain arsenic or antibiotics, on the condition that $0.002/lb. trickled down to the chicken rancher. Instead, I'm given the option of $10.00/lb. "organic" chicken.)
The problem is the environmental damage and unhealthy working environment at the Cobalt mines.
Hmm, hydrogen fuel cell cars with small battery would reduce need for conflict minerals.
That is enough pay to live and feed the family.
Same is true for Vietnam, was true for China.
All it reflects is currency exchange rates and obstacles to flow of goods and services.
For a dollar a day they can't afford to buy food from the U.S., where retail prices are far higher.
Maybe agriculture over there could deliver food to the U.S., where we would pay a higher price. That could raise their income, except most of the money would go to middlemen.
Same is true in the U.S., where chicken ranchers might be paid $0.10/lb. and have gross profit of $0.01/lb. while consumers pay $1.00/lb. (and more if it is cut into different parts.) And therefore, putting arsenic in chicken feed was used to significantly increase that $0.01/lb. gross profit. (I'd happily pay $0.10/lb. more for a chicken that didn't contain arsenic or antibiotics, on the condition that $0.002/lb. trickled down to the chicken rancher. Instead, I'm given the option of $10.00/lb. "organic" chicken.)
The problem is the environmental damage and unhealthy working environment at the Cobalt mines.
Hmm, hydrogen fuel cell cars with small battery would reduce need for conflict minerals.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
It's not polluting if it's green. Gates spends $9 million a year to offset his carbon footprint. [ref]
Actually, he does. He also puts money into various carbon capture technologies. CO₂ isn't the only greenhouse gas either, so he's put a lot of $ into looking at solutions for those problems too.
People already do that without having pv. But sure, if you're overall neutral then you're at least not adding to the problem.
LFP doesn't use cobalt. Most of the new tech batteries (e.g., sodium ion) don't use any rare minerals.
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
And developing countries aren’t permitted to expand by economic suppression because ‘we’ ‘they’ or whoever won’t lend money to build fossil fuel infrastructure.
But we perfectly well allow China, India to develop coal plants, and European coal consumption in nations like Germany is going up due to putting some coal plants back on line.
Depending on whose science it is.
There’s a much less bleak picture that’s much closer to reality. Reality as in real scientists that say, “what about this?” But they don’t get any attention. And they then get relegated to the fringe or ‘denier’ camp rather than anyone using their minds and saying, “oh! Right. Good point; let’s talk about that.”
But I’m in the scoffer camp in the middle laughing at the controversy because they say “science” but then don’t practice “science.”
As my post indicates- I’m not a denier but I’m also not that gullible. There’s a best practice in every discipline, and in the case of ‘climate change’ since I was in 8th grade to the time I read the 1941 USDA report on climate a few years ago I’m convinced that from my shoes that was the last time any real science has discussed the climate with an open mind. Because Portsmouth NH isn’t under water and ambient NE temps have not forced northern migration. Two of the predictions that have failed.
I’m of the opinion we keep diving in and are trying to solve for the wrong equation.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
That's okay, I started in the denier camp and only changed my tune after wading through the BS (there's tons on both sides) and digging into the models & math. Start with the OP and work your way through and you can see how I slowly realized there really was something to it.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,472
It's not "Green" if it is only "offset".
Green is using a fuel that is renewable.
Offsets are just a form of "sin" tax.
Carbon capture NOT offset by flying solo in his personal 747 (or whatever he has.)
That's good. Cleaner is better.
Why again, can't Gates fly Coach? Or First Class?
Even better, attend by using Microsoft Teams? (Which I'm doing at this very second.)
At least Jerry Brown Jr. walked the walk.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,472
According to science, greenhouse gasses and man-made global warming will raise average temperatures 1 (?) degree and raise sea levels 3'.
10,000 years ago, the Continental Shelf was ocean-front property. Today it is 400' under water.
CO2 levels are very close to all-time record lows. Plants are poisoning the environment and themselves. Helping to reverse plant made global cooling could save the Earth.
Historic cycles are far greater than anything attributed or projected for human contribution.
We are told it is changing far faster than ever before.
But I have my doubts about accuracy and resolution of methods for temperature and gas concentration over geological time.
Any time you change measurement methods, the data usually changes.
I also doubt that extrapolation of anything is correct. It assumes nothing happens outside the data range you have that takes over driving results.
@svetz
Watch the entire video i posted.
Lots of facts with links to official sources attached to the presentation.
Among many other things, carbon is not the issue. Pollution is. But noone talks about it because it does not benefit the narrative.
I dare anyone to dispute the facts presented in the video.
Watch the entire video i posted.
Lots of facts with links to official sources attached to the presentation.
Among many other things, carbon is not the issue. Pollution is. But noone talks about it because it does not benefit the narrative.
I dare anyone to dispute the facts presented in the video.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,138
I used to think fuel cells would be the next big thing .... but then it never happened.
It would be kinda nice to have a fuel cell sitting behind the house for independent power also. There is a guy on YouTube that is using solar to generate hydrogen instead of using a big battery bank and powers all his vehicles and his house with hydrogen .... I haven't watched his videos for a while, so don't remember his channel name.
Musk is thoroughly convinced that batteries, not fuel cells are the way to go. I've never heard the details of why he thinks that.
I personally tend to give Musks's opinion more weight than I do Gates .... I really don't like Gates.
It was kinda funny to me when Gates tried to get on Musk's good side and then Musk just dismissed him and asked why he kept shorting Tesla stock.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,472
Chevy Volt was obviously able to do much more to reduce carbon emissions than Tesla.
But Musk is the new Jobs. He knows what people will buy, or how to market to them.
So long as most of the EV market is people interested in a vision/appearance, rather than analyzing their needs, the "pure" product is what sells.
For some people, Tesla or another pure EV may be a great fit. For most who will have only one car, lots of local commuting and occasional long trips, hybrid is better. And smaller battery capacity allows 6 times as many drivers to go electric that way.
I certainly respect Musk's ability to get things working. Rockets flying back to the launching pad and landing on their own feet! He said he was interested in rockets from comic books. He then brought them to life.
The self-driving, which Musk says is majority of Tesla's value, is not interesting to me. But I can see where robot vehicles replacing human drivers (and pilots) has considerable financial value to businesses.
But Musk is the new Jobs. He knows what people will buy, or how to market to them.
So long as most of the EV market is people interested in a vision/appearance, rather than analyzing their needs, the "pure" product is what sells.
For some people, Tesla or another pure EV may be a great fit. For most who will have only one car, lots of local commuting and occasional long trips, hybrid is better. And smaller battery capacity allows 6 times as many drivers to go electric that way.
I certainly respect Musk's ability to get things working. Rockets flying back to the launching pad and landing on their own feet! He said he was interested in rockets from comic books. He then brought them to life.
The self-driving, which Musk says is majority of Tesla's value, is not interesting to me. But I can see where robot vehicles replacing human drivers (and pilots) has considerable financial value to businesses.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Why would anyone care? Seems like an unhealthy obsession. $9 billion is a lot of walking the talk to me.
Good point!
10,000 years ago it was about 150 ppm CO2 and it was so cold for so long nearly all the humans died.
See what a small change can make? Thanks for bringing that point to light.
No, the last half million years it's cycled between 175 and 300 ppm. We're at 420ppm now (the graphic is a bit old). Yes, it was a lot higher when the crust was molten. As you can see, we're way above recent past cycles by a fair margin. For perspective, Homo Sapiens emerged ~300,000 years ago. I suspect that myth got propagated as it is common for graphs to switch scales to millions of years which can throw perspective off. | 
|
There is a lot of debate about that, but when you dig into it the difference in the numbers is actually fairly small and (not positive, but ) believe the IPCC factors them into the range of probability.
True enough, but they've been doing this for decades now and their temperature predictions have ALWAYs fallen into the predicted range. See post #32 for more. This is from one of their older reports, I added the red dots to show the actual measurements. The outer lines are their range of predicted accuracy, the inner lines are from various models.
Where people think they were wrong is from non-scientists that looked at the curved and printed all sorts of horror stories by extrapolating and without any real understanding of the science. Scientists at the time explained why that was wrong, but only sensational news gets air time.
I could watch the video and probably dispute everything even with my limited knowledge, but it wouldn't change anything so ultimately a waste of time.
I will say James Corbett is not a climate scientist, he does have a degree in public policy (e.g., spinning things to sound good) and did the interview to push his book. Who said look at the money trail? You can always find something on the internet that says anything you want. You have to wade through it with an open mind and look at the math as this thread attempts. But, if you have a specific concern, by all means bring it up.
Honestly, if all the major oil corporations admit to the IPCC being correct, that should shake your disbelief just a little.
Similar threads
