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

[Checkthisout]

New Method Predicts Extreme Events More Accurately​

Nonsense

 

[svetz]

Svetz am sorry if you feel your post is being messed up.

eh? You mean Aenyc? or people posting off-topic stuff? Aenyc is just posting garbage anyone could see through so there's no sense in disputing it (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but at least he's usually on-topic. Off-topic stuff is always hard to regulate and people are analog not digital, so there's always some of that. Most stop if you ask.

But if real facts are brought to the table I'm happy to discuss them. But when someone says:

We have repaired our environment to the current level vs the past.

Well, that's opinion without numbers or something to actually discuss, so there's not much to talk about. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs. So I don't typically respond. Just like there's nothing to respond to in the post above.

Did we get the NOx down when the scientists told us it creates smog which is bad for our health? Sure we did! Did we get rid of fluorocarbons that scientists said were causing a hole in the ozone layer? Sure did!

Is the ppm of CO2 (and other GHGs) lower than scientists say it needs to be? Nope. Is that a problem or not? Depends on if you believe the scientists this time, have checked into the numbers yourself, or believe what someone on a YT video told you to believe.

We probably still get acid rain although it is not reported as much anymore.

I think you're right there's still some, but as it was from sulfur in coal and the U.S. pretty much stopped burning coal due to the price difference with natural gas it's probably not that relevant here. On the upside, the Electric Viking said installed solar prices had dropped to less than a penny per kwh, so just as coal was replaced by cheap gas...as energy storage prices fall it's inevitable that solar/wind will replace gas.

...we are still allowing the Amazon Rain forest to be destroyed. Which is insane.

The ones cutting it down have more important worries. Same thing we even hear from a lot of people who believe in climate change... it's just not an urgent priority for them. People have a need to "see" the actual fire to think "hmmm, that's not good". Climate change is like the lobster in the pot with the temperature going up slowly, nothing to worry about.

it should be obvious both sides of the political aisle in washington dc are playing games and steering monies. Crooks

Always have, probably always will. Despite that we got NOx emissions down, eliminated acid rain, and dealt with fluorocarbons. We can do it here too. Just need to vote the idiots out (that includes the ones using climate fears to push their agendas without really doing anything about climate change). Well, we need to find some non-idiots to vote in too, that's surprisingly harder than it sounds.

Again sorry if you feel your post is polluted. You have spent a lot of your spare time on it.

Not at all, I'm happy to see people still posting in the topic. It keeps the thread alive and the topic fresh on people's minds. New people stop in from time to time. I still learn things and keeps me up to date, so that's a big plus. I'm still posting some relevant things of interest when I come across them and appreciate when others do too; but that's not stuff that happens every day (I ignore a lot of what I think is the alarmist stuff).

I would like to see actual reasons as to why some don't believe we need to do anything about climate change. Stuff from fox/sky/conspiracy/etc. videos with nothing substantive beyond fake news and twisting reality aren't really that interesting. Debunked several of them previously without anyone having any counterarguments. If they came back and said no, you're wrong here and here there could be a discussion, but typically they just move to another video from a similarly bad site. So, I just ignore those now, they're entitled to believe it even if the rest of the world thinks it is nonsense.

It's a little surprising how strong their beliefs are when there's not a single fact or piece of evidence against the climate change theory that has stood up to examination. People that have honestly examined the data with an open mind are usually much more concerned about the topic.

 

[Checkthisout]

eh? You mean Aenyc? or people posting off-topic stuff? Aenyc is just posting garbage anyone could see through so there's no sense in disputing it (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but at least he's usually on-topic. Off-topic stuff is always hard to regulate and people are analog not digital, so there's always some of that. Most stop if you ask.

But if real facts are brought to the table I'm happy to discuss them. But when someone says:

Well, that's opinion without numbers or something to actually discuss, so there's not much to talk about. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs. So I don't typically respond. Just like there's nothing to respond to in the post above.

Did we get the NOx down when the scientists told us it creates smog which is bad for our health? Sure we did! Did we get rid of fluorocarbons that scientists said were causing a hole in the ozone layer? Sure did!

Is the ppm of CO2 (and other GHGs) lower than scientists say it needs to be? Nope. Is that a problem or not? Depends on if you believe the scientists this time, have checked into the numbers yourself, or believe what someone on a YT video told you to believe.


I think you're right there's still some, but as it was from sulfur in coal and the U.S. pretty much stopped burning coal due to the price difference with natural gas it's probably not that relevant here. On the upside, the Electric Viking said installed solar prices had dropped to less than a penny per kwh, so just as coal was replaced by cheap gas...as energy storage prices fall it's inevitable that solar/wind will replace gas.


The ones cutting it down have more important worries. Same thing we even hear from a lot of people who believe in climate change... it's just not an urgent priority for them. People have a need to "see" the actual fire to think "hmmm, that's not good". Climate change is like the lobster in the pot with the temperature going up slowly, nothing to worry about.


Always have, probably always will. Despite that we got NOx emissions down, eliminated acid rain, and dealt with fluorocarbons. We can do it here too. Just need to vote the idiots out (that includes the ones using climate fears to push their agendas without really doing anything about climate change). Well, we need to find some non-idiots to vote in too, that's surprisingly harder than it sounds.


Not at all, I'm happy to see people still posting in the topic. It keeps the thread alive and the topic fresh on people's minds. New people stop in from time to time. I still learn things and keeps me up to date, so that's a big plus. I'm still posting some relevant things of interest when I come across them and appreciate when others do too; but that's not stuff that happens every day (I ignore a lot of what I think is the alarmist stuff).

I would like to see actual reasons as to why some don't believe we need to do anything about climate change. Stuff from fox/sky/conspiracy/etc. videos with nothing substantive beyond fake news and twisting reality aren't really that interesting. Debunked several of them previously without anyone having any counterarguments. If they came back and said no, you're wrong here and here there could be a discussion, but typically they just move to another video from a similarly bad site. So, I just ignore those now, they're entitled to believe it even if the rest of the world thinks it is nonsense.

It's a little surprising how strong their beliefs are when there's not a single fact or piece of evidence against the climate change theory that has stood up to examination. People that have honestly examined the data with an open mind are usually much more concerned about the topic.

They try and blame normal weather events on climate change.

They distort figures to support an agenda.

An example is rating hurricane or tornado damage in dollars, saying they are adjusted for inflation and then saying the increase in dollar damage from tornados and hurricanes is proof they are getting stronger/more frequent.

Such a claims leaves out the increase in the number of houses in the path of a hurricane or tornado compared to 20/40/50 years ago.

It's deliberate fear mongering.


Our lives are better due to the use of fossil fuels, period.

*if* the same benefits of fossil fuel use can be had using other forms of energy at the same PRICE as fossil fuels, well ok, I'm on board.

I would even accept a bit more cost to basically eliminate the production of actual pollutants that are produced by burning fossil fuels (C02 is not a pollutant).



FYI, Nox is mainly reduced by increasing the amount of C02 in combustion process (EGR).

 

[svetz]

They try and blame normal weather events on climate change.They distort figures to support an agenda.

Some do indeed. Doesn't alter the base facts though.

Our lives are better due to the use of fossil fuels, period.

They were, times change.

*if* the same benefits of fossil fuel use can be had using other forms of energy at the same PRICE as fossil fuels, well ok, I'm on board.

Glad to hear it! Personally, I think we're about a penny over with lithium energy storage now and probably less with ESS's tech (although I haven't found LCOE numbers so take it with a grain of salt), and a lot less with sodium. So amazingly close if not there. We just need to stop doing things the old way and convert to the new as the old systems need replacing. Spending money on new fossil fuel projects at this point seems silly (e.g., Willow, Mountain Valley, Keystone, Summit, Driftwood, etc.), it would be better spent on switching over. I haven't looked at the numbers other than Mountain Valley (about 50 posts back) and it looked crazy (justified as it would reduce the price burden on residents (but they already pay less than I do), and ships 10x more than the state uses - my guess is someone is planning to get rich shipping it to other countries via the nearby shipping ports).

FYI, Nox is mainly reduced by increasing the amount of C02 in combustion process (EGR).

FYI: An EGR doesn't work because of increased CO2, it works because the recycled exhaust cools combustion. ref
NOx concentrations are from atmospheric nitrogen in equilibrium at temperature/pressure, the cooler it is the less NOx. Diesels burn at hotter temperatures and it's why they make more NOx. Conversely, the cooler the engine runs, via the Carnot cycle, the less efficient it is.

If an ICE vehicle was 30% efficient, for every $10 in gas $7 is wasted as heat and $3 is useful work. Talk about burning money!

 

[Checkthisout]

Some do indeed. Doesn't alter the base facts though.


They were, times change.


Glad to hear it! Personally, I think we're about a penny over with lithium energy storage now and probably less with ESS's tech (although I haven't found LCOE numbers so take it with a grain of salt), and a lot less with sodium. So amazingly close if not there. We just need to stop doing things the old way and convert to the new as the old systems need replacing. Spending money on new fossil fuel projects at this point seems silly (e.g., Willow, Mountain Valley, Keystone, Summit, Driftwood, etc.), it would be better spent on switching over. I haven't looked at the numbers other than Mountain Valley (about 50 posts back) and it looked crazy (justified as it would reduce the price burden on residents (but they already pay less than I do), and ships 10x more than the state uses - my guess is someone is planning to get rich shipping it to other countries via the nearby shipping ports).


FYI: An EGR doesn't work because of increased CO2, it works because the recycled exhaust cools combustion. ref
NOx concentrations are from atmospheric nitrogen in equilibrium at temperature/pressure, the cooler it is the less NOx. Diesels burn at hotter temperatures and it's why they make more NOx. Conversely, the cooler the engine runs, via the Carnot cycle, the less efficient it is.

If an ICE vehicle was 30% efficient, for every $10 in gas $7 is wasted as heat and $3 is useful work. Talk about burning money!

Egr works because it lacks oxygen. The higher the C02 the better because the only other available gas is nitrogen and we want less of that to avoid the formation of nox. The more c02 the better.

 

[Checkthisout]

When labeling C02 a pollutant, at what level in the air does it become toxic to plant and animal life?

 

[svetz]

When labeling C02 a pollutant, at what level in the air does it become toxic to plant and animal life?

I understand the emotional need for humans to put round pegs in round holes. But I'm not a grammarian and feel the discussion around the taxonomy is irrelevant. Toxicity is irrelevant because it's not about that.

The facts that are important are:

1. We put CO2 and other GreenHouse Gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere faster than they can be removed by natural processes. A lot of it.
2. Because of that they build up and the ppm has doubled despite not being able to see it.
3. When we stop emitting CO2, it will remain high in the atmosphere for centuries.
4. Increased GHG levels increase global average temperature.
5. Increased global temperatures change weather patterns.
6. Weather patterns from 100s of years ago is where we spent quadrillions building cities, creating farms, and establishing communities.
7. Changes to weather patterns with our existing infrastructure mean more weather-related damages to the infrastructure (e.g., flooding in Florida) and a whole of host of other problems (e.g., more disease, war, migration, adaptation spending).
8. Renewable Energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, but because they are not consistent requires additional energy storage which might still be cheaper (e.g., hydro & CAEs in some areas) or more expensive (i.e, lithium).
9. Current Nuclear tech isn't sustainable for all energy production. We need breeder reactors, we have the tech but it's not commercialized.
10. Energy Storage solutions prices are falling and expected to soon be less expensive overall per kWh cost than fossil fuels are currently.
11. Energy fixes alone aren't enough, we also need to somehow deal with other GHGs.

If you think any of those are incorrect let me know and I'll look up references for you.

 

[grizzzman]

China's CO2 emissions hit record for Q1
The new analysis shows that China's CO2 emissions grew 4% in the first quarter of 2023, compared with a year earlier. This means first-quarter emissions were the highest on record, exceeding the previous peak reached in the first three months of 2021.May 12, 2023

Seems to me the biggest output of CO2 will continue negating any efforts that we make here. Somehow for your Utopian idea to work, will need cooperation from the biggest output country. As well as other countries.

 

[grizzzman]

China: CO2 Country Profile

China: How much CO2 does your country emit? Are emissions falling? How does it compare to other countries?

ourworldindata.org

 

[svetz]

Seems to me the biggest output of CO2 will continue negating any efforts that we make here. Somehow for your Utopian idea to work, will need cooperation from the biggest output country. As well as other countries.

Not my idea, but your point is we shouldn't bother because a 4% gain in another country is somehow greater than a 100% stop in all other countries? That any reduction won't slow down the impact? If so, it's wrong. Every bit helps.

The upside is China has agreed. In fact, all countries have with jas a few holdouts (e.g., Libya). Even North Korea agrees and is taking action. But like here and elsewhere it requires planning to move forward such that we don't inadvertently harm the economy. Fossil fuels are a tremendous part of the economy, eliminating most of them will tend to be destabilizing. Sadly, things here and there aren't moving as fast as a lot would like, and delay costs us.

President Xi Jinping delivered a written speech at the World Leaders Summit at the 26th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Noting that the adverse impacts of climate change have become increasingly evident, presenting a growing urgency for global action... how to respond to climate change and revive the world economy are challenges of our times that we must meet ... ref

He has also said:

... that although it “is not our responsibility,” China has provided 2 billion yuan ($280 million) to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to global warming through a separate South-South Climate Cooperation Fund. ref

 

[grizzzman]

Not my idea, but your point is we shouldn't bother because a 4% gain in another country is somehow greater than a 100% stop in all other countries? That any reduction won't slow down the impact? If so, it's wrong. Every bit helps.

1 I did not say that. Please do not puts words in my mouth. My thought is focus on the largest problem first, I guess it is the logic in me thinking out loud.

The upside is China has agreed. In fact, all countries have with jas a few holdouts (e.g., Libya). Even North Korea agrees and is taking action. But like here and elsewhere it requires planning to move forward such that we don't inadvertently harm the economy. Fossil fuels are a tremendous part of the economy, eliminating most of them will tend to be destabilizing. Sadly, things here and there aren't moving as fast as a lot would like, and delay costs us.

You put to much faith in a dictator that has very real plans to be the dominant force in this world .

He has also said:

And this why there CO2 production has gone up? ( sorry the logic leaked out again )

 

[LeoThomson]

And this why there CO2 production has gone up? ( sorry the logic leaked out again )

China's CO2 output per capita is just over half of what the US produces, but when you look at CO2 emissions compared to GDP, they are reducing at a faster pace than most, but still have a long way to go, even the US is well behind Europe.

CO2 emissions intensity of GDP, 1990-2021 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA

CO2 emissions intensity of GDP, 1990-2021 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.

www.iea.org

 

[grizzzman]

The annual share of "global" CO2 emissions from China in 2021 was 30.90% .

China: CO2 Country Profile

China: How much CO2 does your country emit? Are emissions falling? How does it compare to other countries?

ourworldindata.org

 

[grizzzman]

China's CO2 output per capita is just over half of what the US produces, but when you look at CO2 emissions compared to GDP, they are reducing at a faster pace than most, but still have a long way to go, even the US is well behind Europe.

CO2 emissions intensity of GDP, 1990-2021 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA

CO2 emissions intensity of GDP, 1990-2021 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.

www.iea.org

spoken like a politician.

 

[D71]

If we were as smart as like to fool ourselves into believing then would know the ancient secrets from our past.

logical - explain the pyramids I have been to the ones in Egypt. There are pyramids around the World. China has some but rarely mentioned.
Were they- pyramids = power generators like Tesla had thought at one time. Again humans are not near as smart as we would like to claim.

Most everything is decided by groups and panels then put forth as the gospel. …. science is a religion.

 

[LeoThomson]

spoken like a politician.

Are you saying that China should be doing more to reduce their CO2 reductions?

 

[grizzzman]

Are you saying that China should be doing more to reduce their CO2 reductions?

There building two coal powered generation sites a week and you ask that?

 

[LeoThomson]

There building two coal powered generation sites a week and you ask that?

Many reasons to ask that, because I find your logic difficult to follow.

If global warming is a hoax, why should they?
Why shouldn't the US do more to reduce it's emissions like Europe is?

 

[grizzzman]

Many reasons to ask that, because I find your logic difficult to follow.

If global warming is a hoax, why should they?
Why shouldn't the US do more to reduce it's emissions like Europe is?

Where did I say it is a hoax? I am a septic especially when the government is paying the bills (grants) Garbage in garbage outcomes to mind. I remember in the 70's the scientists said were going to run out of oil in 20 years. How did that work out? There are many other examples......

 

[LeoThomson]

Where did I say it is a hoax?

Are you saying that dumping the waste products of burning fossil fuels (CO2) into the atmosphere cause global warming?

I am a septic especially when the government is paying the bills (grants)

Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, it is how I became an atheist at a young age and try to follow the evidence wherever it might lead.

Garbage in garbage outcomes to mind.

Ok.

I remember in the 70's the scientists said were going to run out of oil in 20 years.

People were claiming that even earlier. Not sure if there were scientists among them.

Oil and Gas Will Eventually be Exhausted (1909) — Paleofuture

The July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA) ran an article containing predictions by the United States Geological Survey of a coming energy crisis. The report predicted that all petroleum and iron would be exhausted by 1939, all natural gas by 1934 and all coal by the middle of the 21st

paleofuture.com

How did that work out? There are many other examples......

Scientists, like all humans, make mistakes, there are loads of examples of this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

In the 1800's it was discovered that CO2 is greenhouse gas and to my knowledge no one refutes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you?