Climate change tipping point could be coming sooner than we think: study

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,812
I'd be very curious as to how quickly the Chinese are able to install them, look to them establishing a bench marks
I'm sure China can build them a lot quicker (and probably cheaper), by skipping a lot of safety measures. That's a far cry from what is possible elsewhere. And compared to renewables that are reliably delivered everywhere, for cheaper.

alloytoo said:
Realistically 10-15 years with reducing performance as they grow older.
Nope.

alloytoo said:
capacity is not the same as production and wind farms produce about 35% of their capacity on a good day then global supply is about 0%.
Given that wind can never be "on demand" and that it requires on demand (normally fossil fuel powered) generation to back it for when the wind stops. Wind is only good for pumping water off the grid and I'm not so sure about that.
Good thing we've developed nifty storage devices, which are improving and becoming cheaper at an exponential rate.

alloytoo said:
You mean aside from the thousands of birds and bats they kill, the eyesore they create? The fossil fuels required to actually make them practical.
They actually kill a lot fewer than is often touted, and they kill fewer than nuclear plants.

And something you consider an 'eyesore' isn't an "environmental nightmare".

alloytoo said:
For the most part hydro schemes require water and a valley to dam, these are not always available where you need the power.

Geothermal plants also require water and can be subject to over exploitation if everyone is attempting to same resource, the water table drops and the steam required for generation is no longer available.
Sure. But you can use them where they are feasible, as part of a mix.

alloytoo said:
Bioenergy is touted as a zero carbon energy source because you're burning material which can be regrown?
Energy derived from biological material that already exists and is created as the byproduct of other processes that already happen and will continue to happen.

alloytoo said:
A low level of certainty, a high degree of uncertainty.

it's more cost effective to plough money into certainties like vaccinations (or nuclear power plants).
Or you can plough money into certainties like renewables, and take advantage of the huge economic opportunity it presents.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,202
Good thing we've developed nifty storage devices, which are improving and becoming cheaper at an exponential rate.
Newsflash.

Battery technology is not subject to Moore's law, capacity has barely doubled since Moore postulated exponential growth in processing power and memory storage.

Thus far the very best batteries we have for large scale electrical storage are called dams, they have extensive lifespans and don't short out when wet.


Sure. But you can use them where they are feasible, as part of a mix.
I love Hydro and Geo-Thermal, they are however subject to limitations.


Energy derived from biological material that already exists and is created as the byproduct of other processes that already happen and will continue to happen.
It still takes 20 years to replace the tree that was wood chipped and burnt in order to cover for the failing wind farm, burning wood chips (less energy value and more pollution than gas) keeps it "Renewable" for tax credit purposes.



Or you can plough money into certainties like renewables, and take advantage of the huge economic opportunity it presents.
Renewables are a crock (Hydro and geothermal excluded), even if they were reliable (which they're not) they simply can't replace existing fossil fuel plants.

The only thing that can is Nuclear.

Actually it's a pretty clear pathway.

1. Expand Hydro and Geothermal if possible (cause they make sense)
2. Convert as many coal burning plants to gas as you can.
3. Replace your fossil fuel plants with Nuclear as soon as possible.
4. Use solar for off the grid applications.

That reduces carbon immissions and improves pollution without condemning the poor to remain poor and rest of us to get poorer.

It doesn't result in economic upheaval.

and of course if we have another mini-ice age we'll be prepared.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,812
Newsflash.

Battery technology is not subject to Moore's law, capacity has barely doubled since Moore postulated exponential growth in processing power and memory storage.
Nope.




alloytoo said:
I love Hydro and Geo-Thermal, they are however subject to limitations.
Yes, as is literally every source of energy.

alloytoo said:
It still takes 20 years to replace the tree that was wood chipped and burnt in order to cover for the failing wind farm, burning wood chips (less energy value and more pollution than gas) keeps it "Renewable" for tax credit purposes.
There are other sources of bioenergy than wood chips.



alloytoo said:
Renewables are a crock (Hydro and geothermal excluded), even if they were reliable (which they're not) they simply can't replace existing fossil fuel plants.
They're not, though, and yeah they can.

alloytoo said:
The only thing that can is Nuclear.
Not in the time frame required, and at higher cost.

alloytoo said:
Actually it's a pretty clear pathway.

1. Expand Hydro and Geothermal if possible (cause they make sense)
2. Convert as many coal burning plants to gas as you can.
3. Replace your fossil fuel plants with Nuclear as soon as possible.
4. Use solar for off the grid applications.

That reduces carbon immissions and improves pollution without condemning the poor to remain poor and rest of us to get poorer.

It doesn't result in economic upheaval.
You still haven't in any way explained this idea that shifting to renewables would make "the rest of us get poorer" or result in economic upheaval.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
19,324
It's actually quite substantial, and in many cases they were too conservative, with warming happening even faster.
Not because they wanted to be. The models simply aren't accurate so how can we trust they don't ignore something else that can have a substantial impact?

Well, yeah. Denier pundits should stop doing it then.
You seem to be forgetting who the pundits are.

No, there hasn't. They mean different things, and have both been used for a long time in different contexts.
With one being used less and less and the other more. Go through the literature. You'll see it is the case.

Realistically 10-15 years with reducing performance as they grow older.
Realistically it's 1% per year with the figure tapering off. So after 50 years you typically still have 75% of initial capacity. Besides as I said what do we do in a few decades when nuclear sources are depleted? Then we're back to square one where we debate fossil fuels vs renewables except nuclear won't be in the mix.

Newsflash.

Battery technology is not subject to Moore's law, capacity has barely doubled since Moore postulated exponential growth in processing power and memory storage.

Thus far the very best batteries we have for large scale electrical storage are called dams, they have extensive lifespans and don't short out when wet.
That's because battery tech isn't subject to a refined process that keeps cramming in a little more each year. It's more like there's a leap every 5 years or so. You seem to treat it like we didn't move from NiCad to NiMH to LiIon to now LiPO to name just a few.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,202
Yes.

1554943005669.png

There are other sources of bioenergy than wood chips.
Are there any that don't involve burning something? I'm curious.



They're not, though, and yeah they can.
Actually no, take the their energy generation density, work out how much land is required to meet existing demand and then consider how many of those sites are actually suitable. Big deficit.

Solar will of course work once we find a way of getting the energy from orbit, wind is only suitable for sailing.

Not in the time frame required, and at higher cost.
Wind and solar can NEVER meet demand, if we're serious we'll improve our production techniques and that will reduce time and cost. We would be there already if it wasn't for the environmental numpties in the early 90's.

You still haven't in any way explained this idea that shifting to renewables would make "the rest of us get poorer" or result in economic upheaval.
Because like it or not the world runs on fossil fuels, industrialised nations have built their economies and infrastructure around it. Developing nations are using it to get industrialised. If you're going to reduce emissions you're going to have to tell developed populations to reduce their lifestyles and lifespans because the "Green alternatives" are hopelessly insufficient to sustain our industrialized civilization and will never allow developing nations to improve their lot.

The result is that the vast majority will say "Stuff You" and continue to use fossil fuel resources and if they cannot access that they will use start stripping forests for fuel.

Nuclear energy provides a pathway out of energy poverty that meets emission goals.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,038
Essential reading, from a progressivist Democrat who was open enough to remove some blinkers.
It's always the same guy who promotes nuclear, surely he can't be the only democrat who does so? Anyway, the GND allows for nuclear power as a solution to our problems, even if AOC is anti it
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,812
It's always the same guy who promotes nuclear, surely he can't be the only democrat who does so? Anyway, the GND allows for nuclear power as a solution to our problems, even if AOC is anti it
Of course he isn't, and yeah, the GND doesn't say anything about nuclear, but they have to keep the strawman going.

Here's Ed Markey, a lead sponsor of the resolution, confirming it once again.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...06596/green-new-deal-climate-change-ed-markey

And there’s nothing in the resolution about those nuclear power plants. To the extent they stay online, it helps to provide a long-term transition toward a fully renewable system. There’s no call for shutting down any existing nuclear power plant in the United States, with the exception of those found unsafe to operate.

But the resolution does not in any way say that nuclear cannot compete in the future, if there are economically and safely constructed new nuclear power plants.
 
Top