We're on a path where this kind of "strange" weather is the new normal.
Are you ready? No? Then what are we doing to change our path?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
If you give me $100,000 I will buy a Tesla. :D
ReplyDeleteBob Lai Well, you don't need even close to that much now: https://www.teslamotors.com/models/preowned
ReplyDeleteO...no😡😡😡
ReplyDeleteFeri Sandi Are you an actual human being? If so, please answer this: What is the color of the sky?
ReplyDeleteI am asking my corporate leadership to support electrodyalitic decarbonization of the oceans. Will you join me, Craig Froehle? As per http://talknicer.com/co2extraction.pdf the world would only need 400,000 acres of wind farms to get as much carbon as we get from fossil fuels, and using hydrogenation of waste CO2 we can convert natural gas power plants into closed-cycle hermetically sealed synthetic methane renewable power storage systems.
ReplyDeleteI believe that episode was called "True Q."
ReplyDeleteThis discussion comes up so much, but the most crucial word in it is never discussed, let alone defined -- that word is "we."
ReplyDeleteWho, exactly, is this "we"? Some mystical, crowdsourced, emergent entity that needs no coordination or organization to accomplish such a huge task? Does that seem even remotely likely?
Don't think so -- large tasks require large organizations. Well-organized and well-funded organizations. For a task this large, even organizations as large as the US don't qualify yet.
Suggestion: from now on, let's say that any proposal concerning what to "do about" climate change that doesn't include a working definition of the "doer" should be considered a waste of bandwidth.
James Salsman Definitely the right idea -- you're suggestiong a specific actor here, your corporation. The action here is to support a much larger action for which there isn't yet an identified actor, but it's a start!
--
I don't work for a corporation, James Salsman, but I'll read about that.
ReplyDeleteTerry Dyke, we as individuals can do a lot, including voting for people who take energy policy and climate issues seriously.
ReplyDeleteTerry Dyke you still think that conversion to renewable is impossible, because there isn't enough money in banks for a power company to replace its $0.04/kWh coal plants with $0.023/kWh wind?
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle your university doesn't have a CEO?
ReplyDeleteJames Salsman Nope. I don't believe most public universities do.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle Individuals' taking it seriously is certainly necessary, but hardly sufficient. Yes, they can do a lot on their own, but it can't be assumed that it is enough.
ReplyDeleteThe successful effort will necessarily be well organized and well funded, on a scale that is consistent with the scale of the problem.
--
James Salsman
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't.
However, in order for the question to be productive, a much more explicit meaning must be given to the term "conversion" as it is used here.
It's certainly a given that countries and companies can build windmills and solar farms and operate them successfully, supplying an increasing fraction of the world's energy "requirements" -- currently about 500 quads (quadrillion BTUs) per year.
It's quite a leap of faith, though, to assume that the entire 500-quad load can be "converted" to renewables.
Extremely unlikely, I'd argue. A much more likely scenario for an all-renewables world is that industrial civilization learns to run its affairs comfortably on much less energy -- more like 100 quads.
That's a lot more plausible than shooting for a 500-quad all-renewables infrastructure. We'll get to 100 quads sooner anyway, but it still will have been long enough to realize that 400 more is as much out of reach as it is pointless.
--
We don't have to get to 100% renewable. Even 90% would go a LONG way towards curbing the damage done. And that's entirely plausible given today's technology. Imagine what we'll have to work with in 10 or 20 years.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle
ReplyDeleteOh, of course. But technology isn't the issue. Widespread implementation is. That and paying for it.
Look, I'm just as gung-ho as the next guy about having a decent world without fossil fuels, but let's get real -- as in having realistic expectations.
A 500-quad energy infrastructure consisting only of renewables will cost around $150 trillion . If it's manufactured and deployed at a rate that gets us to 500 quads by mid-century, it will require a full 25% of the world's total annual capital formation every year for 40 years.
Do you have some kind of handle on the implications of that? If so, you'll know that technology as such has very little bearing on the matter -- what counts is getting the technology out the lab doors and on the ground, and in very large numbers. Comes down to money and who signs the note.
Full analysis here: http://terrydyke.com/2013/04/transition-to-renewables-wont-match-fossil-fuel-energy-level/
--
So looks like the other post missed one...
ReplyDeletethoughts thoughts
ReplyDeleteEstá bien el clima
ReplyDelete