COP26: Greta Thunberg tells protest that COP26 has been a 'failure'
Quote:
Ms Thunberg said: "It is not a secret that COP26 is a failure. It should be obvious that we cannot solve a crisis with the same methods that got us into it in the first place."
She said: "We need immediate drastic annual emission cuts unlike anything the world has ever seen.
"The people in power can continue to live in their bubble filled with their fantasies, like eternal growth on a finite planet and technological solutions that will suddenly appear seemingly out of nowhere and will erase all of these crises just like that.
"All this while the world is literally burning, on fire, and while the people living on the front lines are still bearing the brunt of the climate crisis."
She described the UN climate change summit as a "two-week long celebration of business as usual and blah, blah, blah" to "maintain business as usual" and "create loopholes to benefit themselves".
Ms Thunberg added: "We know that our emperors are naked."
Activists from several other countries also gave speeches about how climate change is already affecting their homelands.
They included including Vanessa Nakate from Uganda, who said: "Historically, Africa is responsible for only 3% of global emissions and yet Africans are suffering some of the most brutal impacts fuelled by the climate crisis.
"But while the global south is on the frontlines of the climate crisis, they're not on the front pages of the world's newspapers."
I wouldn't call the COP26 a failure but certainly underwhelming. Did anyone think that COP was going to seriously get agreements to reduce carbon by the means that are used to sustain economic growth in so much of the world despite the negative impact on the climate? Though I've always disliked Thunberg as she seems to embody the petulant demands of a generation not matched by their own actions. If this was matched by action to go and reduce fossil few use by her 'movement' I'd be more impressed. If we in the 'west' did simple things like not running A/C all day, carpooling, and all those other things that burn so much energy but I see that her movement is more just protest without personal action. Not that those individual actions would fix a thing but at least I could believe it more than essentially demands to fix the climate while maintaining their current standard of living/ lifestyle choices. The protest is important as this issue needs to maintain the spot light.
Having the top economies in the world stand by coal use is sad but given the economic climate and fragile political climates I'm not surprised that they favor growth/stability over climate in the near term. China, India, and the US need to drastically reduce our own carbon emissions and leaving any of those three out of the equation makes the end result the same.
11-05-2021, 23:14
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
COP26: Greta Thunberg tells protest that COP26 has been a 'failure'
I wouldn't call the COP26 a failure but certainly underwhelming. Did anyone think that COP was going to seriously get agreements to reduce carbon by the means that are used to sustain economic growth in so much of the world despite the negative impact on the climate? Though I've always disliked Thunberg as she seems to embody the petulant demands of a generation not matched by their own actions. If this was matched by action to go and reduce fossil few use by her 'movement' I'd be more impressed. If we in the 'west' did simple things like not running A/C all day, carpooling, and all those other things that burn so much energy but I see that her movement is more just protest without personal action. Not that those individual actions would fix a thing but at least I could believe it more than essentially demands to fix the climate while maintaining their current standard of living/ lifestyle choices. The protest is important as this issue needs to maintain the spot light.
Having the top economies in the world stand by coal use is sad but given the economic climate and fragile political climates I'm not surprised that they favor growth/stability over climate in the near term. China, India, and the US need to drastically reduce our own carbon emissions and leaving any of those three out of the equation makes the end result the same.
Aren't young people like her already taking the most personal steps in their consumption patterns? (I don't think A/C is an energy sink for Scandinavia - yet.) The basic contradiction is that taking the most aggressive personal measures to 'get off the grid' and dissociate from modern capitalism now would not only do nothing to prevent a drastic decrease in one's living standards by the time today's leaders are all dead, but it will decrease one's living standards in the short and medium term. One would have to be a serious prepper or anarchist type to be living now how one would expect life to be in the fallen world of the future.
At a basic level too, the people do have an entitlement for their lives not to be ruined by mismanagement. I think that's in most social contracts and other political philosophies.
(Note that these figures are upwardly-obsolete if Africa isn't assisted in developing itself without heavy reliance on coal and petroleum)
11-19-2021, 23:53
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Seems Canada has been having a problem. Not the wildfires, the more immediate problem is, from what I hear, that the primary road and rail arteries connecting the two coasts have been severed by natural disaster.
The indulgence of our lives
Has cast a shadow on our world
Our devotion to our appetites
Betrayed us all
An apocalyptic plight
More destruction will unfold
Mother Earth will show her darker side
And take her toll
It's just another way to die
There can be no other reason why
You know we should have seen it coming.
Consequences we cannot deny
Will be revealed in time
Glaciers melt as we pollute the sky
A sign of devastation coming
We don't need another way to die
Will we repent in time?
The time bomb is ticking
And no one is listening.
Our future is fading
Is there any hope we'll survive?
Still, we ravage the world that we love
And the millions cry out to be saved
Our endless maniacal appetite
Left us with another way to die
It's just another way to die
Ooh can we repent in time?
Greed and hunger led to our demise
A path I can't believe we followed
Black agendas rooted in a lie
Ooh can we repent in time?
Species fall before our very eyes
A world they cannot survive in
Left them with another way to die
Are we dead inside?
The time bomb is ticking
And no one is listening
Our future is fading
Is there any hope we'll survive?
Still, we ravage the world that we love
And the millions cry out to be saved
Our endless maniacal appetite
Left us with another way to die
It's just another way to die
Still, we ravage the world that we love
And the millions cry out to be saved
Our endless maniacal appetite
Left us with another way to die
It's just another way to die
Ooh can we repent in time?
It's just another way to die
Ooh can we repent in time?
It's just another way to die
Can we repent in time?
09-09-2022, 01:58
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Can someone explain to me why so many European governments have basically refused to look beyond oil, gas, coal, and anything else combustible in favor of wind, solar, geo, hydro? What we have here is a failure to invest. Europe contains some of the most progressive and the most regressive (de facto) governments on decarbonization; Europe is a land of contrasts.
09-09-2022, 08:50
Furunculus
Re: Climate Change Thread
"Can someone explain to me why so many European governments have basically refused to look beyond oil, gas, coal, and anything else combustible in favor of wind, solar, geo, hydro?"
Nuclear - a strange confluence between the anti-nuclear movement and the watermelons of european politics.
Gas (Shale) - the watermelons of european politics would rather import brown coal than sully themsleves extracting lower-carbon fracking products.
Wind - it is widely deployed in many viable places, but obviously the baseload problem.
Solar - it is widely used, but we have a population density problem that reduces opportunity compared to the States.
Geo - there aren't that many places where its viable, most of europe's interior and periphery is geologically ancient/dead.
Hydro - again, there aren't that many sites where it is viable, tho companies like Rheenergise are looking to expand this with clever methods.
09-09-2022, 09:03
spmetla
Re: Climate Change Thread
Not to mention the major problem with solar, wind, and hydro is the inability to 'store' or scale power on demand. Hydro with the current droughts certainly showed a major limitation. Geothermal should be a huge industry and I find it kinda bonkers that Italy isn't tapping in all around Mount Etna and Vesuvius to route/sell power to everyone north of them.
Solar and Wind can generate MWs of excess power if done right but where to store it for periods of reduced sun and wind? Great as supplements to temp the effects of things like A/C especially but not as the primaries means of power.
Hydro and Geothermal supplemented by the other green energies for peak hours can work but for large scale energy hogs like European cities nuclear is the best solution for most of Europe but yeah, that's not gonna happen. Too much fear and ignorance.
09-09-2022, 10:05
rory_20_uk
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"Can someone explain to me why so many European governments have basically refused to look beyond oil, gas, coal, and anything else combustible in favor of wind, solar, geo, hydro?"
Nuclear - a strange confluence between the anti-nuclear movement and the watermelons of european politics.
Gas (Shale) - the watermelons of european politics would rather import brown coal than sully themsleves extracting lower-carbon fracking products.
Wind - it is widely deployed in many viable places, but obviously the baseload problem.
Solar - it is widely used, but we have a population density problem that reduces opportunity compared to the States.
Geo - there aren't that many places where its viable, most of europe's interior and periphery is geologically ancient/dead.
Hydro - again, there aren't that many sites where it is viable, tho companies like Rheenergise are looking to expand this with clever methods.
Nuclear - would be OK if they didn't delay for so many decades. It's taken so long I hope - not much hope - that we'd wait for molten salt reactors which melt rather than explode. China (and belatedly the USA) is relooking into this from the c. 1950's
Gas - mainly a storage issue and a failure to have long term supply contracts with other countries - Qatar told Germany in the 1990s to get LNG from then and Germany said no - and apparently they have found it cheaper to have the gas stored in Russia rather than locally. I doubt they were the only country. The UK allowed Centrica to mothball our only storage facility not so long ago.
Solar - getting both cheaper and more efficient by the year with a 90% drop in cost in the last decade alone. There are prototypes that can be used in windows to both lower energy for AC and harvest some of that; can also be used on fields alongside crops if done right. Southern Europe should be coated in the stuff - finally something they can sell without having to do any work!
Geo - newer techniques - IF they can scale from initial prototypes - could enable deep enough holes in most places. So new geo holes could be built near coal / gas plants to switch where the hot liquid comes from.
Hydro - there's tidal, wave and undersea current. Tidal is very few places - and the Bristol channel is one that should have been done 50 years ago but oh that's right there are some birds there at the moment... FFS. Wave always seems to be the hope and I've seen some artificial blow holes that seem to work so fingers crossed - the energy density of the sea wrecks most harvesters too quickly. Undersea currents are taking place in Scotland and due to the energy density of water compared to air could provide a massive amount of energy and work almost everywhere there's a sea.
Storage is always the main problem. For that there are currently a myriad types of batteries - some that only really work at scale like thermal batteries, liquid metal batteries and sodium batteries. There are also bidirectional car chargers so electric cards can be used for a very large, distributed battery.
If Europe had viewed energy dependency as a National Security matter which it clearly is and invested some of the Defence billions into it - and frankly investment would still help - things would be done... quicker.
Why we give billions to NASA / ESA etc to get nicer piccies of something light years away rather than cheaper, cleaner power I do not know. Tech should be retasked to use in pace rather than pretending that by spending a vast sum of money in space we might get some things we can retask to earth.
~:smoking:
09-09-2022, 12:19
Furunculus
Re: Climate Change Thread
I am very optimistic about the small modular reactors from Rolls Royce, both as a technology for rapid adoption in the UK but also as an enormous export opportunity.
And I do think that technologies like Rheenergise above have the potential to solve the 'grid-battery' problem that large adoption of wind and solar creates.
Sand batteries are also very promising, but only for countries that make substantial use of district heating or large amounts of thermal intensive industry.
09-11-2022, 07:11
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"Can someone explain to me why so many European governments have basically refused to look beyond oil, gas, coal, and anything else combustible in favor of wind, solar, geo, hydro?"
Nuclear - a strange confluence between the anti-nuclear movement and the watermelons of european politics.
Gas (Shale) - the watermelons of european politics would rather import brown coal than sully themsleves extracting lower-carbon fracking products.
Wind - it is widely deployed in many viable places, but obviously the baseload problem.
Solar - it is widely used, but we have a population density problem that reduces opportunity compared to the States.
Geo - there aren't that many places where its viable, most of europe's interior and periphery is geologically ancient/dead.
Hydro - again, there aren't that many sites where it is viable, tho companies like Rheenergise are looking to expand this with clever methods.
I wish Samurai were still around. This is an issue of long-term choices in development and energy strategy over decades. Wind, solar, and hydro are still far underutilized compared to their native (regional) potential - I do understand Switzerland and Portugal have different profiles - and geo has always been overlooked, particularly in the form of Enhanced and Advanced Geothermal Systems (artificial wells), which are not some exotic technology: the Netherlands already uses them to power its high-tech and ultra-productive greenhouses, and Germany and France have experimented at small scale. This is a different technology than accessing magma circulation at the crust. We go deeper. All of Europe could in not-distant principle utilize wells economically at 2 to 10 kilometers' depth, and this alone would substitute for all existing natural gas needs.
Geothermal technology in energy markets remains at the developmental stage of still being almost wholly reliant on direct state subsidy, providing a good comparison point to wind and solar, which have become economical in their own right in just the past five years. We really should have aimed to arrive at the current stage no later than 2010, to reap the benefits by 2020.
Instead *much* - there is incredible variation, or even mixed records, between and within countries - of Europe persistently reaches around for anything it can burn, burn. Always something to burn in the Eastern European backyard. This is a durable political choice in the search for market stability and a comprehensively-failed one. We should all be angry about it. Frankly, the 2010s OPEC production glut, plus the short-lived fracking boom in the US/Ukraine (halted by the first war), were the greatest tricks the fossil fuel industry could have played at such a critical juncture, besides all the lying and corruption and skulduggery.
One would also smirk at the notion of space constraint for solar or wind relative to the very finite space occupied by the remnants of the primeval European forest. European lifestyles can't run on old-growth wood.
[I realize I'm not being completely fair to Europe, since the worm does turn: Germany has already reached 50% renewables in power consumption, and this year unveiled a target of 100% by 2035. But the point is long-standing, and biomass remains a dead end under the rubric of renewables.]
Quote:
obviously the baseload problem.
This is really not so much of a problem anymore, and could have been much less of one with that, you know, concerted investment over decades undergirded by the premise that we can't burn our way to paradise.
I read that EU currently has about 1 terawatt of generation capacity installed, of which a quarter is already wind capacity alone (although this figure might include UK?). As of last year 20% of the Earth's energy mix was wind or solar. When's it time to stop farting around?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Not to mention the major problem with solar, wind, and hydro is the inability to 'store' or scale power on demand. Hydro with the current droughts certainly showed a major limitation. Geothermal should be a huge industry and I find it kinda bonkers that Italy isn't tapping in all around Mount Etna and Vesuvius to route/sell power to everyone north of them.
Solar and Wind can generate MWs of excess power if done right but where to store it for periods of reduced sun and wind?
As of 2021 more than 20% of all electricity generation on the planet was wind/solar. A fifth. There's no reason we couldn't have been on track for 50% or more by 2020 - we just didn't prioritize it since 1990. A target of 90+% renewable could have been complemented by a mix of nuclear and load-following gas for the final transition atop a basic storage framework.
As I was getting at above, by now speaking of baseload power as an unsolved or unsolvable problem is no better than treating nuclear waste storage as such. The baseload concept of an always-generating source targeted to a predetermined minimum supply of power is becoming obsolete. Even if we don't consider nuclear, we need:
1. Geographically-distributed overcapacity in solar/wind.
2. Mid-load (load following) or dispatchable generation (can include final transitional gas)
3. Energy sinks during periods of overproduction to manage peak load (either grid batteries or uneconomically-high-input industry or infra that operates only intermittently)
And as ACIN once said, the appetite for nuclear is best reframed in terms of a post-transition expansion fuel to maximize potential energy supply well beyond concurrent demand patterns. Excess energy, especially from "free" sources like most renewables, is good. Cheap and bountiful energy is good for civilization, and cheap energy carries far fewer externalities and perverse incentives when it is non-combustive by source.
Anyone who tells ya this hasn't been achievable already is a dirry liar. The current absence of such an arrangement at scale is just a failure of policy and politics, and not an optional one like colonizing Jupiter's moons or what-have-you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If Europe had viewed energy dependency as a National Security matter which it clearly is and invested some of the Defence billions into it - and frankly investment would still help - things would be done... quicker.
Good summary. The US Department of Defense has been publishing for a few years already that energy independence is a national security concern. I know this is always a better sales pitch in the US than in Europe, but maybe it will find more rhetorical purchase with European publics now.
Quote:
Why we give billions to NASA / ESA etc to get nicer piccies of something light years away rather than cheaper, cleaner power I do not know. Tech should be retasked to use in pace rather than pretending that by spending a vast sum of money in space we might get some things we can retask to earth.
You're neglecting that the very well-documented trickle effects of space tech research apply to energy storage? That's like one of the fundamental obstacles anything leaving the atmosphere for a good spell has to overcome. The reapplication of space research is not a pretense, it's the historical norm and the source of countless technologies in everyday use, big and small. There has probably never been investment with a higher return rate than public space programs. A few tens of billions annually for some of the greatest returns on investment of all time. We could have easily afforded even more tens of billions both for space programs and for clean energy development, both with concrete long-term targets - we just didn't want to in the age of Pangloss (global neoliberalism).
Now everything is accountable to acceleration during this decade.
09-26-2022, 23:00
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
NASA asteroid deflection test livestreamed at this very moment of posting:
The probe masses 500 kg and the asteroid maybe 2 billion kg, so it won't get moved much (maybe 0.4 mm/s), but it should change the orbital period by 10 minutes. That's why they're going to a binary asteroid pair - the period change is the only way to see the effect.
This mission also tries out some other cool tech:
- Solar panels with little mirrors on them to reflect more light onto the cells, called the Transformational Solar Array. 3X less weight for the same power! It actually unrolls in space.
- Electronics built in a radiation-hardened FPGA that can implement any circuits at all. They built a big camera onto it, DRACO, that will guide it right into the middle of the asteroid. They can actually modify the electronics in-flight. This will useful for all space tech.
- An ion rocket that uses xenon as a fuel, that gives you far more thrust for a given weight.
