Climate Change Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Isn't this why we should try to stop growing? At some future point it will have to happen anyway unless we want to ruin the planet in other ways or just wait until we actually run out of food.
There's also a yellowish-red fusion reactor that sends energy to us all the time for the next few million years or so, then we have this other cosmic friend that moves the entire water of the oceans around all the time...

I think we have plenty of natural energy sources, we just need to begin to use them. Some of the technology was already in development before WW1, that the change is a lot harder now is entirely our fault for focusing on the wrong tech all the time without thinking about the consequences. We can't realistically expect to use fossil fuels for the next 200 years even if there were no warming effects, we'll simply run out...

Efforts to curtail growth in human societies have always had a strong negative backlash on one level or another. Growing our way out of this problem is not going to be a volume growth effort, it will have to involve advancement in several areas of energy production. Yes that means we will have to make more of solar, geothermal and nuclear powers -- but the amount of power being used cannot be curtailed enough to make a difference without a world dictatorship plunging 90% of the planet into an agrarian existence. We could reduce emissions to zero tomorrow and STILL have to adapt to a warmer planet and different sea levels which will persist for a substantial period of time. And you are well aware that that kind of radicalized solution won't happen.

And we currently produce enough food to feed the entire global population 1.4 times despite numerous sub-optimal production efforts (not that the food gets to the right spots mind you, just that it is made).

[Husar]

Efforts to curtail growth in human societies have always had a strong negative backlash on one level or another. Growing our way out of this problem is not going to be a volume growth effort, it will have to involve advancement in several areas of energy production. Yes that means we will have to make more of solar, geothermal and nuclear powers -- but the amount of power being used cannot be curtailed enough to make a difference without a world dictatorship plunging 90% of the planet into an agrarian existence. We could reduce emissions to zero tomorrow and STILL have to adapt to a warmer planet and different sea levels which will persist for a substantial period of time. And you are well aware that that kind of radicalized solution won't happen.

And we currently produce enough food to feed the entire global population 1.4 times despite numerous sub-optimal production efforts (not that the food gets to the right spots mind you, just that it is made).

I'm thinking long-term. If you say growth cannot be stopped then I ask you what happens at 50 or 100 billion humans on this planet?
I'm pretty sure at that point it won't be pleasant anymore regardless of how much the ecenomy has grown.
A smaller groth etc. could also be incentivized, e.g. by cutting all the child benefits from the second child on and so on. But even for governments there is no incentive in most cases because population means power, growth of the economy and so on. And so everything grows, even that which shouldn't.

That we have to adapt to a warmer planet is correct, but rather a 2°C warmer planet than one 10°C warmer.

As for nuclear energy, you already mentioned that the storage of spent fuel is quite problematic, especially in the long term again. You wouldn't really want some of it to spill into the ground water when your grand grandchildren are alive, would you? It is possible that the storage sites will have to at least be monitored and maintained to some extent for the next few hundred thousand of years. And in the really long term, the fuel is also limited, even more so if we increase use by a large margin.

I was also wondering whether centralized power production is really that great if you consider this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ather-threats/

The 2008 National Academy of Sciences report said power outages after an extreme solar storm could last months or longer, since transformers take a long time to replace.

Perhaps more local power assets would not be damaged as much or could be replaced faster, e.g. by the community having replacements around at all times, whereas this is not economical for corporations. A power outage for more than a month may already lead to a large catastrophe as people would run out of food and suppliers could become unable to supply enough and so on. Almost makes me want to become a doomsday prepper...

Either way it is interesting how much we rely on the availability of electricity these days and how little we seem to have in terms of safeguards should it break down in a catastrophic event. A local emergency power production wouldn't even have to cover all the needs, just enough to continue using refrigerators and some electric ovens to cook. If such energy is provided by renewables, it also provides "free" energy (in terms of fuel cost) when the grid is operational in a normal way. That is one of the reasons I think we should plaster the planet with renewables and advance research in that field as well.

Even for corporations renewables offer interesting investment opportunities such as desertec (and comparable projects), off-shore wind parks and tidal power. Of course the investments can be huge early on, but in the end you get the benefit of not having any fuel costs whatsoever, because the fuel is already plentiful in the sky, sending the energy down for free.

[edyzmedieval]

Just want to point out that particularly wind power has been on the upsurge, so much so that investments in this domain have to be carefully considered, given that for example in the UK the generated power exceeded the demand of the consumers, leading the government to essentially pay off the owners/operators of the wind turbines to not produce electricity any more.

Bloomberg article outlining this record payout to wind farms.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-to-wind-farms

[Husar]

I think similar things happened in Germany, where the energy produced by renewables exceeded consumption. AFAIK that's not a regular occurence so far though. Would be nice if it were though.

I would also like to know whether base power plants such as NPPs were turned off, but I guess not, which makes it likely that renewables AND NPPs etc. produced more than the demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ewable_sources

This list shows that many smaller countries cover most or all of their power needs with renewables, Costa Rica managed to get 100% of its power from renewables in 2015.
Some notable ones (rounded down):
USA + Netherlands: 12%
France: 17%
China: 21%
UK: 22%
Germany: 32%
North Korea: 71%
Brazil: 83%

[edyzmedieval]

Denmark in 2015 managed to get in some unusually windy day 140% of its daily power needs from renewables. EU country, good infrastructure, a lot of investments in renewables - particularly wind turbines (North Sea) - so all of that was done through renewable energy.

They plan to -

A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tricity-demand

[Husar]

Denmark has 5.6 million inhabitants, Norway is similar and I think is shown with 98% or thereabouts in Wikipedia.

What I find more impressive is when countries with 50 million or more inhabitants reach 50%+ renewable electric energy.
Helps if they have some industry as well. And even then it probably doesn't mean all their cars run on renewable energy.

WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO!

[Sigurd]

WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO!

This... it is the question we really should focus on. What are you doing to help the climate?

Complaining about those around us is counter productive. Scolding, berating or complaining about people's "normal life" is destroying the planet, creates opposition and anti-movements. They we need to be led by carrot to a better way of living reducing our negative imprint on the environment.

When we start to do small things - it will not individually matter much globally - but we are pack animals and will follow those who lead.
Here there is an explosion in the electric car marked. It started with the eco-fundies and then the government followed up with carrots (free parking, free ferries, free road tolls, allowed to drive in public transport lanes etc.) then Tesla and increased road tolls and temporary ban of diesel cars on winter days...
I have discarded my diesel for an e-golf and charge it at home with waterfall based energy.