101–110 of 166 posts
Didn't Freeman Dyson talk about this idea? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-dan...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you George Carlin?
Ah, yes, that's where I first heard that thought! Thanks, just a bit of cryptomnesia. https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4?t=144 Side note: something I've never seen before on that Youtube video: it links the Wikipedia page for climate change right under the video. An attempt to battle misleading videos perhaps?
0: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2018/07/building-better-news-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Gaia theory suggests that the world is full of these stabilizing systems. Earth may have tricks to save its ecosystem, one of them could be temporarily increase temperatures and sea levels, just enough to end humanity.
It is exceedingly unlikely that raised temperatures or sea levels would end humanity. Even if all ice melts there would still be a lot of land, and humans can and do currently survive in hot climates. The habitable zone will just shrink a bit, but it will also expand in other places. Siberia + 5 degrees is still cold.
The issue is all the parts of the ecosystem we have come to rely on. Animals, plants, insects... the entire global economy and our ways of live are tightly intertwined with everything else and even small disruptions can have enormous repercussions, especially on more vulnerable populations in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not expect that we will be able to move past fossil fuels in the next 100 years. There is simply no other source of energy with as much density and as convenient as oil. The only think we know that can rival oil is nuclear energy but it has problems of its own.
Honestly, there's a lot of stuff I'm skeptical about what will happen in the next 100 years. I don't think that fossil fuels will be a thing in 100 years though. I think we'll have something smarter figured out. Think about how much time has passed since 1918 and what we achieved in that time frame.
I really suggest watching this talk by Smil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 and if you are interested reading some books from him about energy and oil. Really insightful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not expect that we will be able to move past fossil fuels in the next 100 years. There is simply no other source of energy with as much density and as convenient as oil. The only think we know that can rival oil is nuclear energy but it has problems of its own.
All chemical energy available through coal and oil stored in the earth is the product of a massive amount of highly ineffecient capture of energy from sunlight. [0] All wind is caused directly by unequal warming of our planet through sunlight. The average hurricane individually releases more energy than entire world population has exhausted, since the dawn of time. [1] Sunlight is plenty enough. The problem is cheap,…
Also managing the lifecycle and production of these panels is another issue. And don't forget that you still need to grow crops somewhere.
Currently only less than 2 % of the energy we use comes from solar energy and 87 % comes from fossil fuels. The cost of replacing the infrastructure is enormous and there is not much incentive to do it as long as we have plenty of cheap oil (which is going to stay with us for at least another century according to estimates).
Why is it so unimaginable that we will still be using oil in 100 years? It might not be 87 % as it is today, it might be 30 % but I am very sceptical that we will be able to completely replace the infrastructure we have build in the last 200 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not expect that we will be able to move past fossil fuels in the next 100 years. There is simply no other source of energy with as much density and as convenient as oil. The only think we know that can rival oil is nuclear energy but it has problems of its own.
There is no pretense that a non-fossil fuel vehicle must have an energy density >= oil for it to be a viable alternative. A bicycle doesn't carry any energy at all and yet many people use them in place of a car.
Also, why do you mention only vehicles? 87 % of ALL the energy we use comes from fossil fuels (coal + gas + oil).
Most of what I've read lately seems to indicate climate change can't be mitigated through societal restraint at this point. I think we need to seriously approach an engineered solution akin to terraforming. I'd love to know what efforts are being made in this direction.
>we need to seriously approach an engineered solution We haven't tried the political solution yet. Since limiting carbon emissions is the cheapest and easiest solution to climate change, it would be a good start to have politicans serve the people's interest instead of the fossil fuel ones, don't you think?
Also relevant: Feeding dairy cows seaweed mitigates the amount of methane they pass. Irish famers are beginning to do this because seaweed is easy to come by in Ireland. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-seaweed-relieve-gassy-cows-dai...
Hackernews loves these articles that give some kind of hope for a magical solution to climate change. It's easier than the thought that it will require a huge concerted effort across the world and changing the habits of millions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All chemical energy available through coal and oil stored in the earth is the product of a massive amount of highly ineffecient capture of energy from sunlight. [0] All wind is caused directly by unequal warming of our planet through sunlight. The average hurricane individually releases more energy than entire world population has exhausted, since the dawn of time. [1] Sunlight is plenty enough. The problem is cheap,…
Another problem is energy density as I said. How much solar energy can you harvest from one square kilometer? I am so surprised that people just handwave this basic fundamental limits away and don't realize that we would have to build solar panels on an enormous percentage of planet for it to be able to replace fossil fuels. Also managing the lifecycle and production of these panels is another issue. And don't forget…
What are you talking about? From Elon Musk's TED talk, this is the area of solar panels required to power all of the US.
http://sustainsubstance.org/images/storage/2015-musk-bluesqu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hackernews loves these articles that give some kind of hope for a magical solution to climate change. It's easier than the thought that it will require a huge concerted effort across the world and changing the habits of millions
I don't see anyone claiming the existence of or holding their breath for a magic solution. All I see is people sharing discoveries that might contribute towards a solution. Reducing the emissions caused by cattle can be a part of the "huge concentrated effort across the world" you mentioned.
Not eating meat is however seen as too 'inconvenient' a solution, so instead someone is trying to sell seaweed fed cows as a "partial solution" where it is really more of a gimmick.
