21–30 of 241 posts
Lots of assumptions baked in here. Chief among them is that renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. If you look at the charts, this is pretty unlikely since the renewables trend is a consistent exponential increase year over year while the demand curve is very lumpy and mostly linear when averaged. Next is the assumption that renewables have to be deployed at grid scale, with the mate…
I don't see any possibility of the required power generation capability being built. Even if the economic resources were made available, which is at least plausible in the abstract, the irrational politics around nuclear power in the developed world would guarantee that there would be little actual progress.
Constructively addressing climate change means massively increasing power generation capacity as a primary input. Given the ample evidence that this is not politically achievable, I think it is fair to call pessimism "realism".
> The modern world is deeply addicted to fossil fuels and green energy is no substitute. Am I wrong? Maybe not, but what would you suggest we do otherwise?
“A global population strategy to enable a smooth descent to the two to three billion that could live comfortably indefinitely within the biophysical means of nature.“
Same ‘ole Club of Rome, population control policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Click to the next article: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/12/Climate-Crisis-Realis...
...where he effectively advocates to curb economic and population growth. Even if it was desirable, which it is not, it is never going to happen. For the sort of order of magnitude of decarbonisation that is required to meet the climate change requirement, not only to provide the current energy but future growth too, there isn't really any realistic solution other than nuclear energy.
Lots of assumptions baked in here. Chief among them is that renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. If you look at the charts, this is pretty unlikely since the renewables trend is a consistent exponential increase year over year while the demand curve is very lumpy and mostly linear when averaged. Next is the assumption that renewables have to be deployed at grid scale, with the mate…
Does renewable deployment cover new energy demand as well as the fossil fuels we are supposed not to use anymore?
> renewables deployments are offsetting dirtier production methods
Renewables take their toll on the environment too. Batteries and solar panels need fossil fuels for their production, and the mining of rare metals is an extremely polluting industry (and often delocalized in countries with little regulations).
> If you look at the charts
The charts I looked at suggested that there will be both an energy and an environmental crisis.
It's very hard to argue over this topic as all we can do is cite experts. Maybe I'm attracted to the most pessimistic authors? where to look to have the scientific consensus on this matter?
When the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flip negative, and the deep, multi-decade solar minimum we are about to enter kicks in (it already has begun), we will see temps lower globally (and especially in the northern hemisphere). But of course, with this, we will be dealing with a set of problems much more difficult than warming. Warming is good for crops and humanity. Cold tempe…
The world oscillates. It has so for a long, long time. We should stop polluting not with some agenda to think we'll have an effect on global temperature, but to stop poisoning ourselves.
The crux of the matter is that we need to drive thermodynamics backward at planetary scale. This is a fancy way of saying that we need to increase electricity generation by an integer factor beyond current global demand without producing net CO2. The list of existing energy sources capable of scaling like this that don't rely on burning carbon is extremely short: nuclear fission. I don't see any possibility of the re…
Lots of assumptions baked in here. Chief among them is that renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. If you look at the charts, this is pretty unlikely since the renewables trend is a consistent exponential increase year over year while the demand curve is very lumpy and mostly linear when averaged. Next is the assumption that renewables have to be deployed at grid scale, with the mate…
However, the developing locations have the much larger populations.
If you run short of energy in january in many boreal areas (like Moscow or Bismark), and suddenly can't heat your home, you could face a serious danger of death. Gaz and electricity are a must. Same for Mojave or Death Valley if you can't use electricity to keep the temperature in acceptable limits.
There is a limit on how much the developped countries could lower their "lifestyle" (needs of energy) to get closer to the energy requirements of developping countries, just because winter here can be really harsh.
Hot areas (in developping and developped countries) will face the same problem but many developping countries in tropical areas would not have this problem (even if they could have other serious problems to solve, like the monsoon period)
The energy requirements can be very different in the different periods of the year also. If we talk about average requirements of energy that would be wrong.
Lots of assumptions baked in here. Chief among them is that renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. If you look at the charts, this is pretty unlikely since the renewables trend is a consistent exponential increase year over year while the demand curve is very lumpy and mostly linear when averaged. Next is the assumption that renewables have to be deployed at grid scale, with the mate…
> renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. Does renewable deployment cover new energy demand as well as the fossil fuels we are supposed not to use anymore? > renewables deployments are offsetting dirtier production methods Renewables take their toll on the environment too. Batteries and solar panels need fossil fuels for their production, and the mining of rare metals is an extremely…
When the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flip negative, and the deep, multi-decade solar minimum we are about to enter kicks in (it already has begun), we will see temps lower globally (and especially in the northern hemisphere). But of course, with this, we will be dealing with a set of problems much more difficult than warming. Warming is good for crops and humanity. Cold tempe…