UN says “No credible pathway” and “woefully inadequate” to stop global 1.5C

Post by gitfan86 » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #94

doublerabbit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. What lie exactly? Scotland had produced enough to power itself twice on Wind alone. [1] How is nuclear a better alternative than Wind or Hydro when - Nuclear is extremely dangerous with toxic waste needing special storage facilities. Criminal & Environmental contamination risks. - Disaste…

>What lie exactly? Scotland is producing enough to power Scotland twice itself on Wind alone. No they aren't. This is at best misleading, at worst, a blatant lie. What is happening is that on days with strong winds, they are overproducing wind energy but ONLY at certain times of the day. When they overproduce this energy, they cannot store it for later (because there is no battery technology today, or in the near-to-…

Post by zzzeek » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

ElectronCharge wrote: post #88

zzzeek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

other than the giant one staring at us 93 million miles away beaming massive amounts of energy directly at us all day, fusion reactors otherwise don't exist. Maybe not throw away all the other approaches until they do?

Solar and wind have many issues. Intermittency, the need for rare earths, and low energy density leading to ecological impact are some. It’s also under-recognized that as those technologies are built out beyond a few percent of global power, supply issues will likely lead to large cost increases and potential scarcity. Then there’s the waste/recycling problem, which is worse than nuclear. I also was clear that fusion…

Post by HPsquared » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

jansan wrote: post #86

macspoofing wrote: post #70

There is no chance of removing existing CO2 from Air to make any sort of difference. There is no chance of meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions, because outside of Nuclear (and hydro/geothermal but only if you have the geography for it) there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. We lost 50 years of greatly reduced emissions had nucle…

To the German Green party, who indulges itself in blaming everyone but itself for all kinds of problems in the world, there is only one thing that is worse than global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

jamescostian wrote: post #90

lapcat wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> buying single-use goods over and over is cheaper short-term than buying something made to last Do you have examples of these — single-use goods that are contributing to global warming and that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people — or in general, any empirical evidence that poor people are following this economic strategy, thereby contributing to global warming? There's often a huge d…

I think you've misunderstood my position. You mention: > that poor people are buying over and over, more so than wealthier people Not only is this a line of argument I disagree with, I even explicitly said I disagreed with it in this part of the comment you are replying to: >> I think the idea is that if more people were middle-class, we'd see consumers make better choices (personally, I don't see that happening with…

Post by dontreact » Thu, Oct 27, 2022, 3:03 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #101

eloff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can build solar or wind plus some energy storage or long distance transmission to even it out for less than the price of nuclear and with income beginning quickly, not after 10 years. By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Far from being a lie, we're in danger of them becoming the only game in town, for better or worse. Nuclear had so much p…

>By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise. Yes, it will take decades to restart large scale nuclear projects. So we lost more than 50 years. With Solar/Wind it's not a question of cost or ROI. Solar/wind, as an intermittent and diffuse energy source, CANNOT power a modern economy. It needs base-load.