4 ms·

Build renewable generation to stop releasing GHGs - this technology is affordable, ready and is likely in the medium term to be alot cheaper than running the ol

Build renewable generation to stop releasing GHGs - this technology is affordable, ready and is likely in the medium term to be alot cheaper than running the old plants. Its no where near necessary to "cover this planet with solar panels and wind farms" that is "decade+ old" mis-information. Large scale aforestation can take a great deal of CO2 out of atmosphere and simultaneously help endangered and degraded wildlife, and help people visit and work within biophilic surroundings. Large scale afforestation is advised by the IPCC. Geoengineering may well be necessary, we will see as things turn out but strong technological knowledge exists for this also. Ocean seeding, atmospheric aerosols, - langrange point "sun shade" construction... these possibilities should be researched and may need to be implemented at scale, but as IPCC advises they are secondary to reducing emissions - which we DO have the technology ready and improving still. I dont regard that 2014 article you linked as representing reality well, its a five year old editorialisation - a magazine conversation piece not a sober or reviewed analysis. Since 2014 cost of wind and solar have dropped, almost in half.

robomartin 7y ago
> Build renewable generation to stop releasing GHGs No. Because building renewable generation will produce more GHG's than you are going to "stop producing". Manufacturing isn't a clean process, particularly when you consider that most of the "build renewable generation" will more than likely happen in China, the worst possible locale in terms of GHG generation. Reforestation is, without a doubt, important. However, a sense of scale is important here. You need somewhere over ONE TRILLION trees in order to counter the effects of ten years of CO2 emissions. This, BTW, assumes we plant trees everywhere possible on earth. The research comes from ETH Zurich. I don't think you took the time to read the article I posted. This isn't some lightweight magazine conversation maker. This was written by people who came into the project KNOWING that renewable energy sources were the solution and wanted to show the world this to be the case. Instead they discovered they were wrong. If you think this has no merit I would suggest contacting the researchers to explain how you are right and they are wrong. The hubris here is to pretend that we can magically change the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 reduction from a historical (800,000 years of data) rate of 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 or even 100 years. That is preposterous at best. The kind of energy and resources that would be necessary to achieve this rate of change acceleration as well as the waste product that massive undertaking would produce is far more likely to kill us all than "save the planet". This does NOT mean we should not deploy clean energy or engage in aggressive reforestation. Not at all. What it means is that we need to stop lying about why we are doing it. We are not going to make even a dent on atmospheric CO2 accumulation through any of these means. Not possible. Here's the question nobody ever wants to answer: Without humanity on this planet (at our current scale) and all of our technology (power plants, transportation, etc.) it took the planet some 50,000 years to reduce CO2 by 100 ppm. We have highly accurate data on this going back 800,000 years. Compare these two scenarios: 1- No humanity. No factories, power plants, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, deforestation, etc. Without ANY of that in place it took an average of 50,000 years to drop 100 ppm. 3- Humanity in full force. Factories, power plants, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, deforestation, etc. And all we do is switch to "clean" energy and do some reforestation (say, 25% of what was los). And THAT is going to change the rate of reduction from 50,000 years to 50 years for 100 ppm? How? In the one case we do not even exist. In the other we make token improvements to how clean we might be. How is that magically going to save the planet in 50 years, or 100, or even 1,000? You see, it's fine to talk about generalizations: Renewable energy, reforestation, geoengineering. Good stuff. And yet nobody stops to explain how that stuff is going to, not only do better, but actually reverse the trend when compared to a scenario where the entirety of humanity does not exist on this planet. It's like an alcoholic switching to three bottles per day to just two. Valiant effort, but pointless. That is the inconvenient truth, isn't it?
- strainer 7y ago
  > building renewable generation will produce more GHG's than you are going to "stop producing". Manufacturing isn't a clean process Production of renewables certainly does not produce more GHGs than are saved. You must be following poor articles and sources of advice on the matter if you believe this. The matter is well studied and documented. If you wish to get really emphatically critical about these matters in general, you need to respect or at least deal with the IPCCs research and policy advice. It is folly to write passionately about renewable energy tech otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...
  - robomartin 7y ago
    Brother, all you have to do is load a few container ships with solar panels headed to the US and Europe from China and your panels have now produced more CO2 than you will ever save. Bunker fuel is horrific stuff. See, that’s the problem, the cult of renewables loves to ignore reality. You have to look at the entire supply and distribution chain as well as installation, support and maintenance. Again, that’s not to say solar isn’t useful —I installed 13 kW at my house— it just isn’t going to save the world.
    - strainer 7y ago
      Sure shipping diesel is bad, but have you made that calculation? Where does the idea come from? You believe the IPCC ignore/hide transportation and other factors from the EROI calculcations to the degree they are essentially fictitious? Here[1] someone answers a question says their container ship, the "M V Dubai Crown" consumed 45 metric tonnes of fuel a day sailing: It can carry about 50 thousand tonnes of cargo (thats its "deadweight tonnage" figure [2]). Container ship travel time from Huagzu to New york: 30 days [3] So, 45 * 30 = 1350 metric tonnes of oil - for the shipping of say 30,000 tonnes of solar panels from China to US. Thats 30k/1.35k = 22 tonnes of panels per tonne of oil. Or 22 kilos of panels per kilo of oil. A spend of _1 kilo_ of oil, at legacy shipping efficiency (see also [4]) to ship _22 kilos_ of panels. So... a residential solar panel weights about 40 pounds - say 20 kilos [5] That's about 1 kilo of shipping oil per PANEL. _You_ are professing the argument of cult - something sounds wise so say it, no workings, no references. _You_ are led a merry dance on a wisecrack. But its even not merry, its nihilistic - you've got your panels anyway right, ready for the inevitable doom. Pull your socks up brother. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-does-a-medium-sized-bulk-carrier-ship-use-in-a-year https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-does-a-medium-sized-bulk... [2] https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/ShipTonnage/1932-06-28-ShipTonnageExplained.html https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/ShipTonnage/1932-06-28-... [3] https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-a-cargo-ship-to-go-from-China-to-USA https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-a-cargo-ship... [4] https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/18194/maersk-takes-tangable-step-towards-decarbonisation-of-ocean-shipping/ https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/18194/maersk-takes-tang... [5] https://news.energysage.com/average-solar-panel-size-weight/ https://news.energysage.com/average-solar-panel-size-weight/

robomartin 7y ago

> Build renewable generation to stop releasing GHGs No. Because building renewable generation will produce more GHG's than you are going to "stop producing". Manufacturing isn't a clean process, particularly when you consider that most of the "build renewable generation" will more than likely happen in China, the worst possible locale in terms of GHG generation. Reforestation is, without a doubt, important. However, a sense of scale is important here. You need somewhere over ONE TRILLION trees in order to counter the effects of ten years of CO2 emissions. This, BTW, assumes we plant trees everywhere possible on earth. The research comes from ETH Zurich. I don't think you took the time to read the article I posted. This isn't some lightweight magazine conversation maker. This was written by people who came into the project KNOWING that renewable energy sources were the solution and wanted to show the world this to be the case. Instead they discovered they were wrong. If you think this has no merit I would suggest contacting the researchers to explain how you are right and they are wrong. The hubris here is to pretend that we can magically change the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 reduction from a historical (800,000 years of data) rate of 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 or even 100 years. That is preposterous at best. The kind of energy and resources that would be necessary to achieve this rate of change acceleration as well as the waste product that massive undertaking would produce is far more likely to kill us all than "save the planet". This does NOT mean we should not deploy clean energy or engage in aggressive reforestation. Not at all. What it means is that we need to stop lying about why we are doing it. We are not going to make even a dent on atmospheric CO2 accumulation through any of these means. Not possible. Here's the question nobody ever wants to answer: Without humanity on this planet (at our current scale) and all of our technology (power plants, transportation, etc.) it took the planet some 50,000 years to reduce CO2 by 100 ppm. We have highly accurate data on this going back 800,000 years. Compare these two scenarios: 1- No humanity. No factories, power plants, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, deforestation, etc. Without ANY of that in place it took an average of 50,000 years to drop 100 ppm. 3- Humanity in full force. Factories, power plants, planes, trains, automobiles, ships, deforestation, etc. And all we do is switch to "clean" energy and do some reforestation (say, 25% of what was los). And THAT is going to change the rate of reduction from 50,000 years to 50 years for 100 ppm? How? In the one case we do not even exist. In the other we make token improvements to how clean we might be. How is that magically going to save the planet in 50 years, or 100, or even 1,000? You see, it's fine to talk about generalizations: Renewable energy, reforestation, geoengineering. Good stuff. And yet nobody stops to explain how that stuff is going to, not only do better, but actually reverse the trend when compared to a scenario where the entirety of humanity does not exist on this planet. It's like an alcoholic switching to three bottles per day to just two. Valiant effort, but pointless. That is the inconvenient truth, isn't it?

strainer 7y ago
> building renewable generation will produce more GHG's than you are going to "stop producing". Manufacturing isn't a clean process Production of renewables certainly does not produce more GHGs than are saved. You must be following poor articles and sources of advice on the matter if you believe this. The matter is well studied and documented. If you wish to get really emphatically critical about these matters in general, you need to respect or at least deal with the IPCCs research and policy advice. It is folly to write passionately about renewable energy tech otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...
- robomartin 7y ago
  Brother, all you have to do is load a few container ships with solar panels headed to the US and Europe from China and your panels have now produced more CO2 than you will ever save. Bunker fuel is horrific stuff. See, that’s the problem, the cult of renewables loves to ignore reality. You have to look at the entire supply and distribution chain as well as installation, support and maintenance. Again, that’s not to say solar isn’t useful —I installed 13 kW at my house— it just isn’t going to save the world.
  - strainer 7y ago
    Sure shipping diesel is bad, but have you made that calculation? Where does the idea come from? You believe the IPCC ignore/hide transportation and other factors from the EROI calculcations to the degree they are essentially fictitious? Here[1] someone answers a question says their container ship, the "M V Dubai Crown" consumed 45 metric tonnes of fuel a day sailing: It can carry about 50 thousand tonnes of cargo (thats its "deadweight tonnage" figure [2]). Container ship travel time from Huagzu to New york: 30 days [3] So, 45 * 30 = 1350 metric tonnes of oil - for the shipping of say 30,000 tonnes of solar panels from China to US. Thats 30k/1.35k = 22 tonnes of panels per tonne of oil. Or 22 kilos of panels per kilo of oil. A spend of _1 kilo_ of oil, at legacy shipping efficiency (see also [4]) to ship _22 kilos_ of panels. So... a residential solar panel weights about 40 pounds - say 20 kilos [5] That's about 1 kilo of shipping oil per PANEL. _You_ are professing the argument of cult - something sounds wise so say it, no workings, no references. _You_ are led a merry dance on a wisecrack. But its even not merry, its nihilistic - you've got your panels anyway right, ready for the inevitable doom. Pull your socks up brother. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-does-a-medium-sized-bulk-carrier-ship-use-in-a-year https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-does-a-medium-sized-bulk... [2] https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/ShipTonnage/1932-06-28-ShipTonnageExplained.html https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/ShipTonnage/1932-06-28-... [3] https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-a-cargo-ship-to-go-from-China-to-USA https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-a-cargo-ship... [4] https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/18194/maersk-takes-tangable-step-towards-decarbonisation-of-ocean-shipping/ https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/18194/maersk-takes-tang... [5] https://news.energysage.com/average-solar-panel-size-weight/ https://news.energysage.com/average-solar-panel-size-weight/