6 ms·

This is utter nonsense. There are things that are hard to replace, but all of what you talk about is being studied by scientists extensively. Obviously not clim

This is utter nonsense. There are things that are hard to replace, but all of what you talk about is being studied by scientists extensively. Obviously not climate scientists, becasue, duh, they are experts on cimate, not on long haul shipping. But renewables are scientifically a solved problem (all the predictions on the long term technological development of renewables also turned out to be far far to conservative). For the last 10% or so you need synthetic gas for long term storage of energy, but actually with the electrification of the heating sector, it turns out that nuclear would need synthetic gas for long term storage, too, for economic reasons. Further, it is is clear that a lot of R&D is still required, but again, environmental economists have discussed in detail that the best way to incentivize the R&D spending required would have been a solid carbon tax. The problem is not the lack of solutions, the problem is the lack of political will to implement them. It's disruptive, powerful lobbies have been funding climate denialism for decades, and people are unwilling to suffer even a minimal drop in living standards in order to stop climate change. The technical hurdles are all doable, but whether we as a species can collectively act on the knowledge that we collectively have is an open question. It's the hardest question, and it's infused with ideological battles on all sides. The US can't even operate an efficient public health system. It accepts enormous inefficiencies and human suffering for ideological reasons. And that's for its own citizens. Climate change will affect the poorest countries most.

macspoofing 7y ago
>But renewables are scientifically a solved problem I don't think so. Whenever there is huge investment in solar and wind, you see a comparable investment in natural gas to bridge the intermittency issues (e.g. Germany). That isn't a solved problem. That solar and wind require huge amounts of rare earth minerals, have huge land-use requirements, and are largely unrecyclable, is not a solved problem. >For the last 10% You sure that shouldn't be the 'last 50%'? >so you need synthetic gas for long term storage of ener These discussions always seem to go this way. When presented with major challenges to large scale deployments of solar and wind, an unproven, unavailable or unworkable workaround is propsed. No, synthetic gas is not a solution, just like pumped/gravity or Li-ion storage isn't either. >The technical hurdles are all doable To be clear, this is an expression of hope for the future (after more R&D), and not reality today, correct? Today, we don't have a way to fully move off of fossil fuels. >It's disruptive, powerful lobbies have been funding climate denialism There are powerful lobbies all over the place. For example, did you know that natural gas companies are one of the biggest lobby groups for solar and wind deployments? Why is that?
- Scarblac 7y ago
  Even though all that is true, in reality our output of CO2 is still increasing. The scientific problems that remain are so far away from our current effort that the question of whether it's the last 10% or last 50% is almost irrelevant.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > Today, we don't have a way to fully move off of fossil fuels. If we are talking just electrical grid power then Sweden is 95% there on a mix of nuclear and hydro. Edit: I acknowledge that hydro only works if the geography gods have been extremely kind.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Yes! So is my home province (http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html). No point in investing in solar and wind here (but we still do because it makes people feel good) Hydro and geothermal is great if you have the right geography. Nuclear works everywhere. Places that achieved this level of carbon-free emissions always have a mix of some or all three technologies, like my province, Sweden, Costa Rica, France, and unlike Germany (which doubled down on solar and wind and Russian natural gas).
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  That's a good summary of all the arguments made by the people who denied it was happening while talking to any audience that would buy that line when they're talking to slightly more sophisticated rubes. But it's not based in facts, it's just a collection of false talking points. No one who brings up rare earth in these discussions cares about that issue. Usually they don't even understand or care why they're called rare earths. But people are still denying it's even happening, others are arguing it's a good thing so we should expect people to trot out well rehearsed lies on the proposed solutions too. I don't understand why anyone would want to do that, but again it's plainly clear that's what's happening and pretending it's not isn't going to help anything. The benefit of the doubt has been sorely abused by the "skeptics" in this matter, and now they want to be "skeptical" of the solutions to the problem they claimed didn't exist. Well mark me down as "skeptical" of these so-called skeptics. In particular this line about the evil gas lobby being behind the push for solar and wind is the most cynical lie I've heard in a long time.

macspoofing 7y ago

>But renewables are scientifically a solved problem I don't think so. Whenever there is huge investment in solar and wind, you see a comparable investment in natural gas to bridge the intermittency issues (e.g. Germany). That isn't a solved problem. That solar and wind require huge amounts of rare earth minerals, have huge land-use requirements, and are largely unrecyclable, is not a solved problem. >For the last 10% You sure that shouldn't be the 'last 50%'? >so you need synthetic gas for long term storage of ener These discussions always seem to go this way. When presented with major challenges to large scale deployments of solar and wind, an unproven, unavailable or unworkable workaround is propsed. No, synthetic gas is not a solution, just like pumped/gravity or Li-ion storage isn't either. >The technical hurdles are all doable To be clear, this is an expression of hope for the future (after more R&D), and not reality today, correct? Today, we don't have a way to fully move off of fossil fuels. >It's disruptive, powerful lobbies have been funding climate denialism There are powerful lobbies all over the place. For example, did you know that natural gas companies are one of the biggest lobby groups for solar and wind deployments? Why is that?

Scarblac 7y ago
Even though all that is true, in reality our output of CO2 is still increasing. The scientific problems that remain are so far away from our current effort that the question of whether it's the last 10% or last 50% is almost irrelevant.
keanzu 7y ago
> Today, we don't have a way to fully move off of fossil fuels. If we are talking just electrical grid power then Sweden is 95% there on a mix of nuclear and hydro. Edit: I acknowledge that hydro only works if the geography gods have been extremely kind.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Yes! So is my home province (http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html). No point in investing in solar and wind here (but we still do because it makes people feel good) Hydro and geothermal is great if you have the right geography. Nuclear works everywhere. Places that achieved this level of carbon-free emissions always have a mix of some or all three technologies, like my province, Sweden, Costa Rica, France, and unlike Germany (which doubled down on solar and wind and Russian natural gas).
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
That's a good summary of all the arguments made by the people who denied it was happening while talking to any audience that would buy that line when they're talking to slightly more sophisticated rubes. But it's not based in facts, it's just a collection of false talking points. No one who brings up rare earth in these discussions cares about that issue. Usually they don't even understand or care why they're called rare earths. But people are still denying it's even happening, others are arguing it's a good thing so we should expect people to trot out well rehearsed lies on the proposed solutions too. I don't understand why anyone would want to do that, but again it's plainly clear that's what's happening and pretending it's not isn't going to help anything. The benefit of the doubt has been sorely abused by the "skeptics" in this matter, and now they want to be "skeptical" of the solutions to the problem they claimed didn't exist. Well mark me down as "skeptical" of these so-called skeptics. In particular this line about the evil gas lobby being behind the push for solar and wind is the most cynical lie I've heard in a long time.