5 ms·
So we can fear monger all we want into forcing change in the west with alternative energy. But you can’t change how fossil fuels make things much easier and aff
by zthrowaway 5y ago
So we can fear monger all we want into forcing change in the west with alternative energy. But you can’t change how fossil fuels make things much easier and affordable in the rest of the world which is where a lot of the pollution exists at this point (India and China). To go through the amount of energy it takes to become a 1st world nation you need massive amounts of energy that is cheap to acquire and cheap to use. And right now that is fossil fuels. Alternative energy is a luxury.
Hopefully someday the tech becomes more affordable for poor countries and can supply enough energy for them to get through an Industrial Age.
- nostrebored 5y agoDon't know why you're being downvoted. Zero carbon emissions is firstworldism at its core. Climate modeling is the pinnacle of pop sci. The intersection is very frustrating to live in.
- splitstud 5y agoYeah, I mean pop sci infers that it can actually be demonstrated to work.
- cinntaile 5y agoClimate modeling isn't pop sci, it's physics. Predicting the correct outcome of complex systems is hard or impossible and depends on a lot of assumptions and interactions that you have to properly account for, this stuff gets more refined over time. The general direction of the predictions hasn't changed though so ignoring that would still be unwise.
- loa_in_ 5y agoThe bad process began before we even conceived a notion of a global climate, and continues only because we're used to it. But continuing it still will change the global environment forever
- nostrebored 5y agoIt's unfalsifiable at its core. Predictions will continue to be alarmist and unmet. Modeling decades out is impossible for systems we do understand. For systems we don't -- like climate -- it's an exercise in confirmation bias.
- cinntaile 5y agoI don't really see how it's unfalsifiable. If you predict a certain outcome in the future and this doesn't come true then your prediction was wrong. The question is, are we really focusing on the right things here? Predicting trends is probably better than predicting outcomes. As you correctly alluded to, expecting accurate predictions for complex systems is actually too much to ask for and that's why I think it's important to look at the general direction that the models point to. Are these predicted trends from the 70s different from the predicted trends now? If they aren't, what arguments do we have to reject 50 years of modelling?
- freen 5y agoPerhaps for models of the future, but for historical predictions of the current climate, prior models have been astoundingly accurate, and if anything overly conservative in their predictions. What evidence do you have that leads you to believe that the models used now will have less predictive power than those of the past which had high predictive power?
- the-dude 5y agoModels show what you want them to show.
- cinntaile 5y agoWhat is it that you are implying here?
- the-dude 5y agoThat models are inherently biased. A model does not contain or produce 'truth'. A model will produce what one is comfortable with.
- loopz 5y agoWhile getting to truth may be very helpful, most models just simulate observed facts and effects, to see if it is useful and can be validated. The point is not to predict, but to see how much variance different models can display, what one might learn from it and to evolve new models from that. What is comfortable or not shouldn't be a factor. In fact most climate scientists would search for any and all redeeming factors. It is concerning how insignificant they all seem to be. Major contrary findings would make great news, get prizes and grants. Timelines are indeed less useful and accurate, than levels of temperature and descriptions of accumulated and latent effects. Prediction is too hard and a sidetrack from all that is established peer-reviewed science so far.
- cinntaile 5y agoIt still feels like I have to read between the lines. What are you trying to say when you claim that (climate) models produce what you are comfortable with?
- the-dude 5y agoWhen models don't produce what one is comfortable with, it gets tweaked until it does.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoSolar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit... New solar is now often cheaper than keeping a coal plant running https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/most-new-wind-solar-projects-cheaper-than-coal-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/most-new... And we should expect solar to get even cheaper.
- hcurtiss 5y agoWhen the sun is out. And when you’re blanketing literally 6 SQUARE MILES of beautiful Oregon ground[1] at a time with PV panels, it starts to look a lot less cheap. [1] https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/Pages/BSP.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/P...
- roenxi 5y agoActually you'll find the economies of scale probably help keep the costs down. Square miles of land are pretty common. Blanketing them with something useful is a good thing.
- hcurtiss 5y agoIf you had ever driven from Shaniko to Maupin in early June when the prairie lupine is blooming, I doubt you’d be so cavalier.
- horrified 5y agoCan you explain to me then why China is still building new coal based power plants? If solar is cheaper, why would anybody build something else?
- nabla9 5y agoBecause solar energy is not cheapest form of 24/7 energy source. Baseload is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over some timespan. Providing that baseload with solar or wind is not as cheap as hydro, coal, natural gas or nuclear.
- ReptileMan 5y agoBoth yes and no. If renewables and buffer storage become raw cheaper than fossils, then they will just be adopted. But as of now coal is cheaper. And nuclear which is the natural bridge gap tech is politically unfeasible.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> But as of now coal is cheaper. do you have a reference for that? Citation needed as to where and by how much coal is cheaper.
- ReptileMan 5y agoAbout what? Does 1gw base load capable renewable installation with grid storage that can work 24/7, 365 days per year even exist? And this is fairly trivial to start with coal.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoAh, you didn't mention base load or scale, just "coal is cheaper". Thank you for clarifying. It's becoming clear that (see links that I posted upthread, and the replies) that _any_ blanket statement of "_x_ energy is cheaper" is going to be wrong in some cases, at present. And things are changing year by year.
- ReptileMan 5y agoSince we were talking about emerging and developing economies I assumed that we were talking about base load since this is what they mostly need. As we can see by Itaipu and Three Gorges Dam - people prefer renewables to coal when it makes economic sense and is cheaper.
- jl6 5y agoAlso note that much of the pollution in India and China is created in the process of manufacturing goods which are then exported to the west, so it’s not like you and I have no influence at all.
- patricius 5y agoRight. We could choose not to buy from them, helping them stay in poverty. That's always an option.
- loa_in_ 5y agoCurrently Dollars only serve the Chinese government as a way to put pressure on the competition (USA). They are still eating their own food and living in their own technology based buildings built from their local resources by their local workforce. America doesn't help keep Chinese from poverty, because China isn't incapable of it in the first place. If anything, the political pressures just created perverse incentives there.
- loa_in_ 5y agoCorrection: Dollars only serve the Chinese government as a way to put pressure on the competition, and means to buy microelectronics
- samatman 5y agoThat's not even remotely true. China isn't self-sufficient in calories, be they fuel or food. If they don't get dollars for foreign trade, they starve in the dark.
- pantalaimon 5y agoNot buying new stuff so often would be a start.
- belly_joe 5y agoMost of the growth in Chinese carbon emissions (>90%) is due to growth Chinese consumption, not exports. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
- PicassoCTs 5y agoThis. And to be honest, luxury solution discussions and their waste of public discussion bandwidth are part of the problem. Financially support the building of thorium reactors in china and india- is part of the solution. Solar at home- is nice, but not part of the solution - as most of the carbon cost in the west has been carted off into the east.
- horrified 5y agoAlso switching to alternative energy has a huge upfront cost in CO2 - producing all those windmills and solar panels costs a lot of energy. If the time to turn things around is really so short, maybe that upfront CO2 explosion is not the right way to go. Similar things hold for other things like energy neutral buildings - actually building them has a huge upfront cost in CO2.