4 ms·

Still gotta try, though. Solar is already a great deal cheaper than it was in 2014 when that article was published; by more than 50%, in fact. And there's a new

• robomartin 5y ago
  Cost isn't the issue. It's physics. The paper isn't about economics, it's about the physics, the science. And what they found is that claiming that renewables will do anything at all for atmospheric CO2 concentration is, well, as false a statement as anyone can make. The study including looking at deploying solar and wind world-wide with the most advanced versions of these technologies. They determined that not only would this not stop atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, it would continue to rise exponentially. Arguing for solar and wind to "save the planet" is the equivalent of being an anti-vaxer and not taking a vaccine in the face of a global pandemic. Even worse than that, it's like believing that drinking bleach will battle the virus. In other words, if you do the math, the real science, it is complete nonsense. The idea simply isn't supported by the scientific realities of the matter. On the other items. Yes, container ships burn bunker fuel, perhaps the nastiest stuff you can burn. It's amazing to me that politicians wage battles against straws and NOBODY talks about bunker fuel. It goes to show you that the only things that matter at the political matter are simple messages for simple-minded voters who can keep the politicians floating this nonsense in office through their easy-to-buy votes. Once you detach from ideology the whole thing looks like a big huge stinking mess. > There's no silver bullet, and we need urgent action on many fronts. But things will be worse if we simply despair and do nothing. I would put it differently. First, we need to stop thinking we have the ability to control a planetary-scale problem. We cannot do it. At all. Even if we left the planet --all seven billion of us-- it would take about 50,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm. These X prizes are neat and all, but, in this case, they are far more likely to be marketing opportunities for those getting behind them than anything else. If they are even mildly intelligent they likely know the score. Nobody is going to win any of these prizes unless there's marketing value --rather than a scientifically sound actual solution. Driving our limitation are things like the principle of conservation of energy. Put in relevant terms: We can't fix a mess with less energy than that which went into creating it. We have people claiming we can reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm in just 50 years. That is a thousand times faster than the natural rate of change. I am not sure we have the energy and resources needed to make something like that happen, even if it were possible. The whole thing is almost laughable. I urge you to get on Amazon and order a CO2 meter. Then go around taking reading. What you will learn will astound you. In a nutshell, we have been living in 600 to 1,000 ppm CO2 environments, likely for centuries. The ~400 ppm number quoted by those pushing a sky is falling narrative are average atmospheric readings at who knows what location and altitude. Measure CO2 in your home, apartment and office. Measure it at your neighbors and friends. You will most-definitely be surprised. And then, the question you should ask is simple: We have been living in high CO2 ppm environments all of our lives...the sky has not fallen and people have not turned into mush. Why are we being misled?
  • sdenton4 5y ago
    Well, first, I read a very different conclusion from the paper... They say, for example: "That realization prompted us to reconsider the economics of energy. What’s needed, we concluded, are reliable zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over soon—say, within the next 40 years." In other words, it's absolutely an economics question. It's also a policy question: Subsidies and penalties can radically change the economic realities for power plant operators. They're saying it's a very hard road. But notably, their graphs are not delta functions: There's paths between the best case and worst case scenarios, and excellent progress on the renewables front can, indeed, change the direction of the curve. Pulling carbon back to pre-industrial levels absolutely requires active sequestration, though, and there are efforts on that front, though the second law of thermodynamics tells us it's a hard road. But again, some progress is better than none. Your last 'graf sounds like unmitigated tinfoilhat-ism, I'm sorry to say. We should absolutely expect fluctuations in co2 measurements based on geography and proximity to large volumes of co2-spewing vehicles. There are standards for the calculation of average co2 ppm, which are helpful for knowing the overall state of things, and trends over time.
    • robomartin 5y ago
      That is not the conclusion. They set out to prove that renewables was the way. They discovered they were wrong. That is a paradigm-shattering conclusion. To this day we hear incessant talk about renewables "saving the planet". This is nonsense. The only problem I have with the paper is that they did not follow this conclusion with a real study of the plausibility of any solution on a human time scale. They say things like having to capture carbon and have better power plants in 40 years. None of it is correlated to actual realizable effects at scale. > Your last 'graf sounds like unmitigated tinfoilhat-ism That isn't MY graphic! That's from the 800,000 ice core atmospheric sample data. Here: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html It's the first link in the "Graphics" section. If you are going to all this tin-foil it means negating all science on the subject. This data is incredibly accurate and reliable. One of my first questions when finding this data set was the simplest of inquiries: Can ice core atmospheric data from 800,000 years ago be accurate? Well, it turns out, yes, it is. I found and read papers on the subject. It's fascinating technology actually. The statement I made was that solar and wind --renewables-- can't help us and are pretty much an empty pursuit as it pertains to "saving the planet". These researchers went into it CONVINCED renewables was the way and conducted this research to, as they said, once and for all show the world. What they discovered is they were as wrong as one could be. Renewables are a waste of time, money and resources. They are good and very much justified for other reasons, just not anything related to climate change or atmospheric CO2 concentration. As I said, I have a 13 kW solar array, soon to grow to 20 kW. I am under no delusion about what it is for. It serves no purpose whatsoever as it pertains to climate change. This is particularly true if you consider the entire installation, which includes a large ground-mounted structure, concrete footings, etc. I sometimes wonder how much carbon was produced to go from minerals on the ground to a structure on my property with a theoretical 13 kW peak generation capacity. Different subject.