4 ms·

It is likely that, over time, hydrogen will be used more and ammonia less. It is even likely that batteries will begin to give way to hydrogen in cars, as batte

by ncmncm 4y ago

It is likely that, over time, hydrogen will be used more and ammonia less. It is even likely that batteries will begin to give way to hydrogen in cars, as batteries will never be anything like as cheap as hydrogen tankage. Nukes will fade out with a whimper as they become increasingly unable to produce power at a price to match renewables'. The plants will be quietly mothballed, however much was spent on them, because we are not, as a society, chained to the sunk-cost fallacy. The coming climate catastrophe will bite hard, over and over, for decades before it subsides -- if it does. Civilization might collapse, first. That would cut CO2 emission sharply, but it will remain for many generations, despite that trees would fill out abandoned fields once the fallout fades. Economically, switching to non-polluting energy is a shoo-in. An economic model that drives sequestering atmospheric carbon is harder to imagine. Most extraction schemes just sell it to be burned again.

Jistern 4y ago
"Imagination is more important knowledge" said some guy with messy hair who knew a thing or two about energy times something squared. Just as castle towns went from refuges to death traps (starting about 800 years ago when cannonballs started knocking down castle walls), and were soon generally abandoned, large modern cities, as we know them, are on the cusp of both shrinking and transforming. Once the vast majority of people stop commuting long distances to work and school, it's very likely that cars (as we know them) will become as common in cities as, say, horses. If you work 2 or 3 miles from where you live, and cars have been outlawed for most people, even in the middle of winter in Prince Albert in Canada or Irkutsk in Siberia, one could simply get into something like a fully enclosed, heated, pedelec velomobile with spiked tires and go to work. This vehicle wouldn't be some ridiculously overengineered self-driving car like we see them today, but rather could be easily guided by computers placed every 25 feet along the roadway that communicate with each velomobile's onboard navigation and braking system. Therefore, there'd be no need for mom to take the kids to school. Kids, even as young as 5 years old, could go on their own. Of course the vehicles would have video cameras built in, so that mom (or school employees dubbed "commuting monitors") could monitor/talk with her children as they commute to school. I suppose the amount of energy needed to power such vehicles for would be, perhaps, 90% less than current conventional electric cars. Perhaps compressed air (and people, gasp, actually peddling) might be used instead of hydrogen or batteries. Regardless of the energy source used, not much would be used (compared to current conventional cars) because commute distances would be shorter and vehicles would be much lighter than current conventional cars. All of the above would apply when vehicles were actually needed. Much of the time I imagine people would, believe it or not, gasp, walk to and from work or school. Imagine that. People actually walking to and fro in a city.
Jistern 4y ago
>> Nukes will fade out with a whimper as they become increasingly unable to produce power at a price to match renewables'. The plants will be quietly mothballed, however much was spent on them, because we are not, as a society, chained to the sunk-cost fallacy. I agree. >> The coming climate catastrophe will bite hard, over and over, for decades before it subsides -- if it does. Shake yourself my man. That is 100%, complete rubbish. Don't conflate your personal agenda with reality. Sure, global warming is real, yet it is something we can and are dealing with. Don’t you remember how we all died from skin cancer as a result of the irreparable hole in the ozone layer? Besides, as we transition to renewables (solar and wind at this point) we won't be burning much fossil fuel; therefore, global warming fear mongering will fade out with a whimper as it becomes increasingly difficult to sell. It's like COVID. It destroyed civilization. Right? I mean, we're all just barely hanging on. Right? Oh yeah. Sorry, "Long COVID" is going to come for the rest of us any day. Sure. Right. Of course. I suggest you go back and read some of the doomer “non-fiction” (which was actually fiction) from the hippie era such as the "Population Bomb" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb and "Diet for a Small Planet" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet. Those authors were spinning dystopian tales that "shockingly" never came true…. just like the greenhouse effect, er, uh I mean global warming, no, no, no, I mean today’s climate change liars. Every month or so they need to come up with some new set of falsehoods to feed to their minions. It’s as predictable as it is despicable. It reminds of William Randolph Hearst’s infamous Yellow Journalism. To me it looks like we've got way too many jobless PhD's who can't get jobs as professors. Therefore, they stand on the street corners ranting and raving, "The sky is falling... er, uh… buy my book! I'll explain how you can survive! Buy my book (I need to pay my mortgage)!!!" >> Civilization might collapse, first. As a result of global warming? No way. As a result of World War III, sure that's possible. >> That would cut CO2 emission sharply, but it will remain for many generations, despite that trees would fill out abandoned fields once the fallout fades. Speaking of trees, you do realize that all of this “noxious and evil” CO2 is actually beneficial to vegetation. Right? In essence we had a bunch of “dead plants” (not really, but I’m oversimplifying to make my point easier to follow) that were underground. For the last couple of hundred years we’ve been burning them up. All of that “pollution” will eventually become “live plants”. And no, in the meantime the Earth isn’t going to turn into Mercury. Raising the temperature a couple of degrees might cause some rich movie stars in Malibu and Formula One race car drivers in Monaco to have their houses washed out to sea. Boo-hoo. I’ll be sure to shed some tears for them. >> Economically, switching to non-polluting energy is a shoo-in. I agree. >> An economic model that drives sequestering atmospheric carbon is harder to imagine. Here’s an idea: have Elon’s kids R2-D2 and C-3PO take it with them to their utopia on Saturn, or is it Jupiter? My man. Please. Shake yourself. Carbon isn’t some rare, and dangerous element. Here ya go. Read and learn… Carbon-based life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life Yeah. Sure. Over the last 200 years or so we’ve released too much CO2. But think of it like an oil spill. It’s a form of pollution. Gradually “Mother Earth” (I hate tree huggers) will reach a new equilibrium. Relax. Do you remember “The War to End All Wars.” It was really, really, really, horrible. The Zone Rouge still exists. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge “The Zone Rouge (English: Red Zone) is a chain of non-contiguous areas throughout northeastern France that the French government isolated after the First World War. The land, which originally covered more than 1,200 square kilometres (460 sq mi), was deemed too physically and environmentally damaged by conflict for human habitation. Rather than attempt to immediately clean up the former battlefields, the land was allowed to return to nature. Restrictions within the Zone Rouge still exist today, although the control areas have been greatly reduced.” Guess what? We figure out how to deal with the pollution we create. >> Most extraction schemes just sell it to be burned again. Most extraction schemes are absurd. CO2 isn’t a problem worth worrying about anymore due to cheap solar and wind rapidly replacing fossil fuels. People who have dystopian fantasies are a real problem. You are suffering from “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Climate change has been unpleasant for many people. Sure. I agree. But really, it’s something we can and are dealing with. Furthermore, all that’s really going on is we’ve been “burning too many dead plants too quickly.” Of course as fossil fuel use plummets over the next couple of decades climate change won’t be a suitable topic to sell books. Not to worry, unemployed PhDs will come up with some dystopian tale of “doom and gloom” to sell to people who are into that sort of nonsense. Whatever is going wrong in your life: deal with that. Stop focusing on “big problems” you can’t solve and hardly affect you at all. Besides, climate change isn’t all bad anyways. It has enabled some excellent grapes to be grown for wine in southern England. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-makes-england-s-vineyards-perfect-sparkling-wine-n962606 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-makes-engl... “DORKING, England — The damp and cool English terrain hasn't traditionally been known for producing quality wine. But vineyards are sprouting up all over the countryside as climate change makes England increasingly suitable for making sparkling wines to rival those of France's Champagne region — winning prizes at international competitions.” Doomers. Ugh. They are people who are happy to be miserable about problems that don’t directly affect them.

by ncmncm 4y ago

Jistern 4y ago

"Imagination is more important knowledge" said some guy with messy hair who knew a thing or two about energy times something squared. Just as castle towns went from refuges to death traps (starting about 800 years ago when cannonballs started knocking down castle walls), and were soon generally abandoned, large modern cities, as we know them, are on the cusp of both shrinking and transforming. Once the vast majority of people stop commuting long distances to work and school, it's very likely that cars (as we know them) will become as common in cities as, say, horses. If you work 2 or 3 miles from where you live, and cars have been outlawed for most people, even in the middle of winter in Prince Albert in Canada or Irkutsk in Siberia, one could simply get into something like a fully enclosed, heated, pedelec velomobile with spiked tires and go to work. This vehicle wouldn't be some ridiculously overengineered self-driving car like we see them today, but rather could be easily guided by computers placed every 25 feet along the roadway that communicate with each velomobile's onboard navigation and braking system. Therefore, there'd be no need for mom to take the kids to school. Kids, even as young as 5 years old, could go on their own. Of course the vehicles would have video cameras built in, so that mom (or school employees dubbed "commuting monitors") could monitor/talk with her children as they commute to school. I suppose the amount of energy needed to power such vehicles for would be, perhaps, 90% less than current conventional electric cars. Perhaps compressed air (and people, gasp, actually peddling) might be used instead of hydrogen or batteries. Regardless of the energy source used, not much would be used (compared to current conventional cars) because commute distances would be shorter and vehicles would be much lighter than current conventional cars. All of the above would apply when vehicles were actually needed. Much of the time I imagine people would, believe it or not, gasp, walk to and from work or school. Imagine that. People actually walking to and fro in a city.

Jistern 4y ago

>> Nukes will fade out with a whimper as they become increasingly unable to produce power at a price to match renewables'. The plants will be quietly mothballed, however much was spent on them, because we are not, as a society, chained to the sunk-cost fallacy. I agree. >> The coming climate catastrophe will bite hard, over and over, for decades before it subsides -- if it does. Shake yourself my man. That is 100%, complete rubbish. Don't conflate your personal agenda with reality. Sure, global warming is real, yet it is something we can and are dealing with. Don’t you remember how we all died from skin cancer as a result of the irreparable hole in the ozone layer? Besides, as we transition to renewables (solar and wind at this point) we won't be burning much fossil fuel; therefore, global warming fear mongering will fade out with a whimper as it becomes increasingly difficult to sell. It's like COVID. It destroyed civilization. Right? I mean, we're all just barely hanging on. Right? Oh yeah. Sorry, "Long COVID" is going to come for the rest of us any day. Sure. Right. Of course. I suggest you go back and read some of the doomer “non-fiction” (which was actually fiction) from the hippie era such as the "Population Bomb" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb and "Diet for a Small Planet" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_for_a_Small_Planet. Those authors were spinning dystopian tales that "shockingly" never came true…. just like the greenhouse effect, er, uh I mean global warming, no, no, no, I mean today’s climate change liars. Every month or so they need to come up with some new set of falsehoods to feed to their minions. It’s as predictable as it is despicable. It reminds of William Randolph Hearst’s infamous Yellow Journalism. To me it looks like we've got way too many jobless PhD's who can't get jobs as professors. Therefore, they stand on the street corners ranting and raving, "The sky is falling... er, uh… buy my book! I'll explain how you can survive! Buy my book (I need to pay my mortgage)!!!" >> Civilization might collapse, first. As a result of global warming? No way. As a result of World War III, sure that's possible. >> That would cut CO2 emission sharply, but it will remain for many generations, despite that trees would fill out abandoned fields once the fallout fades. Speaking of trees, you do realize that all of this “noxious and evil” CO2 is actually beneficial to vegetation. Right? In essence we had a bunch of “dead plants” (not really, but I’m oversimplifying to make my point easier to follow) that were underground. For the last couple of hundred years we’ve been burning them up. All of that “pollution” will eventually become “live plants”. And no, in the meantime the Earth isn’t going to turn into Mercury. Raising the temperature a couple of degrees might cause some rich movie stars in Malibu and Formula One race car drivers in Monaco to have their houses washed out to sea. Boo-hoo. I’ll be sure to shed some tears for them. >> Economically, switching to non-polluting energy is a shoo-in. I agree. >> An economic model that drives sequestering atmospheric carbon is harder to imagine. Here’s an idea: have Elon’s kids R2-D2 and C-3PO take it with them to their utopia on Saturn, or is it Jupiter? My man. Please. Shake yourself. Carbon isn’t some rare, and dangerous element. Here ya go. Read and learn… Carbon-based life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life Yeah. Sure. Over the last 200 years or so we’ve released too much CO2. But think of it like an oil spill. It’s a form of pollution. Gradually “Mother Earth” (I hate tree huggers) will reach a new equilibrium. Relax. Do you remember “The War to End All Wars.” It was really, really, really, horrible. The Zone Rouge still exists. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge “The Zone Rouge (English: Red Zone) is a chain of non-contiguous areas throughout northeastern France that the French government isolated after the First World War. The land, which originally covered more than 1,200 square kilometres (460 sq mi), was deemed too physically and environmentally damaged by conflict for human habitation. Rather than attempt to immediately clean up the former battlefields, the land was allowed to return to nature. Restrictions within the Zone Rouge still exist today, although the control areas have been greatly reduced.” Guess what? We figure out how to deal with the pollution we create. >> Most extraction schemes just sell it to be burned again. Most extraction schemes are absurd. CO2 isn’t a problem worth worrying about anymore due to cheap solar and wind rapidly replacing fossil fuels. People who have dystopian fantasies are a real problem. You are suffering from “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Climate change has been unpleasant for many people. Sure. I agree. But really, it’s something we can and are dealing with. Furthermore, all that’s really going on is we’ve been “burning too many dead plants too quickly.” Of course as fossil fuel use plummets over the next couple of decades climate change won’t be a suitable topic to sell books. Not to worry, unemployed PhDs will come up with some dystopian tale of “doom and gloom” to sell to people who are into that sort of nonsense. Whatever is going wrong in your life: deal with that. Stop focusing on “big problems” you can’t solve and hardly affect you at all. Besides, climate change isn’t all bad anyways. It has enabled some excellent grapes to be grown for wine in southern England. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-makes-england-s-vineyards-perfect-sparkling-wine-n962606 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-makes-engl... “DORKING, England — The damp and cool English terrain hasn't traditionally been known for producing quality wine. But vineyards are sprouting up all over the countryside as climate change makes England increasingly suitable for making sparkling wines to rival those of France's Champagne region — winning prizes at international competitions.” Doomers. Ugh. They are people who are happy to be miserable about problems that don’t directly affect them.