4 ms·

Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at all: There are cars in places other than the US. Mind blowing, isn't it? What will they t

Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at all: There are cars in places other than the US. Mind blowing, isn't it? What will they think of next.

robomartin 4y ago
> Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at > Mind blowing, isn't it? You excel at using insults in place of any form of logical argument. This has happened in other discussions. The bad news is reality does not care. Have a great day.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  If you are going to go pretending to be unaware of the majority of road emissions, be prepared to have that pointed out. It's not a mystery that a quarter of a seventh is smaller than a seventh, it's basic arithmetic. If I see a bad faith argument worthy of contempt and ridicule where someone is trying to pass of "a big number is made of many small numbers added together" as some kind of fatalistic reason that the small numbers shouldn't be addressed, I'll call it out as such. Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions. Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%. Steel smelting, ammonia and are another 5% at least. Hydrogen and electricity can replace fossil fuels here. The technical problems for replacing all of these are solved simply by continuing to roll out existing solutions. That's over a third of the way there. Already figured out. Just have to keep doing that part by following the build out plan. Comparing a subset of US emissions to US emissions as if it is profound is a ridiculous and transparent attempt at rhetoric and spreading doubt.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions. No! It will not! Electric vehicles do not result in 0% emissions. Not even close. Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything. At a minimum, in order to fully electrify our ground transportation system we need to DOUBLE our power generation and transportation (the grid) system. Setting aside the fact that we can't build infrastructure worth a shit these days, a buildout of this magnitude isn't zero emissions at all. For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. > Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%. Once again, you don't know what you are saying. You are not going to go from 17% (assuming your figures are correct) to 0%. You are saying "and then a miracle occurs" and we are at 0%, completely ignoring what it takes to implement these changes and the reality that they are NOT carbon neutral at all, not even close. Not going to happen. In a fantasy, sure, in real life things don't work that way. My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that. > That's over a third of the way there. The part you don't seem to want to grasp is that reducing world-wide emissions by 33% does absolutely nothing. This, if it were possible, it is likely to take a century or more, if ever. World population will continue to increase, which, in turn, will produce more CO2 due to our activities. Reducing it by 66%, does nothing. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase. Even worse, reducing it by 100% --which is patently impossible-- will, again, do nothing at all. Why? If this were possible (again, it is not) this might take 500 to 1000 years. By that point in time the earth might have twenty to thirty billion people (if we don't kill ourselves first). This means our activities will produce massively more CO2 no matter what we do. Food production. Homes. Travel. Clothing. Producing household, commercial and industrial goods. Etc. All of it pumps CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if we could get to 0% CO2, at that point it would take a hundred thousand years for a mere 100 ppm drop. Nature is the only power on this planet that can affect this change. And it takes nature a very long time. This is were getting a sense of proportion is important. People are talking about reducing CO2 by a few percent when, if you really look at the larger picture, none of it is significant. And, as you get to the more extreme claims, it is nothing less than fantasy. You are free to believe that math and physics don't matter. I am not going to say anything here to convince you. Don't know how old you are. I hope you live long enough to eventually understand that, at some point, reality matters. I think these realities are going to start hitting people in the face pretty hard in another decade or two. You'll wake up one day and realize everyone has been lying to you for financial or political gains. We will be no closer to solving anything. We will have wasted decades selling (and voting for) nonsense. We will realize we could have been discussing the truth and acting on it. The problem will be that we will have wasted resources (financial and natural) to such an extent that it might just be impossible to do anything intelligent by the time that realization sinks in. The tragedy of that moment will be that the well-to-do will have the means to adapt and plan for the future. The poor will not. That's the greater long-term tragedy of the cult climate change has become. The people supporting the narratives, the masses, are the the ones who will suffer the most. Just like the people who supported a $15/hr minimum wage only to wake up one day to the reality that their $15/hr "raise" has now devalued down to $5/hr, if they have a job at all. Reality has a way to assert itself regardless of what we want to believe or not. That is, oddly enough, reality.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything. Frozen world fallacy again. The 11% is the point of use stuff, embodied emissions come under industrial heat, or chemical, or electricity or or mining or shipping. What processes produce those emissions? How does a steel smelter produce emissions if it is running on solar electrolysed hydrogen? How does a mine produce emissions if it is electrified, and the nitrates are sequestered and the hydrocarbons it uses come from the air? Mining basalt hosted formations becomes carbon negative at about 120g/kg of host rock if you spread out the silicates after. > My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that. Good thing reality doesn't conform to the vague gut feelings of someone who is trying to spread FUD then. > For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. Some PHES or hydrogen is needed for seasonal storage, but this is a few dozen TWh. The part of first generation of PV and wind will produce around 20g/kWh. The rest will use PV and wind to produce the Al, ste, and polysilicon. Same with nuclear. This drops it to 5 or so. Electrifying a few other steps makes it negligible. And your claims of it taking centuries are incoherent. It will happen within 50 years simply because of resource depletion even with no intervention.
      - robomartin 4y ago
        > You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. You continue to say thing that reveal you have never bothered to do the math at all. I have done this. I have written reasonably detailed simulations in order to understand just how much power full electrification of ground transport would require. My answer was in a range between 900 GW and 1400 GW. Years later Elon Musk confirmed this. His estimate is pretty much exactly in the middle of the range I predicted. What he said is that electricity demand will more than double when we shift all transport to electric. The US currently has a capacity of 1.2 TW. A doubling, then, means we need an additional 1.2 TW of power generation and, most importantly, the ability to deliver that power (today, we cannot). https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_Electricity_Generation_Capacity_2022_Update.pdf https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_... The 1.2 TW number comes from page 2 of the report linked above. It is also important to understand how we generate power. Page 2: Natural gas 43.9% Coal 18.5% Wind 10.7% Hydro 8.1% Solar 5.3% Geothermal 0.3% The balance of approximately 13.5% is pretty much all produced by burning different types of fuel. Anyhow, you go ahead and believe what you believe. Come back and check your notes against this discussion in ten years and see where your beliefs land you.

Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at all: There are cars in places other than the US. Mind blowing, isn't it? What will they think of next.

robomartin 4y ago

> Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at > Mind blowing, isn't it? You excel at using insults in place of any form of logical argument. This has happened in other discussions. The bad news is reality does not care. Have a great day.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
If you are going to go pretending to be unaware of the majority of road emissions, be prepared to have that pointed out. It's not a mystery that a quarter of a seventh is smaller than a seventh, it's basic arithmetic. If I see a bad faith argument worthy of contempt and ridicule where someone is trying to pass of "a big number is made of many small numbers added together" as some kind of fatalistic reason that the small numbers shouldn't be addressed, I'll call it out as such. Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions. Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%. Steel smelting, ammonia and are another 5% at least. Hydrogen and electricity can replace fossil fuels here. The technical problems for replacing all of these are solved simply by continuing to roll out existing solutions. That's over a third of the way there. Already figured out. Just have to keep doing that part by following the build out plan. Comparing a subset of US emissions to US emissions as if it is profound is a ridiculous and transparent attempt at rhetoric and spreading doubt.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions. No! It will not! Electric vehicles do not result in 0% emissions. Not even close. Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything. At a minimum, in order to fully electrify our ground transportation system we need to DOUBLE our power generation and transportation (the grid) system. Setting aside the fact that we can't build infrastructure worth a shit these days, a buildout of this magnitude isn't zero emissions at all. For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. > Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%. Once again, you don't know what you are saying. You are not going to go from 17% (assuming your figures are correct) to 0%. You are saying "and then a miracle occurs" and we are at 0%, completely ignoring what it takes to implement these changes and the reality that they are NOT carbon neutral at all, not even close. Not going to happen. In a fantasy, sure, in real life things don't work that way. My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that. > That's over a third of the way there. The part you don't seem to want to grasp is that reducing world-wide emissions by 33% does absolutely nothing. This, if it were possible, it is likely to take a century or more, if ever. World population will continue to increase, which, in turn, will produce more CO2 due to our activities. Reducing it by 66%, does nothing. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase. Even worse, reducing it by 100% --which is patently impossible-- will, again, do nothing at all. Why? If this were possible (again, it is not) this might take 500 to 1000 years. By that point in time the earth might have twenty to thirty billion people (if we don't kill ourselves first). This means our activities will produce massively more CO2 no matter what we do. Food production. Homes. Travel. Clothing. Producing household, commercial and industrial goods. Etc. All of it pumps CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if we could get to 0% CO2, at that point it would take a hundred thousand years for a mere 100 ppm drop. Nature is the only power on this planet that can affect this change. And it takes nature a very long time. This is were getting a sense of proportion is important. People are talking about reducing CO2 by a few percent when, if you really look at the larger picture, none of it is significant. And, as you get to the more extreme claims, it is nothing less than fantasy. You are free to believe that math and physics don't matter. I am not going to say anything here to convince you. Don't know how old you are. I hope you live long enough to eventually understand that, at some point, reality matters. I think these realities are going to start hitting people in the face pretty hard in another decade or two. You'll wake up one day and realize everyone has been lying to you for financial or political gains. We will be no closer to solving anything. We will have wasted decades selling (and voting for) nonsense. We will realize we could have been discussing the truth and acting on it. The problem will be that we will have wasted resources (financial and natural) to such an extent that it might just be impossible to do anything intelligent by the time that realization sinks in. The tragedy of that moment will be that the well-to-do will have the means to adapt and plan for the future. The poor will not. That's the greater long-term tragedy of the cult climate change has become. The people supporting the narratives, the masses, are the the ones who will suffer the most. Just like the people who supported a $15/hr minimum wage only to wake up one day to the reality that their $15/hr "raise" has now devalued down to $5/hr, if they have a job at all. Reality has a way to assert itself regardless of what we want to believe or not. That is, oddly enough, reality.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything. Frozen world fallacy again. The 11% is the point of use stuff, embodied emissions come under industrial heat, or chemical, or electricity or or mining or shipping. What processes produce those emissions? How does a steel smelter produce emissions if it is running on solar electrolysed hydrogen? How does a mine produce emissions if it is electrified, and the nitrates are sequestered and the hydrocarbons it uses come from the air? Mining basalt hosted formations becomes carbon negative at about 120g/kg of host rock if you spread out the silicates after. > My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that. Good thing reality doesn't conform to the vague gut feelings of someone who is trying to spread FUD then. > For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. Some PHES or hydrogen is needed for seasonal storage, but this is a few dozen TWh. The part of first generation of PV and wind will produce around 20g/kWh. The rest will use PV and wind to produce the Al, ste, and polysilicon. Same with nuclear. This drops it to 5 or so. Electrifying a few other steps makes it negligible. And your claims of it taking centuries are incoherent. It will happen within 50 years simply because of resource depletion even with no intervention.
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. You continue to say thing that reveal you have never bothered to do the math at all. I have done this. I have written reasonably detailed simulations in order to understand just how much power full electrification of ground transport would require. My answer was in a range between 900 GW and 1400 GW. Years later Elon Musk confirmed this. His estimate is pretty much exactly in the middle of the range I predicted. What he said is that electricity demand will more than double when we shift all transport to electric. The US currently has a capacity of 1.2 TW. A doubling, then, means we need an additional 1.2 TW of power generation and, most importantly, the ability to deliver that power (today, we cannot). https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_Electricity_Generation_Capacity_2022_Update.pdf https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_... The 1.2 TW number comes from page 2 of the report linked above. It is also important to understand how we generate power. Page 2: Natural gas 43.9% Coal 18.5% Wind 10.7% Hydro 8.1% Solar 5.3% Geothermal 0.3% The balance of approximately 13.5% is pretty much all produced by burning different types of fuel. Anyhow, you go ahead and believe what you believe. Come back and check your notes against this discussion in ten years and see where your beliefs land you.