Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[Gumby]

While I do feel there is a lot of questionable information and misinformation surrounding global warming (and even more so, regarding the 'solutions'), I'm pretty much with Gumby on this.

Just because CO2 is a natural part of life, doesn't mean that our acts of releasing a lot of it that was stored for millennia isn't having an effect on the climate. I'm not 100% convinced it is, it's actually very complicated, and I have my suspicions about the 'consensus' and their motivations. But none of that is enough to declare it bogus either. Question, yes. But that's as far as I can go.

-ERD50

To my mind, there are actually five different questions:

1. Is the earth warming? Yes, we can measure it.
2. Is it caused or exacerbated by human activity that has increased CO2 in the atmosphere? I say almost certainly yes, based on my reading plus my own knowledge of physics and chemistry.
3. What are the negative consequences of this warming? Plenty of them, but sea level rise is probably the big one.
4. What can we do about it?
5. What should we do about it?

The best and most productive discussion would center around making sure that we identify all the negative consequences, then deciding rationally what can and reasonably should be done to prevent, mitigate or accommodate these consequences. Note that this does not require running around like our hair is on fire and reverting to a new stone age. But it also does not allow people to stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and argue that nothing is happening.

For example, we might through reasoned inquiry and discussion determine that the only negative consequence of note is that the sea level will rise, and we might determine the same way that it will take 200 years to rise 20 feet. Then we might determine that the best and most efficient solution is simply to move things uphill and inland with deliberation. Similarly, we might decide that the worst effects can be ameliorated by shifting to an energy system that uses less fossil fuels, even if we can never be 100% renewable. Or we might decide to do both or neither. That conversation would be well worth having, but the employment of rhetorical canards thwarts it.

And finally, here is a story for those who say "but CO2 is natural". Long ago, I was an engineering division officer aboard a US Navy submarine. Among many other things, my division and I were responsible for the quality of the boat's atmosphere. We maintained and repaired the electrolytic oxygen generators, the carbon monoxide burners and the carbon dioxide scrubbers, and we constantly monitored and controlled the concentration of O2, CO and CO2 in the air. And even though we 120 mammals on board exhaled CO2 that was quite "natural", it was a real, immediate and serious problem when the CO2 scrubbers broke down and we were 400 feet under water and unable to surface at the time. Natural certainly does not mean harmless.

 

[NW-Bound]

Science shows that CO2 causes the earth to retain more heat. I don't think anyone can refute that. The argument then is that "it is not that bad". I don't know the answer to that.

But fossil fuel will eventually run out. Maybe not in our lifetime, but it is a finite resource, and when it's gone, it is really gone. And so, I am interested in RE for the long-term survival of the human race.

 

[HFWR]

The projected amount and severity of disruption caused by warming, however “assumed” it is, would be the best determinant of how much and how soon, and how costly, the mitigation.

“Opinions” vary, but the science seems compelling enough to me to assign it a fairly high probability, though not a certainty...

But, on topic, obviously if we have no reason to be concerned with carbon emissions, then fire up the coal burners. Problem solved! [emoji41]

(Although, frankly, CO2 isn’t the only issue with mining and burning coal, or, for that matter, drilling for, transporting, and refining crude oil...)

 

[NW-Bound]

You said "Problem solved".

Problem solved? How is the electricity produced for me to run my AC in the summer? Or right now, what is heating the homes of people in snow covered countries? Heck, even here I have to run the heat pump to keep warm, and my solar panels are producing peanuts. My panels are producing about 10kWh/day, and I am still drawing another 20 kWh/day from the grid.

People everywhere have been talking only about the means of producing electricity to keep the lights on and the juice to watch TV and to surf the Web. No one even starts to talk about what to do to keep warm, and that is a huge requirement compared to the LED lights and the LCD TV.

 

[explanade]

Effects just won't be sea level rise.

Weather disruptions may be happening already.

Someone said these 100-year floods may become an annual thing.

The prime minister of Australia is on the hot seat because Australia is burning. He's a big advocate of coal mining.

 

[Just_Steve]

Effects just won't be sea level rise.

Weather disruptions may be happening already.

Someone said these 100-year floods may become an annual thing.

The prime minister of Australia is on the hot seat because Australia is burning. He's a big advocate of coal mining.

Climate change causing Australian fires.......maybe or maybe not.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...3/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f

"Bushfires: Firebugs fuelling crisis as arson arrest toll hits 183"

 

[HFWR]

You said "Problem solved".

Problem solved? How is the electricity produced for me to run my AC in the summer? Or right now, what is heating the homes of people in snow covered countries? Heck, even here I have to run the heat pump to keep warm, and my solar panels are producing peanuts. My panels are producing about 10kWh/day, and I am still drawing another 20 kWh/day from the grid.

**** sarcasm alert ****
If we have no carbon problem, don’t need no stinkin’ solar!

 

[mh]

I worked in the coal energy production industry (for a power plant manufacturer) early in my career. I also worked in pollution control for a while.



We have coal reserves that can last 100's of years. I don't want to get in a global warming debate, but declaring that the gas every mammal exhausts when they breath is a pollutant just astounds me.

Almost everything is a pollutant if you’re subjected to enough of it [emoji1782]. If you’re talking about cows etc.. when you say “mammal”, lets just forget about the breathing/ farting thing. In an optimal situation we’d probably be better off without them Or at least reduced to not being a staple food which is what they are at this point. Why not make a bit of effort toward that goal? Reducing their influence isn’t a bad thing if you can get past the fact that people like the taste of them. Which isn’t easy I admit. A b*ttload of people in India seem to do it without much issue though. I’m not a vegetarian. But I try not to consume much in the way of pigs, cows , etc. because to me they make a poor food option.

 

[NW-Bound]

**** sarcasm alert ****
If we have no carbon problem, don’t need no stinkin’ solar!

And I feign indignant while pointing out that people try to ignore the elephant in the room: that of trying to stay warm in the winter without burning something.

 

[Alan]

And I feign indignant while pointing out that people try to ignore the elephant in the room: that of trying to stay warm in the winter without burning something.

In the UK they are looking at hydrogen and have a pilot scheme running with 200 households having up to 20% of their existing gas feed as hydrogen.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...instead-of-natural-gas-if-it-can-make-enough/

Producing enough hydrogen for the UK’s heating needs alone would require 8 million tonnes of hydrogen a year, up from the annual 0.74 million tonnes made today, which is led by an Esso refinery near Southampton and is almost entirely used by industry. “We need to produce a lot more hydrogen,” says Jenifer Baxter of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

The next question is how to make enough hydrogen. A breakthrough at University of Houston using new catalysts can extract hydrogen from seawater

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...instead-of-natural-gas-if-it-can-make-enough/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191111180111.htm

Summary:
Seawater is one of the most abundant resources on earth, offering promise both as a source of hydrogen and of drinking water in arid climates. Now researchers have reported a significant breakthrough with a new oxygen evolution reaction catalyst that, combined with a hydrogen evolution reaction catalyst, achieved current densities capable of supporting industrial demands while requiring relatively low voltage to start seawater electrolysis.

This is no quick fix of course and would be decades into the future if hydrogen for heating homes becomes a commercial possibility.

Meanwhile more of the huge offshore wind turbines are coming online to consolidate renewable energy’s lead as being the largest source of electricity in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-47214591

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49125399

 

[Gumby]

And I feign indignant while pointing out that people try to ignore the elephant in the room: that of trying to stay warm in the winter without burning something.

Residential passive solar heating of some sort probably would help. Every winter, I put a small, handmade, portable greenhouse over my rosemary bushes so that they can make it through the winter. It is a simple thing, made of double layer plastic sheeting (so there is a dead air gap) on wood framing. The north wall is solid and painted black so it will heat up more. I put a few clear plastic bottles of water in among the bushes to absorb heat in the day and radiate it at night. It works quite well and keeps the plants alive and healthy no matter how cold the weather gets. I think concepts like that can be scaled up.

 

[Music Lover]

Effects just won't be sea level rise.

Sea levels rise when the planet comes out of an ice age.

Weather disruptions may be happening already.

Someone said these 100-year floods may become an annual thing.

If "100-year floods" are happening all the time then maybe they were never 100 year floods in the first place.

The prime minister of Australia is on the hot seat because Australia is burning. He's a big advocate of coal mining.

Almost 200 arsonists have been arrested in Australia. A lot of the media has "ignored" that story in their climate change stories. What else are they ignoring?

 

[Winemaker]

The fact that mammals exhale carbon dioxide is true, but irrelevant. The fact is that carbon dioxide, from any source, is a greenhouse gas. It permits inward passage of the shorter wavelength radiation that arrives from the sun, but it absorbs the longer wavelength thermal energy that is radiated back outwards from the earth to space. The effect is to retain heat energy and warm the atmosphere. Without any greenhouse gas, the earth would be an ice ball. But with too much greenhouse gas, the earth will heat up. Burning coal or any fossil fuel generates carbon dioxide in amounts greater than the system can tolerate. Trying to obfuscate by waving the "pollutant" flag is not particularly helpful.

Carbon dioxide, even after millions of tons of additions since the advent of fire, is still only 0.04% of earth's atmosphere.

I could also use the analysis that asphalt, concrete, brick and mortar are inherent heat sinks, like your water bottles, and could also be the source of the planet's temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius in approximately 100 years.

 

[Gumby]

Carbon dioxide, even after millions of tons of additions since the advent of fire, is still only 0.04% of earth's atmosphere.

Again, another true but irrelevant fact. The earth's atmosphere is primarily nitrogen (~78%), Oygen (~21%) and Argon (~1%), which you will notice rounds to ~100%. None of these three is a greenhouse gas, because they do not absorb radiation in the wavelength radiated by the earth to space, so 99+% of the gases in the atmosphere are completely irrelevant to the question of global warming. The primary greenhouse gas is Carbon Dioxide, with Methane a distant second. Yes, there is only .0413% (413 ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, but its effect on heat retention is so strong that it can easily keep the earth habitable. As I mentioned before, the earth would be an ice ball without CO2. The problem is that 413 ppm is more than enough. Back 1980, it was only 338 ppm or 20% less, and when I was born in 1959 it was only about 315 ppm. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration increases temperatures.

 

[Music Lover]

Going from 3 molecules per 10,000 of CO2 to 4 molecules just doesn't have that much effect on temperature.

 

[LRDave]

Going from 3 molecules per 10,000 of CO2 to 4 molecules just doesn't have that much effect on temperature.

Based on what science are you making that statement?

 

[timo2]

On the headline today: "A $1 Billion Solar Plant Was Obsolete Before It Ever Went Online"

I'm pondering if this is a hazard with any type of centralized power generation. Recall one of the big fights in renewable energy is distributed panels (solar on
homes, parking structures, etc) versus traditional concentrated power generation, except now in the form of giant solar arrays. The big money and power people want the concentrated way of generation and the community organizers want the distributed way. Of course the distributed panels can also be obsolete (I've had a few neighbors with the old 1980 style solar setups that eventually were removed), but then the financial loss is limited to one household rather than all of the ratepayers.

 

[Winemaker]

Based on what science are you making that statement?

In the same statement as Gumby's, above.

There is not enough accurate data since 1977, when accurate digital thermometers were invented, over 4.5 billion years.

 

[Gumby]

Going from 3 molecules per 10,000 of CO2 to 4 molecules just doesn't have that much effect on temperature.

As I mentioned before, 9997 of those molecules are irrelevant, as they are either Nitrogen, Oxygen or Argon. Carbon Dioxide is the gas responsible for the greenhouse effect. The earth's surface temperature on average is about 57 deg. F. It has been estimated since the 19th century that the surface temperature would be approximately 0 deg. F in the absence of atmospheric CO2 (that is, a planet with Earths albedo and distance from the sun should be colder than it actually is- see the work of Joseph Fourier***). That means those 3 molecules per 10,000 have been doing powerful work in retaining heat. And you think adding another 33% of that gas will have no ill effect?

Consider that the fatal concentration of hydrogen cyanide in air for humans is 7.1 ppm, or less than .07 molecues per 10,000. The Holocaust managed to kill a lot of people with those .07 molecules per 10,000. The lesson is that a small number of molecules can do a great deal of damage.


*** Here is a great calculator that does the math to show you what the earth's temperature would be without the atmosphere and the CO2 in it. Even if the earth were covered with asphalt, the surface temperature would not get above 32 deg. F. https://scied.ucar.edu/earths-energy-balance

 

[mpeirce]

Sea levels rise when the planet comes out of an ice age.

Climate varies over a much large time span than people's lifetimes.

Imagine if dust bowl conditions returned to the plains states today. 100% chance it would be blamed on human caused climate changes.

Also, the current heat wave and fires is not the hottest Austrialia has been in historic times - the mid- 1890's where worse, but no one alive today remembers that...

 

[HFWR]

Arson is likely easier when everything is already dry as a desert. Not sure who says fires spontaneously start due to warming. Still need a spark of some sort.

The idea is that changes are happening way more rapidly than ever noted before. But, hey, I’m convinced now by the naysayers on ER, because I’m sure the scientists have never considered any of the points raised here... [emoji849]

Again, anyone who can provide real research, and not some guy’s blog, that refutes AGW, I’d be happy to read it.

 

[Chuckanut]

Maybe it's time to see what some experienced climate scientists who have a good knowledge of what is going on but don't have ulterior motives (political, economic, reputation, etc.) are saying.....

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-existential-threat.html

[emphasis added by me]

Global warming is a real issue and we are going to slowly warm our planet, resulting in substantial impacts (like less snowpack in the Cascades, increased river flooding in November, drier conditions in the subtropics, loss of Arctic sea ice). But the world will be a much richer place in 2100 and mankind will find ways to adapt to many of the changes. And there is a good chance we will develop the technologies to reverse the increasing trend in greenhouse gases and eventually bring CO2 concentrations down to previous levels.
Global warming does not offer an existential threat to mankind, and politicians and decision makers only undermine their credibility and make effective action less likely by their hype and exaggeration. And their unfounded claims of future catastrophe prevents broad national consensus and hurts vulnerable people who are made anxious and fearful. And just as bad, all this end of the world talk results in folks turning away from the issue, both out of fear and from intuition that a lot of hype is going on.

 

[stepford]

Maybe it's time to see what some experienced climate scientists who have a good knowledge of what is going on but don't have ulterior motives (political, economic, reputation, etc.) are saying.....

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-existential-threat.html

[emphasis added by me]

I'm not sure such appeals to objectivity will get much traction these days.

 

[pj.mask]

I see a lot of throwing out arguments with no background knowledge or research to provide “counterpoints” - it’s a good method of distraction.

I like to go camping a lot. Starting a fire with anything but dry wood is pretty difficult. I believe the focus on all of these wild fires recently is about rainfall/weather patterns.

For anyone who studies science or engineering, it is pretty easy to understand the impact of CO2 on global temperatures.

The dust bowl was caused by farming practices, the comment seems to suggest it was a natural occurrence and if it returned we would all of a sudden blame humanity.

As for heating your house, again turn to an engineer - important factors are insulation values, delta Temp, and how do you heat/cool? Many houses in the US have terrible insulation. Maybe 3” covering most of your wall. If you upgrade to 2”x6” construction or other options, you significantly reduce energy needs. Temperature delta - many people keep their house very warm in the winter and very cold in the summer. Similar to our (USA) national debt if you defer the actual cost of your decision to the future it seems cheap now! If people had to pay the real cost of electricity or tax cuts (without spending cuts) now - they might put on a sweater. Efficiency is also at play for cooling. Heat pumps use energy to move temperatures (separate hot from cold), not create them (like burning gas) the earth is a great heat sink.

We can do a lot to use less but it will be hard. There is a real discussion of how much effort should I put in to impact something I don’t understand.

 

[JoeWras]

We had a good discussion here, and now it goes to the carbon problem.

My take is it is bigger than carbon. People want to simplify. It is more complex than carbon and oxygen. (EG: strip mining, etc.)

I'll stop here. I believe Porky will close this previously great thread because we've veered off in the interest in pushing something.