What shouldn't be done...about climate change

[IheartIheartTesla]

These are aspirational policy goals, and there is a promise to spend 2T dollars on it. Also, note that a significant number of power plants (~75) were built in the US from the mid 60s to the late 70s (~11 years), so it isnt out of the realm of possibility to increase out nuclear power producing capacity significantly in 15 years.

I also wouldn't roll in coal and natural gas together, obviously the first priority is to get rid of coal which brings the achievable target down some  (natural gas will remain a stop-gap measure for some time to come). But again, the point is to try to do something and lay out a vision rather than not, so I don't have too many issues with his plan.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Interesting and sobering for the sheer scale of things as we now stand.

Team Obama came to the same realization when they initiated the alternative energy push as part of the 2008 stimulus. That said, partly as a result of those efforts, alternative energy is taking off big time.  Yet, even full tilt, it won't be enough to keep things 'as is.'  

[Altherion]

On 9/26/2020 at 7:07 PM, IheartIheartTesla said:

Also, note that a significant number of power plants (~75) were built in the US from the mid 60s to the late 70s (~11 years), so it isnt out of the realm of possibility to increase out nuclear power producing capacity significantly in 15 years.

It hasn't been out of the realm of possibility to do so at any time over the intervening half century. In fact, if the political will was there, we could generate all of the electricity in the world (including even that sold as a subsidy to third world countries) from nuclear power alone by now -- unlike solar and wind, it does not need storage or averaging over a wide area. However, while it is technically possible, it's not politically feasible and the opposition to it is especially strong on the left.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 9/27/2020 at 11:13 AM, DireWolfSpirit said:

Interesting and sobering for the sheer scale of things as we now stand.

But all of those things are existing technology which even Altherion accepts govts will be willing to spend massive amounts of money on, under the right circumstances. And if you deploy a combination of all 3 of those solutions, plus some others, then it's less daunting than a list of what each solution requires on its own. A couple of nuke plants here, a few wind farms there, more solar panels on people's houses in very sunny places and some well placed solar farms, and you will replace a helluva lot of the fossil fuel base load. It's not quick or easy, but it's doable.

In-keeping with the title of the thread, don't put all your clean electricity generation eggs in one basket.

Energy efficiency also need to be part of it.

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^Agreed, plus one needs to realize that is only a measurement of this point in time. We can be sure that technologies are constantly improving (Moore's Law) so we're not talking about a stationary situation.

Just today there's this article about promising new solutions for plastics recycling- 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/28/new-super-enzyme-eats-plastic-bottles-six-times-faster

It's a many pronged front that will be required and its going to evolve over time of course.

[Altherion]

It's not quite as rapid an improvement as Moore's Law -- that kind of sustained exponential growth requires both an amenable problem and amazing engineering. Batteries are probably the closest, solar improvement is significantly slower and wind is even slower than that. Nuclear is barely growing at all (at least in Western countries), but there might be a leap once something new finally gets built.

Incidentally, here is a cutesy but surprisingly well researched video about climate change that looks at it from a slightly different perspective:

 

[mnedel]

Interesting read on the state of environmental research.

Researchers are banned from speaking/have had their research altered to downplay risks

[The Anti-Targ]

Apparently, allegedly, our sheep and beef farming sector don't need to do much about climate change. These farming sectors are already almost carbon neutral because of the type of farming system. As sheep and beef farms are pasture based and on extensive land with lots of groves of trees and even small forests in some parts the net CO2 output is very low.

So at least from a climate change perspective I can continue to eat our grass fed beef and lamb and not feel like I am failing to do my bit for climate change. I guess it does mean I shouldn't buy Aussie beef anymore though, which is a shame, since I am not nationalistic when it comes to food origins and I would be happy to buy Aussie beef if it was climate equivalent.

[The Anti-Targ]

Are we already past the point of no return?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/430499/new-climate-report-with-concerning-findings-already-being-challenged-by-scientists

Yes and no I suppose, if one considers the study still assumes we peak in GHG output in the 2030s and drop to zero by 2100. To even do that requires actual decisions and actions that we might not make if we just threw our hands up and decided it's not worth the effort. The study suggest we could take things a little more slowly and end up in the same place ultimately, but we still have to move even if it's a more slow and steady approach.

[Larry of the Lawn]

We should probably not be using cryptocurrencies.  Bitcoin and co are energy hogs, Angels of Endless Hunger.