Global warming solutions (on topic)

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Back to the topic again - DC is actually making a comeback for long-distance electricity transmission as High Voltage DC (HVDC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Wide area HVDC networks do a lot to reduce the variability of both solar and wind since (as you mention) it's always blowing/sunny somewhere.  For example, the peak demand for a place like Houston comes around 6 or 7pm when the sun is already low and not providing much energy.  But on the West Coast there's still a lot of solar generation.  If we could transmit even a fraction of that energy that distance it would go a long way towards reducing peaker needs.

[gowlerk 1,902]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

For example, the peak demand for a place like Houston comes around 6 or 7pm when the sun is already low and not providing much energy.  But on the West Coast there's still a lot of solar generation.  If we could transmit even a fraction of that energy that distance it would go a long way towards reducing peaker needs.

Texas? Aren't they practicing electrical sovereignty?

[billvon 2,380]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Texas? Aren't they practicing electrical sovereignty?

They were - and they were really proud of that. 

But after this winter's disaster, ERCOT is taking a lot of heat (pun intended) and being encouraged to interconnect to other grids to avoid the sort of failure they saw a few months back.  And now ERCOT is warning about blackouts this summer.   San Antonio has been looking at what it would take to leave ERCOT and interconnect with out-of-state grids.

It is worth noting that the reason ERCOT hasn't interconnected before this is that once you connect to the rest of the nation's grid, you have to meet basic reliability and controllability standards.  Nowadays a lot of Texans are thinking "you know, a few reliability standards might not be such a bad thing."

[gowlerk 1,902]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

San Antonio has been looking at what it would take to leave ERCOT and interconnect with out-of-state grids.

It would probably a little easier for San Antonio to do that if only they could move about 250 miles north! That would might easier than negotiating for a transmission line through the rest of the state.

Edited July 6, 2021 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,380]

12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It would probably a little easier for San Antonio to do that if only they could move about 250 miles north! That would might easier than negotiating for a transmission line through the rest of the state.

Yeah, there are some really byzantine laws that allow utilities to use transmission lines on public property even if they don't own them.  The utility gets a monopoly on power sales, but in exchange they have to allow all sorts of public-benefit activities (like sharing transmission lines.)  So it may not be that hard.

[brenthutch 383]

Solution to human GHG emissions 

https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/px7llo/south-park-new-neighbors

Edited July 6, 2021 by brenthutch

[metalslug 31]

Would there be any realistic way to approximate the relative cost of all these proposals vs gains, in economic terms ? I don't consider myself a denier; I accept the NASA stats of rising average global surface temperatures and sea levels over many years, but we're talking about very small amounts here, and are more-than-matched by technologically advancing and very resourceful humans and, indeed, nature itself which is very resilient. 

A lot of 'green energy' solutions require manufactured components that leave their own pollutants, waste and energy costs in their wake; batteries, solar panels, wind blades, etc. If the intention is to replace all our petroleum vehicles with electrics by year xxxx, that's a lot of batteries with few recyclable parts consuming a lot of electrical energy that will have to come from somewhere. In some countries that will still be their coal power stations, and a lot of energy gets lost in those transfers from source to end-user.  Is it ultimately still efficient ?  ...efficient enough to fully balance or gain with the development, manufacture, maintenance and waste disposal costs vs our current fuel-powered machines ?

When it gets stated that global warming threatens 'the world', is it not more accurate to say that it threatens specific countries and/or cities while actually benefitting other areas ?  Many members here may be aware of higher than usual crop yields in many parts of the world, directly attributed to higher rainfall, perhaps even higher CO2, and indeed the coolest summers in 15+ years (this year's grape and grain crops in Australia for example). Much gets said about island nations shrinking in size although other islands are indeed growing in size, neither of which is necessarily related to sea level, as islands can be affected by coastal erosion and coral reef sediment respectively, as can mainlands.

Parts of the world have seen devastating bush fires in recent years. I mention this not because I think they are related to global warming but rather as a reference to the remarkable recovery of those areas within a few years or less, or the near total recovery of Australia's Great Barrier Reef barely 5 years after a brief warmer current bleached parts of it and had climate change activists screaming "Armageddon !". It's a testament to the resiliency of nature to recover from extreme events, and yet climate change activists are encouraging a literal 'break a sweat and scream' panic over a few degrees within a century, with some gullible followers wondering if the very air around them would be too hot to breathe within their lifetime. It's dangerous fear-mongering, as damaging to society (or worse) as the deniers. I believe there is a rational middle ground where one can accept the facts of warming without spreading an absurd panic on impressionable people, especially in view of many climate predictions that have proven false since they were made ("there will be no snow at location xxx by year 2020....."). Again I state that I do not deny the very small global average rise, but wild predictions and doom prophets do a great disservice to that side of the debate.

True; several large coastal cities are threatened by even a small rise in ocean levels, but this won't happen overnight, surely there would be time and resources to relocate such structures and areas with ample time ?  Society has a remarkable ability to rebuild and recover. It would certainly be lousy, as an economic loss, for the people who own or reside in those threatened areas, but if we think that converting the whole world to net-zero emissions energy is not going to be an economic loss for billions of other people, in other business, in other areas, then we're kidding ourselves. Either way here, we'll have a lot of losers. Can we be sure where the most economically fair global average gains will be made, vs the losses ? 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by metalslug
A silly typo.

[wmw999 2,116]

I don't have time to respond to everything in here -- but thanks for including so much, I mean it. I agree that some things can be compensated for, however mainly by the richer people, in the richer countries. Which leaves out most of Africa, Central and South America, and South Asia and the Pacific islands: all places that are already suffering more extreme weather, and most of which don't have the resources to make technological changes. We can say it's "nature" to just let them die, but I'm not sure we want to go there.

So many people will try to migrate, generally to those more temperate areas that are greening up -- where they look different, and are generally accused of not "trying to fit in." In the US, some of the more vulnerable coastal cities are starting to price things like dikes and seawalls to keep a rising sea at bay; that cost will eat the infrastructure maintenance budget for the next hundred or more years, at the expense of all of the inland cities that still need their roads, bridges, water systems, electric grids etc. maintained and upgraded. Especially to make up for the increasing population of the coastal people who can afford to move to those more inland areas, driving up the prices of housing. But now there won't be as much money to build new lower-cost housing.

These are all problems; it's not that we can't deal with them, but we don't have them scoped now, and they will create huge problems and inconveniences that we already aren't dealing very well with (immigration and infrastructure are common topics of debate in the US, and I believe in much of the rest of the "first world.")

We can't kick the problems down the road to others without KNOWING that it got worse. We can't fix it, but we can try to make things happen slower, so that those resilient people  who will come after us will have problems to address, rather than crises.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,902]

53 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Again I state that I do not deny the very small global average rise, but wild predictions and doom prophets do a great disservice to that side of the debate.

Common sense is no longer part of the discussion for many people. Doom prophets and deniers are two sides of the same coin. They are both groups of people who are dug in for the fight rather than working for improvements. I do not think there are complete solutions available, but there are still ways to lessen the impact. Yes we are adaptable and will survive, but that is no excuse for ignoring and denying the problem until adaptation with an unknown but potentially high cost is forced on our grand children.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

A lot of 'green energy' solutions require manufactured components that leave their own pollutants, waste and energy costs in their wake; batteries, solar panels, wind blades, etc.

Yep.  I'd argue that that's true of any technology, period.  The trick is to find the least damaging solution.

Quote

When it gets stated that global warming threatens 'the world', is it not more accurate to say that it threatens specific countries and/or cities while actually benefitting other areas ? 

Sort of.  Your reply about threatening 'the world' only spoke to threatening humans, so let's talk about that first.  Some humans are directly harmed - people who lose their homes to flooding, or die in heat waves, or have to move because you can't grow crops/catch fish/find water any more.  Many won't care (much) for decades.  You could postulate that some will be helped by new places to grow crops, true.  But try telling a guy living in Canada that the forest his family managed for lumber burned down and he can now GROW CORN! and he should be grateful.  He may not agree, even if it's true that climate change has provided a new way for him to make money.  Change isn't always seen as a good thing, especially when it's forced upon people.

But let's talk about threatening the rest of 'the world' - the biosphere.  Evolution causes animals and plants to change with time to adapt to new environments.  The faster the change, the less that can adapt.  Traditionally climactic changes result in mass extinctions, and we are driving one of the fastest changes in the history of life on Earth.  We are already seeing a mass extinction, and it will just get worse.  That's a loss for the planet.  And it will likely be a loss for us as well.  Several Northwest rivers are about to lose their salmon runs, and that will harm working fishermen and tribes that depend on that run.

Quote

True; several large coastal cities are threatened by even a small rise in ocean levels, but this won't happen overnight, surely there would be time and resources to relocate such structures and areas with ample time ?

Sure.  But that will cost trillions.  (Think about the cost of relocating Manhattan, for example.)  Now, you may well argue "that's not that much money over 20 years."  But it's happening all over the world, so it's going to be quadrillions.  Where will that money come from?

There is a very good argument that it comes from the people causing the problems - the creators and users of fossil fuels.  A carbon tax, in other words, with the proceeds used to relocate Manhattan (and New Orleans, and New Delhi etc.)  And also to build seawalls and desalinators and and air conditioners and to pay farmers who lost their livelihoods etc.  That will also have the effect of reducing the FUTURE amounts that we will have to pay to mitigage climate change damage.

I would add that if we truly believe that dealing with the results of the problem is the way to go, one of the things we'd have to start doing _right_now_ is accepting any refugees that come to the US so that we can be part of that relocation.  Is that something you're open to?

Quote

but if we think that converting the whole world to net-zero emissions energy is not going to be an economic loss for billions of other people, in other business, in other areas, then we're kidding ourselves. 

Agreed.  But it's important to distinguish between destroying people's lives and reducing the earnings on their 401ks.  Every time that technology changes, there are winners and losers.  Economies change.  The stables and blacksmiths and manure removal and carcass disposal industries of Manhattan were decimated when the car became more popular, but the change was important for public health.  

So overall I think it's important to prioritize human lives over industry income.  Being fair to humans wins over being economically fair IMO.

Quote

and yet climate change activists are encouraging a literal 'break a sweat and scream' panic over a few degrees within a century, with some gullible followers wondering if the very air around them would be too hot to breathe within their lifetime.  It's dangerous fear-mongering . . . .

Hmm.  If, last year, someone said "Seattle could see 115 degrees in the summer next year!" would you have labeled that dangerous fear-mongering, believed only by gullible followers?

And yes, the air may become too hot to breathe.  It already has in a few places.  Humans cannot survive wet-bulb temperatures above 95F.  It's not that it's hard to do, it's not that old people will die, it's not that you have to get out of the sun - it's that it is not survivable even if you are sitting in the shade next to a fan.  We have already hit that temperature ten times (in remote and/or places with A/C, fortunately) in the past 20 years or so, and that will get worse. 

And again, it's not that it will be in the news, or that a few old people will die, or that the workers out in the sun will be at risk.  If there's a town of 10,000 in that area, and no one has air conditioning, most of them will die.

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

that's a lot of batteries with few recyclable parts

Nope, batteries are actually very recyclable.

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Is it ultimately still efficient ?  ...efficient enough to fully balance or gain with the development, manufacture, maintenance and waste disposal costs vs our current fuel-powered machines ?

Yes, internal combustion is actually shockingly inefficient. Heard of Carnot efficiency?

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

is it not more accurate to say that it threatens specific countries and/or cities while actually benefitting other areas ?

Well if it causes an exodus of refugees/illegal immigrants to the "beneficiaries", would those areas actually benefit? Not everything is zero-sum. This is a lose-lose situation.

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

It's dangerous fear-mongering, as damaging to society (or worse) as the deniers.

Could you explain how they could damage society? How are they dangerous? I think they're annoying and ridiculous, but you're going to need more justification than that to call them dangerous.

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

surely there would be time and resources to relocate such structures and areas with ample time ?

Hope you're prepared to pay for that. How much would relocating London cost? How about Manhattan? Have you seen house prices lately? By comparison renewables are relatively cheap.

Edited July 7, 2021 by olofscience

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

8 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I don't have time to respond to everything in here -- but thanks for including so much, I mean it. I agree that some things can be compensated for, however mainly by the richer people, in the richer countries. Which leaves out most of Africa, Central and South America, and South Asia and the Pacific islands: all places that are already suffering more extreme weather, and most of which don't have the resources to make technological changes. We can say it's "nature" to just let them die, but I'm not sure we want to go there.

So many people will try to migrate, generally to those more temperate areas that are greening up -- where they look different, and are generally accused of not "trying to fit in." In the US, some of the more vulnerable coastal cities are starting to price things like dikes and seawalls to keep a rising sea at bay; that cost will eat the infrastructure maintenance budget for the next hundred or more years, at the expense of all of the inland cities that still need their roads, bridges, water systems, electric grids etc. maintained and upgraded. Especially to make up for the increasing population of the coastal people who can afford to move to those more inland areas, driving up the prices of housing. But now there won't be as much money to build new lower-cost housing.

These are all problems; it's not that we can't deal with them, but we don't have them scoped now, and they will create huge problems and inconveniences that we already aren't dealing very well with (immigration and infrastructure are common topics of debate in the US, and I believe in much of the rest of the "first world.")

We can't kick the problems down the road to others without KNOWING that it got worse. We can't fix it, but we can try to make things happen slower, so that those resilient people  who will come after us will have problems to address, rather than crises.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Re:  We can't kick the problems down the road

Yet, this is the very thing that our Congress does.  Why you ask; because of the costs ( i.e., taxes ) are more than our Congress Critters are willing to be honest with us about.

IMO the solution will mean substantial changes in the lifestyle of almost every person living in an advanced country.  Substantial changes => costs, for one; supply, for another.

Congress Critters IMO want to just give you a sound bite about how much they are doing for you.  IMO they know what should be done; but, this is bad news & they want no part of it.

End of rant,

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by JerryBaumchen

[Bigfalls 110]

I recently read a book written around 1910 about the ice age.  Due to the elliptical orbit of the earth the length of the seasons change.                                I did some rough calculations and summer is now about 10 hours shorter than it was 100 years ago.  In 1000 years it will be 100 hours shorter or about 4 days.  In 10,000 years summer will be 40 days shorter.  That's not a solution to the current issue but if mankind is still around, they will have a different set of circumstances to deal with.

[gowlerk 1,902]

1 hour ago, Bigfalls said:

I recently read a book written around 1910 about the ice age.  Due to the elliptical orbit of the earth the length of the seasons change.                                I did some rough calculations and summer is now about 10 hours shorter than it was 100 years ago.  In 1000 years it will be 100 hours shorter or about 4 days.  In 10,000 years summer will be 40 days shorter.  That's not a solution to the current issue but if mankind is still around, they will have a different set of circumstances to deal with.

There MAY have been some conflicting research done in the years since 1910. Your rough calculations are an interesting exercise, but I wouldn't go planning the future of the world around them. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 hours ago, Bigfalls said:

I recently read a book written around 1910 about the ice age.  Due to the elliptical orbit of the earth the length of the seasons change.                                I did some rough calculations and summer is now about 10 hours shorter than it was 100 years ago.  In 1000 years it will be 100 hours shorter or about 4 days.  In 10,000 years summer will be 40 days shorter.  That's not a solution to the current issue but if mankind is still around, they will have a different set of circumstances to deal with.

Hi falls,

If this type of stuff interests you, then I suggest that you read:

The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World: Ward, Peter: 9780805075120: Amazon.com: Books

Before I read it, I thought it would be about as dry as yesterday's newspaper.  But, once I started reading, I kept at it.

Jerry Baumchen

[metalslug 31]

Quote

"Seattle could see 115 degrees in the summer next year!" would you have labeled that dangerous fear-mongering, believed only by gullible followers?
And yes, the air may become too hot to breathe.  It already has in a few places.  Humans cannot survive wet-bulb temperatures above 95F.

It's an extraordinary claim to assert that a full 115 degrees lies squarely at the feet of global warming. Hypothetically, if the world was net-zero tomorrow, and/or a full degree lower on average, would the 115 degrees reduce to a more survivable 95 degrees ?  , with no chance of seeing even 114 degrees ?  Forgive me, but I doubt that.

Quote

But it's important to distinguish between destroying people's lives and reducing the earnings on their 401ks.

The very gradual loss of Manhattan Island; would you regard that as "destroying people's lives" or "reducing the earnings on their 401ks" ?  Sure, I don't have the personal budget to relocate it, or any other place, but neither do I have a budget for the wide river of lithium batteries as one of several things that would need be recycled or responsibly disposed. A poster replied that, yes, they can be recycled, but apparently not for much profit, some cursory reading suggests we're barely recycling 20% of them globally at the moment, so who will fund the incentive to recycle more ?  If one properly relocates an island, that's once in several thousand years, and some of that would be construction 'attrition'. 

Thunberg-predictions aside; how much time does Manhattan currently have ? I seem to be reading an estimated 50% loss by 2060.  Based on that; I have to also believe that property prices in Manhattan are currently in freefall, and that the attrition of that area as old buildings are demolished and new buildings are constructed, are not being constructed on Manhattan Island anymore ?  ..as nobody would add new infrastructure to a doomed island ? Is that what is actually happening there now ?   Again; hypothetically, if we were net-zero tomorrow, would that save Manhattan in time by instantly stopping ocean rise or, indeed, reversing it ?   Is the effect that fast ?  It might not be a stretch to say the island is doomed already, if assuming that it was ever at that level of danger. At what point does one cut and run ? 

Edited July 8, 2021 by metalslug

[billvon 2,380]

39 minutes ago, metalslug said:

It's an extraordinary claim to assert that a full 115 degrees lies squarely at the feet of global warming.

It's not.  It's the combination of a normal heat wave and climate change.  We will see more and more of that, as climate change increases average temperatures and normal heat waves happen.

Worldwide climate change has pushed temperatures up by 1-2 degrees F.  In the Northern hemisphere, the increase has been 5-10F due to a lot of factors (more land in the lower latitudes, more rapid loss of ice and snow, less ocean circulation, elliptical orbit of the Earth.)  The record in Portland was 107F before last week, so it would be reasonable to expect that sort of heat very occasionally.  Now we will see (107+8)=115F very occasionally.  In 20 years we may see 120F very occasionally.  

Quote

Hypothetically, if the world was net-zero tomorrow, and/or a full degree lower on average, would the 115 degrees reduce to a more survivable 95 degrees ?  , with no chance of seeing even 114 degrees ?  Forgive me, but I doubt that.

The odds will go down, and go way down with time.  There are no guarantees.

(BTW that's 95 degrees WET BULB temperatures.  Think dew point.  Not ordinary temperature.)

Quote

The very gradual loss of Manhattan Island; would you regard that as "destroying people's lives" or "reducing the earnings on their 401ks" ?  

I'm not so concerned about Manhattan in terms of destroying people's lives.  The people who live by the Battery (the first place to go) can afford to move to Denver.  In terms of destroying people's lives, it's more the shacks in New Orleans and New Delhi that will see people made homeless and killed.

However, the cost will actually be higher to move Manhattan; dead people are fairly cheap in the long run.  Chemical Bank, not so much.  "But it will be very gradual!  Spread it out over years!"  Yep, we can do that.  Or we can do spend the same time and money eliminating the burning of fossil fuels, and save our grandchildren the need to move Brooklyn too.

Quote

A poster replied that, yes, they can be recycled, but apparently not for much profit.

Correct.  The raw materials are very cheap, so it's slightly cheaper to just throw them out and get new materials.  Again, it's a decision between short term profit and long term human benefits.

Quote

so who will fund the incentive to recycle more ?

Utilities.  They will need more battery storage to stabilize the grid with more and more renewables being added.  Used EV batteries are cheap, and an excellent way to provide that storage.

Quote

 If one properly relocates an island, that's once in several thousand years, and some of that would be construction 'attrition'.

Given that we've already had to do that several times, I doubt the "once in several thousand years" stat.  For example, the US is currently trying to figure out how to move Shishmaref, an Alaskan island being lost to climate change.  The cost to move a 500 person community is estimated to be $180 million.  

Manhattan has 1.6 million people.  (Just the people living there, not the people working there or the companies headquartered there.)

At the end of the day, the entire climate change question is - do we just keep borrowing against the future forever, and let the future deal with the consequences of our desire for short term profit?  Politicians would love this.  They borrow and borrow and give people bread and circuses and get votes in the election next year.  And if their great grandkids have to deal with the fallout (either due to climate change or an impossible deficit) well - they will be dead and won't lose any votes.  In the meantime they get re-elected and live large on their yachts.

If that's not OK with us, it's up to us to demand they change their tactics.  The lawsuits are already starting, and they are the early indicators that governments/corporations will not be able to just refuse to pay their debts forever.

[gowlerk 1,902]

33 minutes ago, billvon said:

Manhattan has 1.6 million people.  (Just the people living there, not the people working there or the companies headquartered there.)

The greater threat than people displaced by sea level rise is adapting food production to the new climate and the new growing areas. We can measure and predict the effects of larger oceans pretty easily.

[billvon 2,380]

30 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The greater threat than people displaced by sea level rise is adapting food production to the new climate and the new growing areas. 

Yeah, I am not saying that one effect is greater or less than the other.  Just that we will have to move populations to deal with rising seas, which will cost money.  Food is another problem.  So is water.

[headoverheels 291]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

The greater threat than people displaced by sea level rise is adapting food production to the new climate and the new growing areas. We can measure and predict the effects of larger oceans pretty easily.

Mango groves in Alberta.

[olofscience 420]

6 hours ago, metalslug said:

A poster replied that, yes, they can be recycled, but apparently not for much profit

I said they CAN be recycled, I said nothing about the profit. They can be recycled for a LOT of profit - Tesla wrecks were getting bought for more than the price of other cars because people were salvaging the batteries.

And the Tesla grid scale battery for South Australia, made from old and decommissioned batteries, made a TON of profit for the company they built it for, it was discussed in one of the other threads here.

[olofscience 420]

7 hours ago, metalslug said:

Sure, I don't have the personal budget to relocate it, or any other place, but neither do I have a budget for the wide river of lithium batteries as one of several things that would need be recycled or responsibly disposed.

Lithium batteries are a lot cheaper than relocating entire cities. Their price has dropped 97% in the past 20 years or so. Property prices follow the opposite trend.

Same with solar power and wind turbines - solar is now the cheapest grid energy source according to the International Energy Agency. I started an entire thread about it too.

[wmw999 2,116]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

However, the cost will actually be higher to move Manhattan; dead people are fairly cheap in the long run.  Chemical Bank, not so much.  "But it will be very gradual!  Spread it out over years!"  Yep, we can do that.  Or we can do spend the same time and money eliminating the burning of fossil fuels, and save our grandchildren the need to move Brooklyn too.

This, a thousand times this. A little inconvenience now can save the people who come after us a whole lot more -- and don't forget they'll have other problems (and advantages) that we have no idea about now. Do you want to make like easier or harder for the people who come after you?

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,620]

12 hours ago, Bigfalls said:

I recently read a book written around 1910 about the ice age.  Due to the elliptical orbit of the earth the length of the seasons change.                                I did some rough calculations and summer is now about 10 hours shorter than it was 100 years ago.  In 1000 years it will be 100 hours shorter or about 4 days.  In 10,000 years summer will be 40 days shorter.

You need to check your math.  It's way off.

[Phil1111 908]

"The B.C. Wildfire Service has spent more than $95.4 million fighting fires this season, eating through more than 70 per cent of its annual allocated budget before the start of peak fire season.

The forestry ministry provided the figures in a statement to CBC News on Wednesday. The wildfire service's total budget allocated for the 2021 fire season is $136 million."

Not including the costs to towns and villages completely destroyed. Sounds like the government will have to buy more bulldozers and water bombers to "fix" the problem.