Solving Climate Change.

[Ansiktsburk]

Just gauging the thread, are the discussions past week mostly in the spirit of

• Technical solutions

• Mass reduction of use of energy

• despair

• Denial of "good energy" shortage

?

[Vitruvius]

Insulate Britain ringleader says ‘he doesn’t care about insulation’
Lizzie Edmonds 11 hrs ago

The head of Insulate Britain has called himself a "hypocrite" - adding he "doesn’t care" about insulating homes. Liam Norton is behind the series of road-block protests in recent weeks. One of the main objectives of the protests is calling on the government to insulate all social housing by 2025 - therefore reducing the amount of wasted energy pumped out of people’s homes.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/i ... d=msedgntp

Why is this person trying to be hated? After seeing how Greenpeace helped facilitate the oil and gas project in the Shetlands (previous page) I'm suspicious. I don't want to come across like a conspiracy theory nutjob, but there's no other conclusion that can be drawn from the failures of Greenpeace to challenge the legal decision in England, than that they were complicit. It's inconceivable that their legal team did not advise them accordingly. They would be remiss if they had not. And if Greenpeace are aiding and abetting oil and gas production, who is this guy really?

[Vitruvius]

All UK's electricity will come from clean sources by 2035, says PM

Boris Johnson has said all of the UK's electricity is going to come from clean energy sources by 2035. Speaking from Manchester, the prime minister said the target could be achieved through advances in wind power and other renewable sources. The shift towards renewable energy is part of government efforts to cut carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. However some green groups have warned that the UK is behind schedule for meeting its target. Mr Johnson's commitment comes ahead of the COP 26 conference, a global United Nations summit on tackling climate change to be held in Glasgow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58792261



The aesthetic of the pie chart is worth six years; and the picture hasn't changed that much in the interim. It's not that I find the suggestion the energy mix will change drastically by 2035 unlikely, it's a question of how that's achieved. And also, what one calls clean energy. The EU's recent attempt to define gas as clean energy, may be what Joris Bohnson's got up his sleeve - particularly given the spike in global gas prices and rumblings about fracking the Bowland shale formation. One should bear in mind that complete collapse of the economy, such that we're left with one bicycle powered table lamp between us, would equally fulfil his pledge. Otherwise, I don't see that happening! Even with magma energy and the wind at my back, I couldn't get to net zero before 2045. Admittedly, that's worldwide, but still!

[Vitruvius]

Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

I suggest developing magma energy as a global good initially, with the energy used specifically for carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. This is an image of the 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire.

[Vitruvius]

...

[Vitruvius]

...

[henry quirk]

...

Most productive post of the thread.

[Lariliss]

Just gauging the thread, are the discussions past week mostly in the spirit of

• Technical solutions

• Mass reduction of use of energy

• despair

• Denial of "good energy" shortage

?

Hello, let me join the thread with the next.

- Technical solutions are obviously necessary. They are mentioned already here in the thread. With some spotlight from my opinion and knowledge.

The overall model of climate change prediction is very complicated and it has a lot of missing data (because of the lack of specific satellites coverage and on-earth probes).

This year scientific-engineering groups have launched more data collection probes to oceans. There is a planned launch of satellites aimed for data CO2 3D atmospheric data collection, simply we don’t have the full understanding of it’s behaviour and exact influence.

- Global awareness and local actions. Fires, floods and extremely hot weather this year is a fact.
Environmental awareness not only shows growth in the media, but also takes its steps.

Local ecosystems need specific surveillance from space and on earth.
This is the case of ‘the more the better’, when it comes to the complex math models giving leverages for climate control. Driving force for the largest industries and everyday personal life.

- Energy sources should consider all the possibilities with the pro’s and con’s: solar, wind, tidal, nuclear. On national and international level decisions, proactiveness and the ‘safety first’ consideration.

- Personal life style. For some extremes we should be ready to go out of comfort zone, look around and reconsider lifestyle.

Despair might not help) But most of us are free to choose, right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

In this case, to accept the "is" is a cop-out, is lazy, is cowardly and a failure to be truly affecting positive change. To wrestle with the "ought" is ground breaking, staying fit, brave, and revolutionary deserving of a noble prize.

I disagree. Seeking to attribute blame offers no path to a sustainable future. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.
Blame is not the end, rather the beginning, and it's the only way to find solution.

But what you seem to be missing is that the earths resources are finite, and our population is an explosion with no apparent end in sight. We're not even bridling it. On it's course humanity is not sustainable. It's far more intelligent to place all our tech into returning to older ways, where recycling and sustainability are the number one and two money making industries. Solar is the smartest choice for power generation as there's no chance of disturbing anything on earth which may be key to life. We've been raping it for far too long. And if we screw it up much more, it may extinguish all life as we know it. Our problem is that we never really take the time to know the reasons we shouldn't, as we fear our own personal timeline might not allow for our so called success, our ultimate payoff, our names in history books. Or in other words, a bunch of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. As it all makes no difference to us when we're dead. We can't take it when we go. It's far better to take the slow road ensuring we have all our ducks in a row, so there's no room for error. Absolute certainty is the smartest choice.

You quoted the OP - did you not read it? There is no over population, and no inherent limit to resources if we apply the right technology.
There is no such thing as never ending resources, 'the cup will always eventually over flow.' (<---metaphor)

Solar is not the right technology, as it can never meet our energy needs, less yet exceed current energy demand - and so provide excess energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. Solar can only ever prevent some small part of GHG emissions - and to do so requires a lot of infrastructure, not just square mile after mile of solar panels, but also energy storage infrastructure. Because solar is inconstant, you need to store that energy, and even then, still require fossil fuel back up generating capacity. Solar panels use toxic metals in their manufacture, last 25 years, and then are impossible to recycle and expensive to replace.
Along with wind and hydrogen it is, and science isn't through yet, there could be new developments in solar. It is the SMARTEST choice, as when our star depletes it's hydrogen, we're going to die anyway. And it has no known side effects as it's been giving us energy from the very beginning. Your idea could be the end of us. The planet is essentially a dynamo and tapping its energy could screw with our magnetosphere and the liquid nature of our iron core, so that we'd end up like mars. It may take a long time for such a thing to happen, but the sun would probably out live such a possibility. Solar is the safest choice.


Magma energy, I believe - does have the potential to meet and exceed current energy demand from clean energy, and used to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, multiplies resources - in much the same way the invention of tractors and fertilizers allowed food production to outpace population growth, and so prove the Malthusian prophecy wrong. Limits to growth is the same false prophecy. It's not necessarily so. As a matter of physical fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and there's a virtually limitless source of energy in the molten interior of the earth. It seems technologically feasible to tap into that energy on a very large scale. Thus I submit, that's what we 'ought' to do; put aside the blame game, and apply the right technologies.
Nuclear is even better and safe with liquid salt cooled reactors. One's been running for many years without any accidents whatsoever. Nuclear by far is the best yielding technology.

Otherwise, seeking to attribute blame, the fact that America consumes a lot of energy per person, for example, while China has a very large population, immediately stalls any progress. They can't even agree on the basis on which 'responsibility' should be attributed, but if you want to keep working on a Gordian knot that hasn't been untangled in 25 previous COPS, keep at it. Meanwhile - I think we can do an end run around all those huge, diametrically opposed, stalemated forces, by developing magma energy as a global good, specifically to address the climate and ecological crisis - and thus, make environmental gains without attributing blame, and without undermining economic prosperity. Attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side does not imply a long series of costly, politically painful impositions upon society. Solar does, and that's why for you, it's about blame!

I say that existing technologies, besides those fossil fuel sources, can rule the day and curb/reverse Global warming if everyone joins in, and I mean America too!