Author Topic: Climate Doom  (Read 13660 times)

Nearings fault

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2021, 05:49:38 am »
I would be interested in how the brain trust reads this article. On one hand I see melting ice, species habitat destroyed, methane release from permafrost melting.
Read deeper and I also see woody shrubs replacing moss and lichen and a deeper soil able to support much more carbon sequestering biomass... Do the models reflect a greening arctic able to absorb carbon? I dont know how to do the fancy pasting you guys do so it's just a link. Again, just looking for opinions I'm not staking some sort of position here
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/thin-ice-labrador-summer-climate-changes-1.6005130

Nearings fault

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2021, 02:46:06 pm »
Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer that I try to keep maintained and running even if it makes less and less sense financially.  I could invest several tens of thousands of dollars for a slightly more efficient vehicle but it violates many of my financial rules so no.

You also would have to calculate all the embedded energy involved with replacing that vehicle.  For instance if you replaced it with an EV, the batteries for it have a huge embedded energy in their manufacture.

RE
I totally agree.

And how would you calculate this embedded energy, and determine its value in a real world purchase? Does less embedded energy indicate a less expensive/practical/efficient vehicle, or more?
I honestly dont know anymore. I find the numbers are skewed to match whoever's point is being made. I think a vehicle that is maintained and replaced piece by piece and driven sparingly should have a lower carbon footprint regardless of fuel. Based on my research the current batch of electric vehicles will last the life of the battery. Maybe there will be a huge aftermarket that develops to refit the cars but everything about them is assembled for fit not for sustainability...

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2021, 11:07:33 pm »
Spoiler (hover to show)

I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel shown):

You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000.  Eddy has (or had) one too.  If you get a good one you have great value for the money.  I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty good.  27 MPG on the freeway).  What matters is how much I drive it.  Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter what else you drive.  Plan your driving to minimize miles driven.  Save some money.  If people really cared about fuel efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was sold.  Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the mileage is where I live.



You know every car in that line has its engine running and you are NOT going to get through that line in 5 minutes.  Maybe they could have a car wash pull mechanism?  That would keep the engines off.  But I'm kidding.  No Diner would be in this line.  An average drive through at a fast food place I'll guess uses up fifty cents worth of fuel at todays prices unless there is no line.  With no line the odds of someone being smart enough to turn the engine off at the window is increased.  The answer is not to drive an electric.  The answer is cook at home and make sure everyone else does too.  Nobody likes the second part of that statement.  I don't.



As things are  Diners would find another way to get our coffee fix.  If I could find a local boiled tree bark I liked as much that would be great.



The world will not and cannot conserve itself to salvation.  The general public has been propagandized with this idea because that is where capitalism wants things to go.  It keeps the existing arrangement going the longest.

* Changing our ways is not in the equation but that is the only thing that could work. 

The equation:



Having 'Woman' in the equation is only humor, but a healthy guy will drive fifty miles to get laid.  100 miles round trip. 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 12:08:16 am by K-Dog »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2021, 11:43:50 pm »
I think I blundered onto something: 

Quote
The world will not and cannot conserve itself to salvation.  The general public has been propagandized with this idea because that is where capitalism wants things to go.  It keeps the existing arrangement going the longest. 




« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 11:55:26 pm by K-Dog »

Phil Potts

  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 610
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2021, 12:06:13 am »
We have had a growth dependent paradigm because of all currency being borrowed into existence. With a shift to commoditization and pricing of every aspect of nature, a new user pays system makes conservation profitable for bankers and billionaires who bought the air, water, wildlife, forest and farms. Depopulation with the great reset is then feasible in theory.

Nobody goes anywhere to get laid when the risk v reward calculus is Russian roulette and if they do, they don't procreate if it's like using 3 chambered rounds... (as I type on a wireless internet cellphone  6 inches from my testicles). 

« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 12:11:50 am by Phil Potts »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2021, 12:28:49 am »
Quote
Nobody goes anywhere to get laid when the risk v reward calculus is Russian roulette and if they do, they don't procreate

We live in a strange historical bubble, likely to be temporary where getting laid and procreating are not the same thing.

Contraception made the difference.  It makes a huge difference comparing how much CO2 is used up in the two activities also.

Code: [Select]
If (getting laid) {
 fuel_burned = 4 // US gallons;
 CO2 = 19 * fuel_burned;  // lbs per gallon;
}
Print CO2;

76 pounds.

CO2 generated by actually procreating: (from birth to adulthood only)



Code: [Select]
If (having baby) {
 fuel_burned = 11600 // US gallons;
 CO2 = 19 * fuel_burned;  // lbs per gallon;
}
Print CO2;

220,400 pounds.

That is more than a little bit of difference.

Now take the second code block and think: 'Eight billion meat packages.'


K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2021, 12:58:07 am »
Quote
Nobody goes anywhere to get laid when the risk v reward calculus is Russian roulette



On Monday, a group of sex workers from the Association of Prostitutes of Mins Gerais took over a street full of shuttered hotels where they once worked, in pre-pandemic times. Now they have been forced out onto the street to solicit for clients, still legally, but in a much less secure environment, prostitutes reveal.



“We are in the front line, moving the economy and we are at risk,” the association’s president Cida Vieira, who took part in the protest, told AFP. “We need to get vaccinated.”

Cida is in the top pic I believe.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 12:59:53 am by K-Dog »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2021, 02:17:36 pm »
 

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2021, 08:43:12 am »
Spoiler (hover to show)

Quote
And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient Mercedes in 1.

You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip ratio difference is more than 2 / 1.  Batteries also need a lot of lithium and don't last forever.  Everything considered driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going green with electrics.  The power generated at the power plant and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet of electrics is as bad as what we have now.  The best thing is drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.

The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the American Public understands energy issues.  It is not a statement for or against electrics.

Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it on days you are licensed to do so.  We will have to ration power or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing.  If you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are dreaming.  Nothing else could give that much power in the time frame needed.

Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will.  Lets say it takes 17 kW to get Karen to   where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with no idle emissions.  It took her 17kW to get there.  That does not change.

So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time.  Lets say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.  If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.

That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.

Quote
U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in 2011 and has been declining since then because many plants retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity totaled 229 GW
.

Quote
In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion kilowatthours (kWh)

4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs  (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW

This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of its electricity from coal.

Cutting to the chase:  100 million new electrics will require increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.

After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.

I wonder why nobody pushing the green new deal has pointed this out?



I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out? 

Does this mean we are screwed?

* the math can be customized to reflect your country of residence
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 09:23:28 am by K-Dog »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2021, 09:30:47 am »
The Answer is Carbon Dividends.



Go 15 minutes in to get straight to the Dividends.


https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 09:44:03 am by K-Dog »

Nearings fault

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2021, 10:26:00 am »
Spoiler (hover to show)

Quote
And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient Mercedes in 1.

You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip ratio difference is more than 2 / 1.  Batteries also need a lot of lithium and don't last forever.  Everything considered driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going green with electrics.  The power generated at the power plant and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet of electrics is as bad as what we have now.  The best thing is drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.

The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the American Public understands energy issues.  It is not a statement for or against electrics.

Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it on days you are licensed to do so.  We will have to ration power or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing.  If you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are dreaming.  Nothing else could give that much power in the time frame needed.

Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will.  Lets say it takes 17 kW to get Karen to   where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with no idle emissions.  It took her 17kW to get there.  That does not change.

So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time.  Lets say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.  If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.

That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.

Quote
U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in 2011 and has been declining since then because many plants retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity totaled 229 GW
.

Quote
In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion kilowatthours (kWh)

4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs  (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW

This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of its electricity from coal.

Cutting to the chase:  100 million new electrics will require increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.

After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.

I wonder why nobody pushing the green new deal has pointed this out?



I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out? 

Does this mean we are screwed?

* the math can be customized to reflect your country of residence
the tesla x is rated at a little over 200 watt hrs per km
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/support/european-union-energy-label&ved=2ahUKEwjfqfu0zqvwAhUQbc0KHUgEDPYQFjAKegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw3bu5di3U0kTWpjTNG_L4dF

While I do not disagree with a renewed grid  being a prerequisite for electric cars. I think the math should be as close to right as possible...
I do think we will see the same thing happen as did with fuel injection. Watts per km will lead to heavier vehicles until efficiency is about the same... I forget what that energy law is called.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 10:41:36 am by Nearings fault »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2021, 12:56:30 pm »
Spoiler (hover to show)
Driving at 80 kilometers an hour you move 80 kilometers in one hour.  <-- Don't say Duh.

(80 kilometers) x (200 watts/kilometer) = 16000 kW.

Your number is 16kW and mine is 17kW.  No difference, mine was an educated guess and my math is still valid.

The distinction between kW and kwh is frequently overlooked.  kW is the rate at which energy is being used.  kWh is how much has been used.  200 W is how much energy it takes to cover a kilometer and a speed was not given.

I picked 50 mph which works out to 80 kph.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 12:58:59 pm by K-Dog »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2021, 01:01:39 pm »
Quote
Oh, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing for a coal buildout.

No there won't be any.  The expectation will be the needed Giga-Watts will be farted out a unicorns' ass.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 01:11:08 pm by K-Dog »

K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Official Doomster
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2021, 01:07:18 pm »
Quote
I've got a nice 20 year old Chrysler sitting outside, it hadn't been running for a month, and I finally got the intake torn apart and it back together and running. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one in the family interested in driving a clunker.

I find with the car only running once every ten days or so it is a lot harder to keep clean.  The wheels stay free of brake dust but driving does not blow pollen and dust away.  If I don't keep it clean it can get crusty fast.

Nearings fault

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Doom
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2021, 02:56:25 pm »
Spoiler (hover to show)
Driving at 80 kilometers an hour you move 80 kilometers in one hour.  <-- Don't say Duh.

(80 kilometers) x (200 watts/kilometer) = 16000 kW.

Your number is 16kW and mine is 17kW.  No difference, mine was an educated guess and my math is still valid.

The distinction between kW and kwh is frequently overlooked.  kW is the rate at which energy is being used.  kWh is how much has been used.  200 W is how much energy it takes to cover a kilometer and a speed was not given.

I picked 50 mph which works out to 80 kph.
an 80km trip to Starbucks? I believe I got my energy denotation right. 200watts hr is the consumption number. Instantaneous would be watts and it is probably many times 200 for short durations.
I would say we generally agree that the best answer is driving much much less.