the climate scare is based on models, and the model predictions are all over the place...just the idea that you can adequately model climate is stupid...it's described by a coupled set of non-linear partial differential equations that exhibit chaotic behavior...the sheer number of unknowables needed to parameterize and initialize the model is HUGE...the spectral reflectivity of Idaho for the next 100 yrs, ice crystal generation in the upper atmosphere, volcanic activity, solar insolation...on and on...it warmed up 30F since this morning here...the sun drives climate, the 400 ppm of CO2 doesn't....CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past, they just chose a recent minimum as a comparitor...
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?
- Thread starter Marc v E
- Start date
In an electric car: Do you listen to AC or DC?
The idea we are in control and we should the planet to behave benignly is naive, and humankind has grown naive and lazy.
Natural disasters happen. Over. It sucks but such is reality. Ask the dinosaurs that ruled over 200M years rather than our feeble human dominance of 10k years or so.
Mother Earth self corrects.
I would agree until recently. Nuclear is VERY expensive to build and takes many years to complete. Be aware that China is scaling away from traditional nuclear. China is currently installing the equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week based on solar and wind. The new solar/battery technology is MUCH faster to implement and far cheaper in hopes to replace nuclear altogether.
China is also going to build the first ever Thorium Molten Salt Reactor is said to be 'inherently safer'.
The point is, they are moving at lightening speed. We are not. They want to have the cheapest electric on the planet. Meanwhile the US and other western powers are clinging on to their fossil fuel legacy industries.
Isn't it strange that news like this is so under reported by BOTH sides of the media?
Since 1996 many ICE cars in many (admittedly high air pollution) places have been putting out cleaner air than they have been taking in. In 1996 the now seemingly defunct SAAB was the first to do this.
So, for some time, they have NOT been the #1 air pollution problem. They are just the most visible item to focus on.
There needs to be a lot more focus elsewhere to make progress faster. ICE cars are no longer (and for some time, have not been) the worst offenders. At this point, their betterment of overall pollution is miniscule compared to almost any other industry.
EERecordist
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,011
- Likes
- 1,969
If you want to talk about energy, a good place to start is the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and their energy (and water) sankey charts, they are in quadrillion BTU. You can convert that to Watt-hours, Joules, therms, or other energy units.
flowcharts.llnl.gov
Where the world is going is to replace most natural gas and oil direct uses with electricity, especially very efficient heat pumps. So electrifying space heating and motor vehicles. At the same time the plan is to decarbonize the electricity generation. And also at the same time we can increase efficiency - energy savings from a baseline, by better insulation and more efficient vehicles.
It is happening gradually by economic forces. The electricity markets favor solar, wind, and energy storage, because they are always the cheapest energy generation source. You can get a general idea of the cost of generators from the Lazard levelized cost of energy and storage. Any new plant is going to be financed against much more detailed site, grid, and market studies. If it is not economic, it will not be built. There is also a lot of discussion of electricity transmission lines. They may have high sounding initial costs, but they have a lifetime of 50 years for the substation equipment and 80-100 years for the transmission lines. The legal easements, a major cost, has an essentially limitless lifetime. So when financed, new transmission is not expensive and it is fairly profitable.
www.lazard.com
If you want to understand the electricity business and policy in the US, Peter Fox-Penner's books are good and not too long.
Energy Flow Charts | Flowcharts
A single energy flow chart depicting resources and their use represents vast quantities of data. Energy resources included solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, natural gas, coal, biomass, and petroleum. Energy flow diagrams change over time as new technologies are developed and as...
Where the world is going is to replace most natural gas and oil direct uses with electricity, especially very efficient heat pumps. So electrifying space heating and motor vehicles. At the same time the plan is to decarbonize the electricity generation. And also at the same time we can increase efficiency - energy savings from a baseline, by better insulation and more efficient vehicles.
It is happening gradually by economic forces. The electricity markets favor solar, wind, and energy storage, because they are always the cheapest energy generation source. You can get a general idea of the cost of generators from the Lazard levelized cost of energy and storage. Any new plant is going to be financed against much more detailed site, grid, and market studies. If it is not economic, it will not be built. There is also a lot of discussion of electricity transmission lines. They may have high sounding initial costs, but they have a lifetime of 50 years for the substation equipment and 80-100 years for the transmission lines. The legal easements, a major cost, has an essentially limitless lifetime. So when financed, new transmission is not expensive and it is fairly profitable.
Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE+)
Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy+ is a widely cited report that analyzes the cost competitiveness of renewables, energy storage, and system considerations.
www.lazard.com
If you want to understand the electricity business and policy in the US, Peter Fox-Penner's books are good and not too long.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2021
- Messages
- 2,917
- Likes
- 6,267
There’s always science.
7. Is the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration unprecedented in Earth’s history? Answer | Royal Society
Is the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration unprecedented in Earth’s history? Answer
royalsociety.org
Or if you can’t read the link from the Royal Society
The present level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost certainly unprecedented in the past million years, during which time modern humans evolved and societies developed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was however higher in Earth’s more distant past (many millions of years ago), at which time palaeoclimatic and geological data indicate that temperatures and sea levels were also higher than they are today.
Measurements of air in ice cores show that for the past 800,000 years up until the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 concentration stayed within the range 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm), making the recent rapid rise to more than 400 ppm over 200 years particularly remarkable [figure 3]. During the glacial cycles of the past 800,000 years both CO2 and methane have acted as important amplifiers of the climate changes triggered by variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun. As Earth warmed from the last ice age, temperature and CO2 started to rise at approximately the same time and continued to rise in tandem from about 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. Changes in ocean temperature, circulation, chemistry, and biology caused CO2 to be released to the atmosphere, which combined with other feedbacks to push Earth into an even warmer state.
For earlier geological times, CO2 concentrations and temperatures have been inferred from less direct methods. Those suggest that the concentration of CO2 last approached 400 ppm about 3 to 5 million years ago, a period when global average surface temperature is estimated to have been about 2 to 3.5°C higher than in the pre-industrial period. At 50 million years ago, CO2 may have reached 1000 ppm, and global average temperature was probably about 10°C warmer than today. Under those conditions, Earth had little ice, and sea level was at least 60 metres higher than current levels.
Petrushka
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2024
- Messages
- 1,672
- Likes
- 1,916
The media underreport many important things. I am aware of all the things you mention. Much of China’s wind power is going to waste for political and economic reasons. China is not perfect.
And several countries are working on modular nukes. They are going to be a required part of the mix.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
That is an incorrect claim, at least on a global level, if all the emissions - including those from pollution - of extracting, refining and delivering fuel to cars, and the generally awful fuel efficiency are taken into account. The wider economic, health and ecological costs of fossil fuel also justify the move to EVs, before we even start on any climate related issues. Pollutant levels vary widely from country - in this part of the world we are about to upgrade the emissions "requirements" from laughable to just poor.
Having said that, the same problem bugs EVs at the moment. They are only as clean as the energy supplied to them. There are also all of the costs and emissions involved in both building the new vehicles and disposing/recycling of those being replaced. I've never seen costings for this but I know in the case of other changes to more efficient goods, the resources, costs and emissions involved in replacement have sometimes been higher than that of making the change earlier than necessary (when the old fridge or whatever dies).
A lot of this should involve planning, but that gets way too close to politics for me to consider posting on here.
In 2014, I went through a storm that caused the place I was at to have NO electricity for 4 months (and what the windmill and solar panels could provide was a joke).Another time I went through a storm that we had no electricity for 3 weeks. But my neighbors had natural gas and could cook. That was much better.If you want to talk about energy, a good place to start is the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and their energy (and water) sankey charts, they are in quadrillion BTU. You can convert that to Watt-hours, Joules, therms, or other energy units.
Energy Flow Charts | Flowcharts
A single energy flow chart depicting resources and their use represents vast quantities of data. Energy resources included solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, natural gas, coal, biomass, and petroleum. Energy flow diagrams change over time as new technologies are developed and as...
Where the world is going is to replace most natural gas and oil direct uses with electricity, especially very efficient heat pumps. So electrifying space heating and motor vehicles. At the same time the pan is to decarbonize the electricity generation. And also at the same time we can increase efficiency - energy savings from a baseline, by better insulation and more efficient vehicles.
It is happening gradually by economic forces. The electricity markets favor solar, wind, and energy storage, because they are always the cheapest energy generation source. You can get a general idea of the cost of generators from the Lazard levelized cost of energy and storage. Any new plant is going to be financed against much more detailed site, grid, and market studies. If it is not economic, it will not be built. There is also a lot of discussion of electricity transmission lines. They may have high sounding initial costs, but they have a lifetime of 50 years for the substation equipment and 80-100 years for the transmission lines. The legal easements, a major cost, has an essentially limitless lifetime. So when financed, new transmission is not expensive and it is fairly profitable.
Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE+)
Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy+ is a widely cited report that analyzes the cost competitiveness of renewables, energy storage, and system considerations.
If you want to understand the electricity business and policy in the US, Peter Fox-Penner's books are good and not too long.
I do not believe in having just one source of energy. If you want to take that chance on you and your families survival, be my guest.
But as long as I am alive (whether I have to move or not), my family will have access to solar, wind, propane, natural gas and whatever the power company is putting out.
Taking those choices away is simply asking for a death sentence.
Last edited:
Galliardist
Major Contributor
They are still a decade away, just as they have been since the 1950s. I was even taught at school in 1973 that small nuclear reactors would be in use by 1990 and would be the bridge to fusion power in the early 21st century, and that electricity would be effectively free by now!
They are being developed by private industry, as far as I'm aware, not countries, but I'm willing to be corrected on that.
There are already a few in use and you are correct: developed by private industry.
Perhaps, with the computer controls, they may be much safer, as long as their is no external connection that can be hacked. The operating controls must be independent from the rest of the system.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
True, there are some test implementations. However, they need to enter production to make any meaningful contribution.
As I understand it, regulatory authorities are very, very wary because of the security and safety issues involved. Just getting fuel to the SMRs and waste from them is a huge headache.
The proposals and costings that I've seen from proponents of SMRs, as is so often the case (not just for nuclear, I'd add), make no mention of decommissioning costs, and they are uneconomic before that is considered.
All of the above may get fixed, of course, but I would not be counting on any nuclear proposals for most of the world if a timely transition is the goal.
Old_School_Brad
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 2,611
Oh, this statement definitely has its fair share of truths -if you don't mind the generous sprinkle of exaggeration and a hefty side of speculation. Yes, China’s leading in renewable energy and battery tech, but let’s not get too excited -the timeline and impact might be just a tad overblown.
This is the conclusion of the chapter on SMR (small modular reactors) in World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024. Suffice to say, the various development programs of SMR are facing "some challenges".
Robin L
Master Contributor
Excuse me for being so pessimistic, but I don't see it happening. "A Green Energy Economy" insinuates that business as usual can continue. And it can't. There will be global collapse first. Electric cars won't help, it takes too much energy to make them and most of the electricity used to run them comes from non-green sources anyway. The energy required to manufacture the new infrastructure will be overwhelmingly carbon based. By the time a transition happens it will be too late anyway. Global warming from CO2 will raise temperatures enough to cause climate havoc. It already has.
But nobody wants to give up their cars, and that really is the bottom line, isn't it?
But nobody wants to give up their cars, and that really is the bottom line, isn't it?
Galliardist
Major Contributor
Like billions of others, I live in a city. In my case, a small ground floor apartment in a medium density suburb. And I don't have much choice about that, given even rural housing costs, and given that neither of us can drive, a modern necessity for living outside of a city these days.
So I have only grid electricity, which comes from one private sector provider through wires leased to another. Yes, it is a problem. I'm reliant on working communities, and organisational responses. If you want a wide change, that's where things start. I care (and I'm sure you do too) about survival way beyond my own and my family's. To survive where I am, it takes a lot more than a gas pipe into our kitchen. It takes hundreds of thousands of people to live and do things in a responsible manner and to care about all our circumstances, whatever may get thrown at us.
Technically, transition to a green energy economy is a big task but not so much a difficult one. We can't discuss the real issue here, because that involves politics in every sense of the word. I would pause briefly to note that it is a sad reflection on society as a whole that we can't be trusted with that privilege.
But I will answer the question asked, in the broadest sense. To transition to a green energy economy requires commitment from all involved, and some sacrifice: and a process that reinforces the commitment and minimises the sacrifice.
Tell
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2024
- Messages
- 763
- Likes
- 1,100
I'd say that humans need to significantly decrees car dependency/addiction. Using a 2000kg+ machine to move a 70kg person to get back and forth from work, the gym, simple groceries or whatever is so extremely inefficient in more than one way. Walking, biking or public transport is a so much better way of getting somewhere (apart for the very few times a year when you actually need to move something big) since they doesn't waste the vast majority of it's energy just to propel the vehicle itself.
This is also good for your health and the community around you since cars is responsible for injuries, pollution, death and - something that not to many people think about - noise. If we'd remove all cars they sound levels in our environment, both cities and countryside, will SIGNIFICALLY reduce. Also walking and biking will bring down obesity which some places in the world have some extreme problems with (yup looking at you North America). It'll also look way better when half the cities ain't filled with big bulky parked cars.
Sure some places in the world (looking at the same place again) are heavily built around cars cars cars, so this kind of change ain't easy at all, but reducing car dependency really is a MUST to have any kind of green planet, but even then we still have a loooong way to go. I could also rant about big houses, our love for things, light pollution, cities, rich people, big corporations, war and humans in general. Buut I'll just leave it with cars for now
This is also good for your health and the community around you since cars is responsible for injuries, pollution, death and - something that not to many people think about - noise. If we'd remove all cars they sound levels in our environment, both cities and countryside, will SIGNIFICALLY reduce. Also walking and biking will bring down obesity which some places in the world have some extreme problems with (yup looking at you North America). It'll also look way better when half the cities ain't filled with big bulky parked cars.
Sure some places in the world (looking at the same place again) are heavily built around cars cars cars, so this kind of change ain't easy at all, but reducing car dependency really is a MUST to have any kind of green planet, but even then we still have a loooong way to go. I could also rant about big houses, our love for things, light pollution, cities, rich people, big corporations, war and humans in general. Buut I'll just leave it with cars for now
Similar threads
- Locked
