Re-freezing Arctic with a submarine

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

We old farts understand unlike millenials and all sorts of snowflakes and cry babies that fossil fuels are what makes the world go round, but are finite and won't last forever. Millenials instead are focusing on problems they imagine that don't exist and only know to scream "How dare you!!". It isn't climate change what's going to kill you idiots, it's the lack of energy when you run out of FF.

[SiliconWizard]

Well, at least they keep advocating using electricity for EVERYTHING, but as I repeatedly say, we don't have reasonable means of generating that much electricity worldwide to replace all fossil fuels, and again since we're generally tending towards less nuclear than more, we have a serious issue. Are they seriously considering covering the whole Earth with PVs (kindly ignoring the cost AND associated pollution to manufacture) or are they waiting for the miracle generator that never seems to come? Or are they just screaming in the wind?

[Marco]

I propose rolling out flexible thin film PV across entire deserts, we don't need the whole world, with an angled cushion behind it filled with PU foam on installation. All panels having Integrated inverters using planar transformers and going straight up to medium voltage to minimize copper use.

This should keep required natural resources to a minimum, still requires staggering amounts ... but we use staggering amounts of natural resources to begin with. The resource use is on scale with our current civilization. First generation probably won't be made from renewable resources, but with enough energy and enough time we can fix that.

PS. this obviously won't solve storage problems.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

IIRC, at less than 100W/m², you'd "only" need an area of PVs equivalent to Saudi Arabia to generate enough energy for the whole world. The maths are somewhere here in another thread. But that's not the best solution. Nuclear power is cheaper and only requires an infinitesimal of that area, and works 24/7 (at night too). You're also going to need synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, because airplanes can't fly on batteries.

[coppice]

IIRC, at less than 100W/m², you'd "only" need an area of PVs equivalent to Saudi Arabia to generate enough energy for the whole world. The maths are somewhere here in another thread. But that's not the best solution. Nuclear power is cheaper and only requires an infinitesimal of that area, and works 24/7 (at night too). You're also going to need synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, because airplanes can't fly on batteries.

You know, the Arab countries don't just have the most oil, they have the most sunlight too. If they put enough effort into the project, they might be able to get PV power in such quantities that it could run inefficient CO2 + H20 -> liquid fuel processes at a scale where it powered the whole world, while being carbon neutral.

[PlainName]

where it powered the whole world

There is no way, even with imminent heat death approaching, that The World would allow the Saudis to hold it to ransom. For any single country, there will be a significantly powerful other country that would literally do anything to prevent such a scenario. The only way this could be pulled off if is the target country was taken over by a world conglomeration, and that's never going to get traction either

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You know, the Arab countries don't just have the most oil, they have the most sunlight too. If they put enough effort into the project, they might be able to get PV power in such quantities that it could run inefficient CO2 + H20 -> liquid fuel processes at a scale where it powered the whole world, while being carbon neutral.

  Imagine!

There is no way, even with imminent heat death approaching

Much sooner than that you're going to be in much more serious trouble, running out of FF.

[dietert1]

The claim that we have an urgent problem with supplies of fossil fuels instead of global warming is nonsense. On the contrary: Melting arctic ice will yield access to more fossil fuels. Global enterprises are already starting projects to get there. Russia has also been much more present in the northern seas than the years before. I think Russia is the one sole country on this planet that may eventually profit from a little global warming ("geo forming"). They have really huge areas that may become a little more friendly to humans with global warming. This year we have already seen large areas in Siberia burning, which may be a first indication of exploration by humans. The problem is that you can't have "a little global warming".

The idea that fossil fuels keep the world moving is a sad mistake, too. The collateral damages of burning fossil fuels are so bad that it needs to be stopped as soon as possible. CO2 is similar to water: It won't go away for millions of years - with one exception: Enough green plants are left to recycle CO2 into oxygen binding the carbon. Which has not been the case for decades now.

By the way: Norway bought more electric cars in 2018 than cars burning carbon fuel. About 30 % electric-only, about another 20 % with hybrid technology. The money comes from? Stealing fossil fuels in the northern seas and selling them to others.

Regards, Dieter

[coppercone2]

BP, Shell and Exxon are 'building better world(s)'

some people really want more bikini babes

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The idea that fossil fuels keep the world moving is a sad mistake, too.

What's very sad is that clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

The collateral damages of burning fossil fuels are so bad that it needs to be stopped as soon as possible

Only in your imagination. E.g., it takes an idiot or an ignorant or a brainwashed alarmist to believe that the sea levels have to be what you'd like them to be. You know it's been changing all the time, but you think you can stop it now when only 12 thousand years ago it was 120 metres lower and one could go walking in a straight line across the English channel, or the Baltic sea from Poland to Sweden. Newsflash! It's going to keep rising no matter what you do. And then there will be another glaciation and... Newsflash! It's going to descend again hundreds of meters. Sorry but that's what mother nature has got for you.

[coppice]

The idea that fossil fuels keep the world moving is a sad mistake, too. The collateral damages of burning fossil fuels are so bad that it needs to be stopped as soon as possible. CO2 is similar to water: It won't go away for millions of years - with one exception: Enough green plants are left to recycle CO2 into oxygen binding the carbon. Which has not been the case for decades now.

A world with 8 billion people is the collateral damage of burning fossil fuels. Take away the fossil fuels, without sufficient renewables or nuclear to replace them, and we'll soon be back to the kind of world population we had before 1769 (when Watt patented the practical steam engine).

By the way: Norway bought more electric cars in 2018 than cars burning carbon fuel. About 30 % electric-only, about another 20 % with hybrid technology. The money comes from? Stealing fossil fuels in the northern seas and selling them to others.

The Norwegians financed those electric cars by selling huge amounts of oil. Its not a coincidence than a country with huge government revenues from fossil fuels is the one place that has enough spare cash to drive an electric car revolution at a time when those cars are still very expensive.

[dietert1]

It's nonsense to believe that the "rapid" changes seen during the last 100 years can be attributed to natural processes. Those processes are a factor 1000 slower (at least). Those are the lies of 20 years ago. Nowadays, everybody who wants to know can learn about these things.

We had that discussion before: In this case, when the lives of 3 billion people are at risk, this kind of confusion cannot be tolerated. Just two days ago we heard that currently there are roughly 70 million refugees in the world, people who had to give up their previous lives. This is roughly twice the head count of humans killed during WW II (including the Holocaust). I am not saying that all this mess is caused by global warming, but a large part is. Just look up where whose refugees dwell.

Anyway, if fossil fuels are a scarce resource, another reason to stop using it for fun. There will be new rules.

Regards, Dieter

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

It's nonsense to believe that the "rapid" changes seen during the last 100 years can be attributed to natural processes. Those processes are a factor 1000 slower (at least). Those are the lies of 20 years ago. Nowadays, everybody who wants to know can learn about these things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Earth

Earth
See also: Runaway climate change
Early investigations on the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on the runaway greenhouse limit found that it would take orders of magnitude higher amounts of carbon dioxide to take the Earth to a runaway greenhouse state.[7] This is because carbon dioxide is not anywhere near as effective at blocking outgoing longwave radiation as water is.[4] Within current models of the runaway greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide (especially anthropogenic carbon dioxide) does not seem capable of providing the necessary insulation for Earth to reach the Simpson-Nakajima limit
[...]
A re-evaluation in 2013 of the effect of water vapor in the climate models showed that James Hansen's outcome would require ten times the amount of CO2 we could release from burning all the oil, coal, and natural gas in Earth's crust

[thinkfat]

You should not quote Wikipedia out of context. Yes, a runaway greenhouse effect LIKE ON VENUS is unlikely to be caused by burning of fossil fuels. That doesn't mean that it will be business as usual for humankind if we just keep going.

[Marco]

The problem is the world is unstable as hell to begin with. Paris handed out unlimited carbon usage to the third world as a roundabout redistribution scheme because it was the preferable alternative to war.

Real politiks drive slow peddled carbon reduction, but in between all the lies around those political decisions corruption festers. It would be better if we could all just be honest ... so we could divide unsavory decisions taking for stability, such as letting the third world use carbon emission as competitive advantage, from the truly unnecessary corrupt stuff like western harvested bio-fuel. Also we could examine whether pacifying China with wealth is really working or whether another cold war would be preferable at this point.

Instead we get denials from the right and mostly empty or even counterproductive value signalling from the left. Peons shouldn't be bothered with the truth it seems ... but unfortunately when you present them with only lies they won't necessarily pick the lies you want at the ballot box.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You should not quote Wikipedia out of context. Yes, a runaway greenhouse effect LIKE ON VENUS is unlikely to be caused by burning of fossil fuels. That doesn't mean that it will be business as usual for humankind if we just keep going.

Say peoplekind, suits you best.

Sigh. "We only have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe" and runaway greenhouse effect is out of context? You guys can't stop moving the goalposts?

[Kilrah]

Just becasue a runaway is unlikely doesn't mean there are no other detrimental effects we'd better avoid.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Just becasue a runaway is unlikely doesn't mean there are no other detrimental effects we'd better avoid.

June 30, 1989
"U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked"
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control

[Bud]

that currently there are roughly 70 million refugees in the world, people who had to give up their previous lives. This is roughly twice the head count of humans killed during WW II (including the Holocaust).

And i thought the refugee crisis was triggered by frau Merkel saying something stupid.

[Marco]

I am not saying that all this mess is caused by global warming, but a large part is. Just look up where whose refugees dwell.

Population growth where those refugees dwell has had orders of magnitude bigger impact on local resources than climate change ... as I said, the world is unstable to begin with. Climate change is a problem with potentially large moment, but as far as magnitude goes it's so far behind the comma pretending it's relevant is naive or dishonest.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Climate change is a tall tale to steal your money. And they're doing it very well.

[hamster_nz]

Climate change Christmas is a tall tale to steal your money. And they're doing it very well.

FTFY

[PlainName]

It would be sensible not to attribute made-up quotes to someone like that. If you're going to modify it, at least highlight your changes. Better would be to remove his name from the quote.

[hamster_nz]

It would be sensible not to attribute made-up quotes to someone like that. If you're going to modify it, at least highlight your changes. Better would be to remove his name from the quote.

Yes, correct, sorry, done.

[PlainName]

Good man