RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Dec 2019

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2019

Open thread for climate solution discussion. Climate science discussions should remain on the Unforced Variations thread.

854 Responses to “Forced Responses: Dec 2019”

  1. 801
    patrick027 says:

    One of the cool things about solar power is that, I presume, installations would be designed so that solar panels can be upgraded while using much of the existing installation – When the c-Si (whether in Miami or not) panels are due for replacement, one could replace them with whatever solar PV technology is best at that point – maybe perovskites, maybe camphoric soot (it’s been used in PV), maybe CZTS, maybe luminescent concentrators…

    PS I believe polycrystalline Si cells could be recycled into power-producing jewelry/decorations – I like the blue-violet … is it iridescence?

    … Obviously I’m a bit of a solar-PV fan (also a geophyisical-fluid PV fan), but ultimately I support a tax (along with other policies https://skepticalscience.com/en-roads-build-climate-solutions.html – PS while the tax on fossil C emissions, etc, would replace the need/justification for subsidies for clean energy, not deforesting, efficiency, lifestyle etc…, I believe the case can be made for subsidizing emerging industries in the public interest (new PV materials, storage innovations, Th-fuel cycles, fusion, Beano for cows ;) ) along with the general public R&D funding.) Also, the future doesn’t stop in 100 years time…

    Getting off-planet is not the solution for lack of sustainability on Earth, but eventually we might want to anyway, and nuclear fission/fusion/antimatter/mini-black holes may be the way to do that, although I’m not forgetting solar sails and the oldie-but-goodie gravitational slingshot (well you’d do that along with any of the others). Also maybe we could learn to surf on the existing magnetic fields (EM fields being so much more easy to manipulate than gravity – but let’s keep looking into warp-drive anyway – and regenerative breaking in space, space elevators… – anyway, I’m just saying we should keep looking at other options anyway. Back to the present, Technodiversity – so in case an unforeseen problem comes up with one technology (nano-toxicity?), we can easily ditch it.

    (When the Sun gets too bright, … throwing asteroids into the Sun can only get us so far, and throwing Jupiter down would be a delicate procedure (wait… using Jupiter to slingshot the Earth probably wouldn’t toss Jupiter into the Sun… well, anyway…). Maybe we can build some nuclear-black hole-whatever engines on the Moon and use it’s gravity to tow the Earth along – meet up with Mars, than Ceres, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan, and head out with company… etc.)

  2. 802
    patrick027 says:

    re 796 nigelj says:
    “Like someone else mentioned (Patrik I think) we should emulate that, so waste is permitted at a level the environment can handle without gross destabilisation.”

    Thanks for the reference, but now I have to clarify – we’re in a special situation; unlike most species, we manage so much of our own food production such that the part of the environment that would absorb that part of our non-techno waste is actually part of our activity. Our gaseous bodily emissions – CO2 and H2O – are still automatically accounted for (the photosynthesis of our crops); the atmosphere transports them for us, but our population distribution is vastly different from our farm distribution, so sewage is an issue – this is all obvious, of course, but it’s an intersesting point.

    From another perspective, there is no waste. Everything is as efficient as it possibly could be at any time – eg. there are learning curves – we didn’t evolve to have an instinctual understanding of the best way to do all the new things we do.

  3. 803
    patrick027 says:

    “(That one part of Bolivia https://globalsolaratlas.info/map “… and Peru and Chile, sorry.

  4. 804
    Killian says:

    Re #789 Engineer-Poet said Killian bloviated @766:

    Nuclear energy generates less waste heat per useful watt than your permaculture.

    1. You have no way to measure that.

    You mean you have no way to measure that. I am quite capable of comparing documented productivity figures for other crop systems, such as maize (~200 bushels/acre/year), converting to food calories and then to joules, and dividing that figure by the net annual sunlight falling on that acre (Iowa averages about 4.15 kWh/m²/day).

    Yet, you are too damned stupid to understand “other crop systems” do not equal permaculturally designed systems. At the very minimum, you have to address the increase in carbon content year after year of permaculturally-designed systems vs “other crop systems.” You might also consider that near-total absence of other biota in those “crop systems” vs the order of magnitude greater mass and variety of a natural and/or permacultural system. The difference in bugs alone would be significant to any measurement.

    But, you’re too ignorant of the facts to even realize your ignorance.

    YOU are not; you are innumerate.

    Lies will get you sent to hell, right? Tsk, tsk.

    This is why I have ignored your spewing stupidity all over these fora all these months; you’re just as foolish in your single-issue myopia as KIA and victor.

  5. 805
    patrick027 says:

    re 795 Nemesis – dude, that was beautiful.

    re 789 “Waste energy advantage: nuclear, by 200:1.” – but people don’t/can’t/shouldn’t eat uranium.

    re 771 Al Bundy “AB: The percentage of total energy harvested of the total current energy is essentially zero, so no, putting some back wouldn’t do diddly except chop up more sea life for no benefit. -” There might be ways to do it without chopping stuff up. I might get back to that sometime.

    re 776 Al Bundy
    EP: What these overcrowded poor countries need isn’t an escape valve.
    AB: Hmm. White folks used the Americas as an escape valve and it worked out fairly well (except for the native non-White Americans). So why can’t non-White folks use the Americas as an escape valve? Perhaps it might work out just as well (except for the native White Americans). Oh, now I see…
    Imagine how differently things would be if the Native Americans of c. 1500-1850?… had smallpox vaccines and the ability to screen immigrants for diseases, etc, and a CIA/intelligence that kept track of dangerous genocidal maniacs like Christopher Columbus (who was never proven right)… I may have gotten the term “genocidal maniac” from an episode of “Adam Ruins Everything”

  6. 806
    Killian says:

    Re #796 duncehat spewed “Based on excess heat, *virtually everything in the universe should be condemned as unsustainable.* It was a childish taunt. You can’t even “get” that. His example was absurd, which he acknowledged immediately after.”

    No. I saw everything EP meant straight away.

    LOL… the lies get more absurd.

    AND nature creates waste products , so there is no precedent in nature to suggest we should have “zero waste”.

    just when you thought the IQ evident in his posts couldn’t get any lower…

    That is just YOUR ASSERTION.

    There’s that propaganda again. Googled: “nature doesn’t waste.” Responses: “709,000 results”

    Such a fool.

    You have just looked at nature and noticed much of this waste is reabsorbed and the system is more or less in equilibrium over time.

    Uh… but you said, “AND nature creates waste products , so there is no precedent in nature to suggest we should have “zero waste”.”

    Christ I figured that out at frigging primary school.

    So, he figured it out in elementary school, yet contradicts himself here…? How does that work, exactly?

    Like someone else mentioned (Patrik I think) we should emulate that, so waste is permitted at a level the environment can handle without gross destabilisation.

    OK, so, nature wastes… wait, no, there is no waste in nature… no, wait, yes, there is…

    AND if you are using something other than the normal dictionary definition of waste, (it sure looks like it) you have to define it, every time you use the term.

    LOL… Yes, sir, McDuck, sir!

    “Permaculture *starts* with the gross energy flows: Sunlight, water, wind, earth. ”

    Well hopefully it does, otherwise it lives in a non physics based universe. Sorry you don’t get points for doing the obvious.

    But, but, but… I don’t understand thermodynamics, you said! Oh, but now they’re obvious? And I am using them correctly?

    Being trapped in your head would be the 10th level of Hell.

    I incorporated thermodynamics into my belief systems long before I came across permaculture.

    Whatever

    LOL…

    You are only attacking me because you can’t refute what I’ve said.

    Having a mirror held up to your face is not an attack, it’s a correction.

    Dismissed.

  7. 807
    nigelj says:

    Claims are made that permaculture, regenerative farming and organic farming are more productive than conventional industrial farming systems, for example as used in America.

    Couldn’t find any independant published research on permaculture or regenerative farming, but the two articles below are based on independant research into organic farming. They find oganic farming has yields significantly below conventional farming, for the majority of crops 10 – 50% below.

    On the positive side a small number of organic crops have higher yields than conventional crops, and one of the articles mentions the envoronmental benefits and higher profitability or organic farming, although the higher profitabity reflects high income people being prepared to pay a premium.

    So it seems to me theres a big trade off between lower productivity but better sustainability, which shows you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Which should come as no surprise I would have thought.

    But perhaps it might be possible to combine genetically modified crops that have higher productivity (thru insect resistance etc) with some of the techniques of organic farming. Or is that ‘heresy’?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/09/the-organic-farming-yield-gap/#31bfdecd5e0e

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-agriculture-world-hunger

  8. 808
    patrick027 says:

    re my 805 re 776 Al Bundy: Formatting corrected:
    EP: What these overcrowded poor countries need isn’t an escape valve.
    AB: Hmm. White folks used the Americas as an escape valve and it worked out fairly well (except for the native non-White Americans). So why can’t non-White folks use the Americas as an escape valve? Perhaps it might work out just as well (except for the native White Americans). Oh, now I see…

    Imagine how differently things would be if the Native Americans of c. 1500-1850?… had smallpox vaccines and the ability to screen immigrants for diseases, etc, and a CIA/intelligence that kept track of dangerous genocidal maniacs like Christopher Columbus (who was never proven right*)… I may have gotten the term “genocidal maniac” from an episode of “Adam Ruins Everything”

    *I wouldn’t give him credit for being ever-so-slightly correct about the Earth’s N-S asymmetry – it’s so slight that he couldn’t possibly have found evidence for it.

  9. 809
    patrick027 says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream “The theoretical maximum energy dissipation from the Gulf Stream by turbines is in the range of 20–60 GW.[41][42]”
    41
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190203011522/https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hermann_Fritz/publication/256495742_Theoretical_Assessment_of_Ocean_Current_Energy_Potential_for_the_Gulf_Stream_System/links/00b495232347291769000000/Theoretical-Assessment-of-Ocean-Current-Energy-Potential-for-the-Gulf-Stream-System.pdf
    or
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256495742_Theoretical_Assessment_of_Ocean_Current_Energy_Potential_for_the_Gulf_Stream_System
    42
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140526035742/http://www.mrec.umassd.edu/media/supportingfiles/mrec/agendasandpresentations/4thconference/xiufeng_yang.pdf

    this appears to be one of those cases where some global-scale (I’m assuming similar numbers for the other major ocean gyres/currents) natural phenomenon is actually quite small compared to human actions. (the understurbed natural dissipation for the Gulf Stream given by 41,42 is 94 or 76 GW; I’ve only really skimmed these sources, though, but it appears that 94 GW is based on a rather simplied model, at least in terms of ocean basin geometry, though I wouldn’t think that would make it way off.

    I wonder what the residence time for energy is, though. ballpark figure – ? – 100km*600m*…1000 km ???* ~1000 kg/m3 * ~ (1m/s)^2 = 6E2*1E5*1E6*1E3 or 6E16= 60,000,000 GJ; div by 76 GW, get roughly 1 Ms, or 1/30 of a year, roughly similar to 2 weeks (give or take a factor of 2+?? for the actual velocity distribution in the cross sections and along the actual length of the current? – see slides 6,7 in source 41) But that doesn’t include the APE (available potential energy).

    for comparison, rms wind speed whole atmosphere, from memory, 17 m/s, thus 400-(2*70 + 49 = 184) = 216 J/kg, thus roughly 216 J/kg * 5E14 m2 * 1e4 kg/m2 = 1080 E18 or 1.08 E21 J; what’s the dissipation rate – undisturbed, or with, say, 10 TW wind turbine capacity? (and the global atmospheric APE?). I vaguely recall reading that the spin-down time for synoptic scale circulations was something like a week?? And about half of kinetic energy production goes directly into small scale motions that dissipate more quickly…
    re 795 Nemesis

  10. 810
    nigelj says:

    Killian @806 says “here’s that propaganda again. Googled: “nature doesn’t waste.” Responses: “709,000 results”

    So what? All you show is there’s plenty of claims and discussion on the subject, and a lot of arm waving.

    Nature as in plant and animal life creates waste products and they are reabsorbed into the biosphere, or break down eventually, and much is reused by other living matter. That’s obvious and doesn’t really need saying. It’s not a good enough argument to say humans should have zero waste. Its just an observation of what happens in nature.

    Some of the waste nature produces overloads the environment short term anyway. Volcanoes spew out lumps of lava that just end up as part of our geology. The natural world as a whole does this sort of thing

    If we don’t reuse some of our waste, and its inert and we bury that waste in the ground, so what? Its not harming anything. What problem is there dumping old concrete if its buried properly? Nuclear waste can be contained.

    Although I do agree we should try to reuse waste if possible, to reduce resource scarcity problems.

    The only real thing we can take form nature is that trying to reuse our waste ‘might’ have value. Its unfounded to conclude we have to have “zero waste” as in nothing is allowed to be simply dumped.

    Killian hasn’t demonstrated we have to have zero waste as he listed in his simplicity principles. The only thing that makes sense is to minimise waste, like I said. I fail to see what argument there is against that. I bet nobody can make one that makes sense.

    Its these pemaculture people that are often low intelligence, although they mean well.

    “But, but, but… I (Killian) don’t understand thermodynamics, you said! ”

    One of Killians many lies about what people say. Why do you think this guy is constantly accusing others of lying? Hes probably an expert liar himself.

  11. 811
    Al Bundy says:

    Patrick027: it appears that 94 GW is based on a rather simplied model,

    AB: And 20-60 GW is harvestable? (I’ve only looked at the Wiki so far) (Note that this time I used the proper “question” format instead of talking through my hat)

  12. 812
    Al Bundy says:

    EP: So far everyone, even Greta Thunberg, is firmly stuck on 2.).

    AB: And here I was hoping that a few of us misfits together could do as much good as she’s done by herself.
    _________

    Nigel, here’s how hand saw music should sound:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHKRR7xn7c
    ______

    Killian: Yes, you did disagree by giving good examples of multiple functions.

    AB: I was agreeing with Nigel that sometimes something does one thing, that I wouldn’t be so rigid as to reject a design because some components only have one function. Multiple functions is a goal, not a religion. And I was not talking about you or your precious baby.

    Maybe you should tell EP to teach his precious baby how to grow topsoil.
    ______

    OK, I’ll enter the “define waste” contest. Waste is defined based on the needs and desires of the definer. So everything has waste that they rely on other species and processes to handle.

  13. 813
    Killian says:

    Re #810 nigelj lied about the lie.

    Killian @806 says “here’s that propaganda again. Googled: “nature doesn’t waste.” Responses: “709,000 results”

    No, dolt, I show that you lied via logical fallacy, by claiming the concept that nature does not waste is merely my assertion. Even as others on this forum also stated the same concept was correct.

    Your obsession with me is creepy, deranged, and stupid. And here is stupider:

    Some of the waste nature produces overloads the environment short term anyway. Volcanoes spew out lumps of lava that just end up as part of our geology.

    God knows having geology is a waste!

    You’re ridiculous, a troll in the truest sense, and worse, useless.

  14. 814
    Killian says:

    Re #807 anklebiter wasted bandwidth saying the two articles below are based on independant research into organic farming. They find oganic farming has yields significantly below conventional farming, for the majority of crops 10 – 50% below.

    Yes, we all know organic is a joke. Like you.

  15. 815

    p 801: When the Sun gets too bright, … throwing asteroids into the Sun can only get us so far, and throwing Jupiter down would be a delicate procedure (wait… using Jupiter to slingshot the Earth probably wouldn’t toss Jupiter into the Sun… well, anyway…). Maybe we can build some nuclear-black hole-whatever engines on the Moon and use it’s gravity to tow the Earth along – meet up with Mars, than Ceres, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan, and head out with company… etc.

    BPL: If we pass one comet by the Earth in the right direction every 13,000 years, it will be enough to move Earth outward by the right amount to compensate for the sun’s growing brightness. Until the sun actually goes off the main sequence, at which time we’d better look for a new home.

  16. 816
    Killian says:

    According to some here, this is *my* simplicity.

    Or, maybe not…

    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-31/manifest-of-piaracu/

    We, representatives of 45 indigenous peoples in Brazil, more than 600 participants, were summoned by chief Raoni to meet between January 14 and 18, 2020 in the village Piaraçu (Terra Indígena Capoto Jarina), with the objective of bringing together our forces and denounce that a political project of the Brazilian government of genocide, ethnocide and ecocide is underway.

    The Brazilian State has to understand that it has a historic debt to indigenous peoples. We are the first inhabitants of our country. We not only defend the environment: we are Nature itself. If they kill the environment, they are killing us. We want the forest forever standing, not because the forest is beautiful, but because all these beings that inhabit the forest are part of us and run in our blood.

    …We don’t need to destroy to produce. They cannot sell our wealth; money does not pay for it. Our territory is very rich, not in money, we are rich in diversity and this whole forest depends on our culture to stand. What counts for us is our land. This is worth more than life. And we are the ones who can sustain nature are, us who never destroyed or polluted our river. We take care of our land; we know its value. We must protect that which our ancestors left us.

    …We indigenous women and men fight side by side for the right to the land that feeds and heals us.

    The indigenous youth present at this gathering reaffirms the commitment to continue the struggle of the leaders in defense of our lives, our territories and our right to exist. The knowledge and traditions that our grandparents taught us are the great solution to the threats against our people and our territories, and to the climate crisis that is coming. This new generation is ready to take the solutions they have been taught.
    …We are against everything that destroys our forests and our rivers. We don’t admit that Brazil be put on sale for other countries who have the intention of exploiting our territory. We want above everything respect for our lives, our traditions, our customs

    …We want policies to strengthen sustainable economic alternatives for our territories, without the use of pesticides, and that promote the economy of the Standing Forest, with an emphasis on culture, traditional knowledge, no extractivisim and clean technologies.

    Piaraçu Village, January 18, 2020

  17. 817
    nigelj says:

    The ‘Simplicity’ principles posted on this website include: “Use what you’ve got, Adapt in place, Zero Waste, Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences, and failing to use and value diversity, Every element has *at least* two functions.”

    These principles have been used as guide to how we as humans should live. For example the zero waste principle forbids nuclear waste so effectively forbids nuclear power. These principles are also allegedly derived from nature.

    However if you look at nature, many animals in nature use whatever they can get, some animals roam to find new resources, some animals use simple tools, nature does create some waste, like carbon rich soils dozens of metres deep ( no bacterial life at this depth in most cases), and many elements in nature have specialised, singular functions. So if the simplicity principles are based on nature, its just a selective, rigid sort of choice.

    The trouble is the simplicity rules are so damn rigid, which creates absurdities that stop us using anything with just one function, or using anything new, or moving to another place. If they are just general principles the simplicity people need to say so, and explain what exceptions are permitted.

    A better case can be made for minimising waste in that it conserves resources and this helps future generations, and we do that because its morally good. You can’t reduce the issue further than that.

    Failing to use and value diversity is arguably good in general terms, but there are many destructive forms of diversity we can live without.

    To me it would make a bit more sense to say “use what you’ve got where possible, adapt in place where possible, minimise waste etc. ”

    The simplicity rules obviously have some value. But I would ask the simplicity people why are their rules so rigid? And if they are not rigid, what general sorts of exceptions are permitted and why?

  18. 818
    nigelj says:

    And those soils that are dozens of metres deep and are lifeless then released carbon in a positive feedback process, as past climates warmed. Past warming climates are associated with extinction level events in the natural world. Nature is cruel. We can learn from nature, but care is needed and if we adopt principles from nature they need to be flexible.

  19. 819
    patrick027 says:

    re my 809 – ballpark estimates again; from my 732, 1 m/s balances roughly ~ 1m/100 km isobaric slope, order of magnitude, at sufficient distance from equator; exact proportionality varying with sin(latitude).

    So the ‘head’ associated with a 1 m/s current 100 km wide, assuming atm pressure is not directly playing a role, would be ~ 1 m. For the sake of easy calculation, I’ll start with the approximating assumption that the whole ocean basin can be represented as 0.5 m above mean, mean, and 0.5 m below mean each for 1/3 the area involved (so a mass of water 0.5 m above mean falls 0.5 m to fill in the 0.5 m deep depression); going by the model used here:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256495742_Theoretical_Assessment_of_Ocean_Current_Energy_Potential_for_the_Gulf_Stream_System ; 3000 km * 6000 km / 3 = 6 M km2 = 6 T m2 = 6e12 m2; 6e12 m2 * 0.5 m * ~1000 kg/m3 * 0.5 m * 9.81 m/s2 = ~1.5e15 kg*m * 9.81 m/s2 ~= 1.5e16 J = 15,000,000 GJ, about 1/4 the kinetic energy

    j

  20. 820
    patrick027 says:

    … obviously these are ballpark figures based on simplifying calculations; and the APE 15,000,000 GJ = 15 PJ ignores density variations in the water, but I suspect that doesn’t affect the result anywhere near as much as the other approximations.

    It sounds like we could actually Pocean currents if we wanted to (US energy ~ 100 quad Btu/year, ~40 quad Btu electrical equiv ~= 4e16*1000 J = 4e19 J). Careful! But if we needed to buy time for clean energy/etc. and C-sequestration/etc. to catch up, maybe we could slightly increase the salinity and pump hot water down; then when solar capacity ‘overshoots’, we can pull CO2 down really fast, and allow the hot water back up the radiate to space… yeah, this would work – I can’t think of anything that could go wrong (I’m being a bit sarcastic)

  21. 821
    patrick027 says:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057996 :

    Diapycnal mixing supplies GPE but not AGPE, whereas the reverse is true of the combined effect of surface buoyancy forcing and convection. Mixing and buoyancy forcing thus play complementary roles in sustaining the large‐scale circulation. However, the largest globally integrated source of GPE is resolved advection (+0.57 TW) and the largest sink is through parameterized eddy transports (−0.82 TW).

  22. 822
    patrick027 says:

    that last paper was referring to model results; I’ve only read the abstract thus far, for that and the following… more “The Mechanical Energy Budget of a Regional Ocean Model”https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO-D-16-0086.1

  23. 823
  24. 824
    Al Bundy says:

    nigelj: One of Killians many lies about what people say. Why do you think this guy is constantly accusing others of lying? Hes probably

    AB: as addicted to playing in the mud and filth as nigelj is. Truly an “efficient” ecosystem where waste is flung instead of wasted.

  25. 825

    Kevin McKinney wrote @774:

    What a specious argument!

    19th and early-20th century wind technology was not usually used to generate electricity

    And exactly why does THAT matter?  Electric generation requires response to surplus/deficit on the time scale of seconds, if not milliseconds.  Wind was not even suitable for pumping water out of coal mines on a time scale of DAYS.  That is why coal-fired steam-driven water pumps were invented, so that coal for heating could be reliably mined and delivered.  Have you learned NOTHING from this history?!

    Wind was okay for purposes like pumping the Noordzee infiltration out of polders, which could wait days or weeks.  You canNOT run an electric grid on it: “I just think that the three, four, five-day requirement makes the solar and storage alternative for resiliency untenable. It’s by our calculation between 50 to 80 times more expensive to do it with solar plus storage,” he said.”  Wind has at least as much of an intermittency problem as solar.

    It may be true that “Charles Fritts installed the world’s first rooftop photovoltaic solar array, using 1%-efficient selenium cells, on a New York City roof in 1884”

    In fact, it wasn’t until the [19]90s that deployment of solar PV tech really started to take off.

    So fission energy was a major contributor in less than 30 years from its discovery, while photovoltaics took roughly 110 years to even BEGIN to enter the game.  In 2017, the last full year on record, ALL solar (PV plus thermal) produced 46,488 out of 3,370,503 GWh of total generation, not even 1.4% of net US generation.  Who’s making specious arguments now?

  26. 826

    Ray Ladbury was SO original @777:

    EP, The laundry called. Your white robe with the pointy hood is ready.

    Hey, if you want to live in the turd world, feel free to move there.  Don’t bring it here.

    It’s funny that all you can come up with are slurs, instead of addressing inconvenient truths.

  27. 827
    patrick027 says:

    re826 Engineer-Poet – I’ve avoided dealing with your worst stuff directly (preferring to not even read it), choosing to compartmentalize, but now I have to say,

    it’s you who should get out of my country, and if at all possible, off my planet.

  28. 828
    patrick027 says:

    Happy Groundhog’s day. Unfortunately, GOP senators of U.S. appear to be poised to see their shadow, given us nearly a full year more of Trump. Silver lining – I look forward to seeing nearly the entire map turn blue this November. Ecological succession – GOP goes functionally extinct, bipartisanship and multipartisanship are reborn as centrists/moderates work together with greens/progressives/Democratic socialists to help get us out of this mess… I’m trying to be an optimist.

    PS voting is an important part of saving the planet, so demand instant runoff ballots…

  29. 829
    patrick027 says:

    Happy Groundhog’s day. Unfortunately, GOP senators of U.S. appear… JK! It’s Groundhog’s day, after all. I hope I wasn’t 2 O/T 4 RC.

    Voting is a very important part of fixing this mess. I’m advocating for instant runoff, or possibly a hybrid system…https://wordpress.com/view/scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com

    Fight for life on the planet Earth. Defend all human beings, even the ones you don’t understand. Believe in love that is out of anyone’s control. And then risk everything for it! – Rose Quartz – https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Rose_Quartz/Quotes

  30. 830

    #825, E-P–

    He tries to address my point that his comparison of 19th-century and 21st-century wind tech are not the same thing. (You’d think that no-one ever need point that out, but apparently that’s wrong.) His riposte? “Wind couldn’t pump out coal mines!”

    Still not relevant.

    Moving on from that fail, he then quotes without attribution and out of context a comment about the relative costs of solar-plus-storage versus… well, actually, it’s not clear versus what, even in the original story. But it is clear that the story is not about the electrical grid at all; it’s about self-sufficient microgrids in remote areas. Such use cases are obviously more susceptible to intermittency, due to the lack of geographic dispersal of generation. That means that 3-5 day self-sufficiency–a requirement of the RPO–would imply LOTS of battery storage, which is still relatively expensive. So, once again, E-P is guilty of a misleading citation. (It doesn’t help any that the link he posted currently goes to a completely different story.)

    Original story here:

    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-microgrid-public-safety-shutoffs-offers-distributed-energy-request-fossil-fuel-reliance/571017/

    So from the second fail, he goes on to point out that solar generation is still a small proportion of US total generation, adding the taunt “who’s making a specious argument now?”

    Well, E-P is, because the relevant metric isn’t current capacity, it’s how fast solar (and wind) can scale. Here’s what the EIA–traditionally no booster of renewables–has to say about it:

    In the latest long-term projections, the U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects electricity generation from renewable sources such as wind and solar to surpass nuclear and coal by 2021 and to surpass natural gas in 2045. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (AEO2020) Reference case, the share of renewables in the U.S. electricity generation mix increases from 19% in 2019 to 38% in 2050.

    (E-P didn’t mention wind in his “assessment” of current RE capacity, probably because it wouldn’t have flattered his case any.)

    Actually, renewables already surpassed coal generation for the first time back in April of 2019, though it was partly due to seasonal variability. But it won’t be long before it’s a permanent condition:

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42336

    It’s interesting to go back a year and see what they said last January:

    EIA’s January 2019 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) forecasts that electricity generation from utility-scale solar generating units will grow by 10% in 2019 and by 17% in 2020. According to the January STEO, wind generation will grow by 12% and 14% during the next two years. EIA forecasts total U.S. electricity generation across all fuels will fall by 2% this year and then show very little growth in 2020.

    Seems about right.

  31. 831

    nigelj wrote @797:

    Nuclear is arguably better until the costs of storage drop.

    We’re having a bit of discussion about this over in r/nuclear, where new eyes are seeing the light and recognizing that storage is just the ticket for using nuclear energy to meet mid-load and peaking demand.  Storage you can cycle at least 5x/week is going to have much lower per-kWh costs than storage that might cycle every few days.

    However if you look at all the forces that drive the economy, we will probably end up with both renewables and nuclear.

    Probably not.  “Renewables” are weapons of the fossil fuel industry.  Someone observed that Lovins and Jacobson are touting all-RE grids without storage, because storage favors always-on nuclear.  It’s one of those things that you can’t un-see once you see it.

    https://i.redd.it/wks4tyukx9e41.jpg

    You are only attacking me because you can’t refute what I’ve said. You crow but never show. You belittle people with personal abuse then cry tears when people criticise you or your comments. You are a child, emotionally anyway. Some of your ideas are almost adult.

    Ooh, that’s going to leave a mark!

    Oh, and Al Bundy:  I was once interested in what you were doing.  No longer.  I have my own irons in the fire.  And yes, if I succeed the results will be world-changing.

  32. 832

    Your obsession with me is creepy, deranged, and stupid.

    You’re like a crash scene on the freeway.  You know you won’t see anything good, but you look at it anyway.

  33. 833
    nigelj says:

    Killian @813 still hasn’t provided any solid evidence that humans have to generate zero waste. Just waved his arms.

    Yes sure volcanic lava becomes part of earths geology eventually. So is stuff that humans bury in the ground. Duh! That was the implied point, not how you define waste to the nth degree.

    The only thing that make sense is 1) for humans to minimise waste and 2) to make sure the waste is not significantly toxic, or is contained or neutralised if it is toxic. All other solutions are ridiculous, and not thought through.

  34. 834
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @824 “as addicted to playing in the mud….” False equivalence. And your comment will be ‘wasted’ on Killian!

  35. 835
    nigelj says:

    I only ever said nature creates some things that are characteristic of waste, not that they aren’t recycled through the system in some way eventually. Obviously everything in the natural world is part of a dynamic cycle. We live on an earthquake fault line so I know that only too well.

  36. 836
    Killian says:

    Killian: Yes, you did disagree by giving good examples of multiple functions.

    AB: I was agreeing with Nigel that sometimes something does one thing, that I wouldn’t be so rigid as to reject a design because some components only have one function. Multiple functions is a goal, not a religion.

    Ironic, is it not, that the only ones who have ever said it was a rigid goal and/or religion were you two idiots?

    This is what happens when self-appointed internet heroes talk out of their asses on issues they not only don’t have any knowledge of – despite it being VERY easy to obtain – but refuse to even try.

    It’s called trolling. You’re both providing perfect examples of someone commenting for no more reason than to stir shit up.

    Serious times for serious people, not you two goddamned trolls.

  37. 837
    Killian says:

    Re #817 nigelj said Pirnipablesnessthings!

    And gets everything wrong.

    Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences, and failing to use and value diversity

    Not a principle, troll.

    These principles have been used as guide to how we as humans should live.

    False. It’s permaculture DESIGN, troll.

    For example the zero waste principle forbids nuclear waste so effectively forbids nuclear power.

    Said who? I have never said it is forbidden. I have said it is unsustainable, violates the regenerative principles and is unnecessary as their are better options, BUT might fill some niches.

    But you choose to lie and be a troll.

    These principles are also allegedly derived from nature.

    Allegedly? That makes you a liar, troll. There is nothing alleged about it.

    However if you look at nature, many animals in nature use whatever they can get

    Use what you’ve got does not equal use whatever you can get. I realize you will never understand this, troll.

    some animals roam to find new resources

    First, permaculture design is SYSTEM design, and all principles are applied in that mein, so talking about “some animals” is nonesense. Second, ALL species move according to conditions, or evolve, or die off. There are billions of species living in what were once thought to be impossible circumstances because life…. uses what it has.

    I realize you are unable to grasp the difference between the stupid shit in your head and reality.

    some animals use simple tools

    ???

    nature does create some waste

    No, it doesn’t.

    like carbon rich soils dozens of metres deep

    How is that waste?

    no bacterial life at this depth in most cases

    Stupidly uninformed. Bacteria exist miles deep, let alone meters.

    and many elements in nature have specialised, singular functions.

    Name one.

    So if the simplicity principles are based on nature, its just a selective, rigid sort of choice.

    First, you’re wrong. Second, in what way is it rigid? Have you ever applied permaculture to anything? No? Then how would you know, troll?

    Idiot.

    The trouble is the simplicity rules are so damn rigid

    Says who? That’s your assumption. You have never been told that, troll.

    which creates absurdities that stop us using anything with just one function

    Nothing in Nature does. If it’s human-made, it’s certain it can be replaced with something that better aids attaining a regenerative system.

    or using anything new

    How does that follow? You’re an idiot.

    or moving to another place.

    You’ve decided “Adapt in place” equals “You may never move” all on your own, troll.

    If they are just general principles the simplicity people need to say so, and explain what exceptions are permitted.

    So, your ignorance and trolling means all the books, all the courses, all the videos, all the teaching of any kind on permaculture never discuss the great depth and breadth of conditions one might design in, thus have never discussed prioritization? Have never discussed bridge technologies, appropriate technologies, etc? Because I have pointed out that certain technologies violate certain principles and/or are unsustainable, you have ascertained all these horrible deficiencies in permaculture, all without studying it in any way, shape, or form?

    Stupid goddamned troll.

    A better case can be made for minimising waste in that it conserves resources and this helps future generations, and we do that because its morally good. You can’t reduce the issue further than that.

    Own yur own stupidity. State it correctly: “first principle
    n (usually plural)
    1. (Logic) one of the fundamental assumptions on which a particular theory or procedure is thought to be based
    2. (Logic) an axiom of a mathematical or scientific theory

    first′ prin′ciple, n.
    any axiom, law, or abstraction assumed and regarded as representing the
    highest possible degree of generalization. ”

    They are foundation, not detail. General, not specific. Guiding, not determining. But you’re a troll, so…

    Morality is the opposite of a First Principle. It is not basic, it is not universal, it is not foundational, it is not constant.

    Permaculture design is not about WHY we do something, it is about HOW we do something. Again, you will never understand these things; you do not have the intellect, but, more importantly, choose to trivial, trolling.

    Failing to use and value diversity is arguably good in general terms, but there are many destructive forms of diversity we can live without.

    I’m sure there are for your ignorant self.

    To me it would make a bit more sense to say “use what you’ve got where possible, adapt in place where possible, minimise waste etc.

    I’m sure you’re SO much smarter than the rest of us. I’m sure none of us might, say, find ourselves naked on a massive granite outcropping and think, “Well, there’s nothing here to use, I must move on!” Indeed. We must stay there and use what we’ve got! Nothing! Sit and admire and value the diversity of the granite grains in the rock!

    Maybe you’ve already been mummified so there’s no brain tissue in your head…

    The simplicity rules obviously have some value.

    Ah, Now they’re rules. But, yes, they do. You? You do not. At least, not here.

    But I would ask the simplicity people why are their rules so rigid?

    So you can be laughed at?

    And if they are not rigid, what general sorts of exceptions are permitted and why?

    WTF are you talking about, exceptions? There are no exceptions, there is only what is and what is not. Design is ALWAYS place-based (something I have stated on these fora repeatedly), and that is the only meaningful way to talk of exceptions.

    Principles cannot be dismissed, they simply are. Again, something you will never understand.

    Your trolling is done.

  38. 838
    Nemesis says:

    Dedicated to Mista Engineer-Poet, Mista KIA et al:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkTuHP9q3o

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kD1zubg3cA

    Greetings from Hel(l),
    Nemesis

  39. 839
    Ray Ladbury says:

    EP,
    You know what the problem with racists is? They’re lazy. They seize on the just-so story of racism so they don’t have to analyze a complex situation. Funny that you do the same thing with our energy economy.

    As a matter of fact, I have traveled extensively and even lived in third world countries. So, I think I have maybe, just maybe, a bit more insight into these parts of the world than you do.

    Slurs are all you are worth. I don’t bring my A game for a C student.

  40. 840
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Patrick027@801 and BPL@815,

    There are many, many things that will take us out of the Goldilocks zone. Yes, Sol eventually goes Red Giant on us, but we also lose the Geodynamo and eventually the atmosphere.

    And as for “getting off this rock,” it amazes me how technophiles are so willing to suspend their skepticism when it comes to Star Trek fantasies. Never mind the difficulty of interstellar propulsion, the Galactic Cosmic Ray environment would shred our DNA in a matter of years if not months.

    And that presumes that humans are smart enough to survive the current climate/resource-depletion crisis. We are not a smart species. We are not even smart enough to avail ourselves of science–which the smartest among us developed specifically to counteract our stupidity. It is only a matter of time before we render the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, and who knows how many other species. Humans dying off might be the only salvation of the planet.

  41. 841
    zebra says:

    #839 Ray Ladbury,

    Lazy and cowardly. People like EP can’t make an argument for which they haven’t memorized the answers; they’ve come to realize that they are losers when it comes to thinking and understanding how things work.

    A lot of resentment towards all the people who have better skills.

  42. 842

    patrick027 writes @827:

    Engineer-Poet – I’ve avoided dealing with your worst stuff directly (preferring to not even read it), choosing to compartmentalize

    Snowflake getting a little melty?

    it’s you who should get out of my country, and if at all possible, off my planet.

    You can tell what is a “hate fact” in our current society by what elicits sarcasm and screeching denunciations but never, ever gets even an attempt at a rebuttal.

    The truth of the matter is that if the USA doesn’t close the borders, it won’t BE a country for much longer.  Things like the Indianization of IT has already made US tech a colony of New Delhi.  I bear these people no ill will, but they need to go home.  I don’t owe them nice things, and if 1.4 billion Indians can’t make nice things for themselves that’s all the more reason to remove them.

    There’s also the fact that anyone who comes from Mexico or India or even China to the USA multiplies their personal GHG emissions by a very large factor.  If we keep allowing them to flood us, we’ll never get control of CO2 emissions and THEN guess what?  “Your” planet will be ruined.

    The Sierra Club’s motto used to be “Atoms Not Dams” and it was firmly pro-ZPG.  The USA would have NEGATIVE population growth were it not for immigration, which would reduce our carbon footprint considerably.  No PRINCIPLED person can be pro-environment and not be anti-immigration.  What your snipe tells me is that you put belonging in your ideological group ahead of saving the planet and ourselves from climate catastrophe, because otherwise you’ll be ostracized.  As a curmudgeon I have decided IDGAF about that and put the raw truth first, because Nature can’t be fooled.

  43. 843
    patrick027 says:

    re 840 Ray Ladbury – Maybe so (that we aren’t smart enough etc.), but the mind needs a break now and then from the present moment.

    I was rereading Isaac Asimov’s “The Relativity of Wrong” (a book that is a collection of essays, which I believe included one of the same name, which may have been where I first encountered the info that Christopher Columbus was proven wrong, not right, about the geometry of the Earth (for anyone who doesn’t know, it was not his innovation to think it spherical (that idea goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks – see Eratosthenes) – it was his innovation to think it was smaller, which is why he thought he could reach India. Also he thought it was pear shaped. Some of this is from an episode of “Adam Ruins Everything”.)

  44. 844
    patrick027 says:

    … and I found his phrasing regarding an aspect of space travel rather impactful (pun not originally intended) – that space becomes “abrasive” at high speeds. And then there’s the problem of Unruh/Hawking radiation/effect (which I don’t fully understand – coupled with a solar-type sail, wouldn’t it add to any acceleration?)… I got excited a few years ago when I found out warp drive was theoretically possible, but there’s at least two catches – 1. where do you get the negative mass/energy (could you siphon it off the space around a rotation black hole – the black hole itself has, or at least had, positive mass, so…) but also 2. I am presently under the impression that there’s a risk (if not certainty?) everyone in the ship and at the destination will get fried from the energetic particles generated…

    One idea I had was to create a sort of space-time hose using ‘smoke rings’, but not smoke, the rings would be made of rotating black holes, sized to evaporate near the destination…

    Re BPL@815 – but are there enough comets?

  45. 845
    nigelj says:

    Killian @837

    “Stupidity: The attempt to iron out all differences, and failing to use and value diversity”…….”Not a principle, troll.”

    It looked like a principle. And does it make any significant difference in the greater scheme of things?

    “These principles have been used as guide to how we as humans should live.”

    “False. It’s permaculture DESIGN, troll.”

    Killian said nuclear power violated the simplicity principles, so they looked to me like they were being used as a guide. But if its a permaculture design tool then fine. Now we know.

    “For example the zero waste principle forbids nuclear waste so effectively forbids nuclear power.”

    “Said who? I have never said it is forbidden. I have said it is unsustainable, violates the regenerative principles and is unnecessary as their are better options, BUT might fill some niches….But you choose to lie and be a troll.”

    Wrong. Pedantry of the worst kind. And I don’t recall Killian saying it might fill some niches, certainly haven’t read that. Anyway its good if he sees a use for nuclear power, finally.

    “Use what you’ve got does not equal use whatever you can get. I realize you will never understand this, troll.”

    I never said it does. I said some animals “use whatever they can get”, so if you derive principles from nature, it seems reasonable that humans can also use whatever they can get. It appears you have taken the fact that animals often use what they have and so humans should do that. It just looks like a selective derivation from nature.

    “like carbon rich soils dozens of metres deep”

    “How is that waste?”

    I meant its waste in the sense its discarded, like animal droppings, certainly when it gets very deep and at that depth it has no use to other life. Obviously its ultimately recirculated through nature by geological processes. But given these realities this doesn’t suggest humans have to have zero waste.

    “no bacterial life at this depth in most cases” (in soils dozens of metres deep)

    “Stupidly uninformed. Bacteria exist miles deep, let alone meters.”

    Bacteria exist miles deep in some situations. Soils deeper than 2 metres don’t have normally bacterial life or its so small as to be insignificant.

    “and many elements in nature have specialised, singular functions…..Name one.”

    Many elements in nature are single function and are specialised when you get down to the scale of components of cells and protein molecules. But sure, humanity should be building things that are multi functional when possible. The reasons are so obvious they don’t need saying. I’m just saying for our society, specialisation is important too. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to lock out specialisation just because its not common in nature.

    “The trouble is the simplicity rules are so damn rigid……..Says who? That’s your assumption. You have never been told that, troll.”

    They appear rigid because they say things like “no waste” as opposed to “minimise waste”. Why is that so difficult to understand?

    “which creates absurdities that stop us using anything with just one function”

    “Nothing in Nature does. If it’s human-made, it’s certain it can be replaced with something that better aids attaining a regenerative system.”

    So you are essentially saying we can use things with just one function in the right circumstances, if its environmentally sensitive. Thanks, finally that’s all I wanted to know.

    “You’ve decided “Adapt in place” equals “You may never move” all on your own, troll.

    No, I said that’s how it appears. I asked what exceptions are allowed or how are they decided? Still waiting….

    “If they are just general principles the simplicity people need to say so, and explain what exceptions are permitted……”So, your ignorance and trolling means all the books, all the courses, all the videos…Stupid goddamned troll.”

    Do you seriously expect us to dig though a mountain of literature? Why can’t you provide one internet link that is directly relevant? Jesus wept.

    “To me it would make a bit more sense to say “use what you’ve got where possible, adapt in place where possible, minimise waste etc.”

    “I’m sure you’re SO much smarter than the rest of us. I’m sure none of us might, say, find ourselves naked on a massive granite outcropping and think, “Well, there’s nothing here to use, I must move on!” Indeed. We must stay there and use what we’ve got! Nothing! Sit and admire and value the diversity of the granite grains in the rock!”

    Then why not just state them in the form I suggested, then everyone is clear on the issue.

    However, alternatively, given you now explain that they are specialised design tools for permaculture people and not a general guide to living for the general public, then leave them as they are. But you should have said that’s what they are! Jesus wept you make things hard for yourself and everyone.

    And please read a definition of a troll because it doesn’t apply to me. Not even remotely.

  46. 846
    patrick027 says:

    I know it’s O/T, but one more thing – I would think artificially maintaining a magnetic field would be a cakewalk compared to nearly everything else, even compared to climate change mitigation (because we have plenty of time to take care of the geodynamo problem).

  47. 847
    nigelj says:

    Engineer Poet @831, thanks for the link and I read the thread. However Jacobson does appear to allow for storage, refer table 2 in Jacobsons renewable energy study below. I checked simply because its hard to see how he could possibly make a system work without storage. Although it doesn’t look like much storage.

    https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

  48. 848
    nigelj says:

    Killian @845, almost forgot. Like I said soils are essentially dead below two metres:

    “Fulles’ found that 2 meters marked the limit of bacterial life in most soils and Houston’ noted a decrease from 1,680,000 bacteria per gram of soil at the surface to 410 organisms at a depth of 6 feet.”

    AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, IOWA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND THE MECHANIC ARTS, AGRONOMY SECTION, Soil Bacteriology AMES, IOWA

  49. 849
    nigelj says:

    Ray Ladbury @840, agree we are almost certainly stuck on this rock, although NASA are researching warp drive faster than light travel. Not kidding, google it. Seems a far fetched idea.

  50. 850
    Killian says:

    Limits? A bit nuanced, so perhaps not appreciated here.

    https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2019/11/heaven-hath-limits/