RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: May 2021

Filed under: — group @ 2 May 2021

A bimonthly open thread on climate solutions. Perhaps unsurprisingly this is always the most contentious comment thread on the site, but please try and be constructive and avoid going off on wild tangents.

554 Responses to “Forced Responses: May 2021”

  1. 351
    nigelj says:

    Killian @342

    You said “Third, over and over and over and over I have repeated to you – because you are both directly dishonest and lie by omission – of the concepts of Bridge Technology and Appropriate Technology, two overlapping concepts that, rather than rejecting technology as you and Piotr have knowingly misrepresented……NOWHERE is it said to abandon existing embedded energy. That would be massive waste, and one of the most critical of the principles is 3. Zero waste.”

    I have not suggested you advocate rejecting all technology, or words to that effect. Even the links you posted in your comment don’t support that. I forgot about the embedded energy discussion back then. All as below.

    You said :”Here’s YOU discussing embedded energy”

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/10/forced-responses-oct-2020/comment-page-2/#comment-778479

    Yes I was taking about embedded energy back then. And I forgot about that. You said “All those unsustainable buildings are ALREADY BUILT. Embedded energy. The decision to change or alter them is LOCAL and would be happening over anything from a few years to as long as people choose. ” And I said “Yes its embedded energy, and we don’t have to rush to rebuild all that, just try to make it a bit more efficient with better insultation etcetera, but even that is quite a big task…. etc,etc ” The obvious point that is rebuilding or adapting buildings to achieve the sorts of 90% reductions in energy use you have posted is OBVIOUSLY a massive task to do in one or two decades. So we still have the same issues about whether time frames are realistic.

    “Bridge tech, appropriate tech, embedded energy (and more examples of YOU discussing):”

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/04/forced-variations-apr-2020/comment-page-9/#comment-765105

    Nothing specific about embedded energy and bridge tech, and certainly not one single word to suggest I claimed you were opposed to all technology, or denied you promoted that bridge tech. idea. Even your own link doesn’t support your accusations about me.

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/08/forced-responses-aug-2020/#comment-772502

    This is an example of YOU discussing embedded energy. I’m not involved. And I dont recall reading that comment at the time.

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/10/forced-responses-oct-2020/comment-page-2/#comment-778542

    Nothing about bridge tech per se. This as in response to me suggesting making existing cities walkable cities to a large degree so we get huge reductions in energy use is much harder than you think. Again to make such changes GLOBALLY over just the next decade or two is, how on earth can that be done? I do think these sorts of adaptations are useful but time frames need to be realistic.

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/10/forced-responses-oct-2020/#comment-778429

    More of the same. But you say “This is not something that must happen immediately. We have far more energy being produced than we need as we simplify. We can shut down all FF energy production and be fine. Without changing every building, or even a significant portion.” Sure Killian, we will all be fine (sarc).

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/06/forced-responses-jun-2020/comment-page-7/#comment-771977

    You said “And again you revert to the caveman lie. First FU for putting your ego ahead of humanity and the planet, denialist….” And I responded “No I’m not reverting to some cave man lie. You do not read carefully enough. I’m pointing out to you that you talk about renewables and modern tech. not being sustainable or regenerative (and quite correctly in a sense) while also telling people they can be part of a sustainable or regnerative society, which creates huge confusion. Its WTF? material.Al Bundy is basically telling you the same thing and he’s clearly not a moron. If he was confused how do you think other people will react? You are better to say tech wont last forever, so we have to be careful what we use it for, then there is no confusion.”

    There is nothing about embedded energy as such. And its obvious that at no point did I say you were promoting we live like cavemen or primitives with no modern technology. At no point did I rubbish the idea of bridge tech ( although I question some aspects of it). I accept you have said we can keep some technology. Again your link doesn’t support what you claim I said. I also said more recently example @ 114 (last months UV thread) “Killians plan includes …4)scaling back use of modern technology apart from just a few essentials.” So again I clearly accept you are not promoting we get rid of all technology. Yet you still keep on implying I do. You accuse others of being dishonest and stupid. Look in a mirror.

  2. 352
    michael Sweet says:

    DBBenson:
    Reading more about the proposed NuScale plant I find that they are not proposing to build a 77 MWe plant as you suggest at 346. The original proposal was to build a 12 module, 770 MWe plant (they keep changing the amount of power a single module will generate so the numbers do not all add up). Since their costs are so high they are now suggesting they might build a 4 , 6 or 10 module plant to save money. They are claiming $55 per MWhour which is more than current wind and solar bids. They do not yet have permission to start building the plant, that requires several more large permits. The government has promised to pay for 23% of the plant, hardly an open market proposal.

    You knew that NuScale is not proposing to build a 77 MWe plant as you suggested at 346. Making deliberately false statements does not make your argument more believable. Why are they building the plant next to a river if they want to air cool it? The artists drawing of the plant does not show cooling towers. Please provide a reference that shows the proposed NuScale plant will be air cooled.

  3. 353

    K 321: Somebody besides me called nigel out on his dishonest debate methods!

    BPL: Compared to you, he is the very model of honesty.

    K 342: Lie. You can’t cut and paste a single one.

    BPL: And right on schedule, he accuses me of lying as well. Your repertoire is really limited, Killian. Can you think of something else besides calling people liars?

  4. 354

    K 345: So, lie with cute editing? Impressive…

    BPL: Now he’s accused nigel, me, and Kevin of lying… Let’s keep track of how many people Killian accuses of lying in the next few days. Many he’ll break a record!

  5. 355
    Richard Caldwell says:

    Killian: First, that person’s statement is a lie. I don’t “rubbish” non-sustainability, I point it out

    RC: while loudly rubbishing the poster with incredibly insane insults. As Kevin noted, ya start with, “you’re a liar” and whatever pearls of wisdom you subsequently hide in the slop you post won’t be noticed.

    Seriously, after 10 years I still have no reasonable grasp of your take on much of anything because you scream, “liar! Wrong! Idiot! Scum!” whenever anyone tries to figure out wtf you actually believe.

    So, I’ll try….

    Killian WANTS about 6.75 billion people to just die, already. His simplification plan is simple: kill or starve as many people as fast as possible, leaving a small cadre of “good” people to build a regenerative society on top of the mass graves.

    Yep. That’ll work. But it’s hard to get folks to agree if one says the quiet part out loud.

    Of course, Killian’s ideas might be completely different. Could be no pesticides. Could be massive increases in the ‘proper’ types of pesticides, thus eliminating the need for ‘improper’ pesticides.

    So, Killian, did I guess right about mass death? And please answer about pesticides. Thumbs up or down?

    And a challenge:

    Can you answer this without insulting anyone?

  6. 356
    Richard Caldwell says:

    Piotr,

    Yes, large nukes are scary. I can’t fathom why the model in use, especially in the USA, has been huge bespoke nukes that need individual certification and ‘want’ to melt down. A swarm of small, cheap, and safe nukes beats a big, expensive, and scary nuke. If an oops happens, the affected unit won’t affect power availability and won’t spew significant radiation.

    That’s key. If the price of failure is huge ya gots to spend huge to prevent failure. If the price is a scratch ya just need to keep a box of Band-Aids around.

    This aligns with EP’s teachings. We can design the whole system to tolerate faults, including the.total destruction of a nuke (terrorist, accident, whatever). The high current cost of nuclear energy is entirely attributed to safety concerns combined with the cost of building huge and bespoke. SMRs can solve safety by reducing the price of failure to the point that failure does not need to be excluded while also allowing mass production.

    Maybe my problem is that I don’t have sufficient testosterone to ‘get’ the thrill huge nukes provide.

  7. 357
    Richard Caldwell says:

    KIA 296: President Donald Trump, the most environmentally progressive president in US history

    BPL: Are you on crack?

    RC: No. He has been rather clear. He is here SPECIFICALLY to “own the libs”. To accomplish this, no facts are needed. He will throw Factoid Feces and laugh at you because you “live to be owned”, as you just were.

    Mrkia doesn’t believe that Trump did anything ‘good’, other than arson. Mrkia’s stance has always been:

    “Burn the whole rotten system to the ground because it is different than the whole rotten system that existed 50 years ago. It’ll be fun to watch. Bring marshmallows”.

    And until you internalize that critical fact you will be owned, owned, and owned yet again.

    Of course, being owned while rejecting the definition of ‘owned’ can be fun, too.

    Everyone wins! Except those who won’t be dead in a few decades. That doesn’t include mrkia, you, or me, so lets all carry on, eh?

    I suppose folks with grandchildren might not like, as Nemesis coined, treating Capitalistic Society’s immolation of the biosphere as entertainment (bring popcorn).

    But “I wish someone would do something, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience ME” is about as effective a strategy as mrkia’s/trump’s “Burn it all down”.

    YO! Mrkia, France and Germany could ‘own’ Russia with no help from the USA. It seems that you have never studied the military capability of any nation, because if you had you’d know that Russia is such a p*ssy that it can’t even take out Ukraine. Heck, Afghanistan defeated and literally brought down the Soviet Union dang near single-handedly. Ray-gun and the USA had little to do with it.

    Data, dude. Give some scenario where Russia could do diddly squat with their teensy tiny gangster-capitalism (NOT Communist) economy and vodka-addled population.

    And China doesn’t invade. China trades without scruples. I doubt China would fare very well if they chose to invade, for example, Vietnam. Your fears are illogical. Said fears were deliberately planted by the military industrial complex specifically to enrich themselves at your expense.

    Think about it:

    If the USA spent 50% of its military budget on zero-carbon publically-owned energy production in the USA, the USA’s economy would grow so fast that Russia’s economy would shrink to toddler-sized, relatively. And if the USA spent 40% of its military budget on similar stuff abroad, the USA would have lots of friends and a habital planet far into the future.

    And that Russia threat? With zero-carbon slaughtering the price that Russia can demand for oil and methane, Russia won’t be able to threaten anyone. Broke-ass drunks are laughed at and/or pitied, not feared.

    That leaves 10% of the USA’s Offense budget, which is way more than is needed for ‘defense’. Besides, the USA’s military does NOT defend USA interests. It defends the wealthy’s interests.

    We can play soldier while flailing profitably at imaginary threats. Or we can fix the real problems.

  8. 358
    Richard Caldwell says:

    Population of males 21-39
    Russia: 21 million
    Germany: 20 million
    France: 15 million

    Advantage: F&G 1.7 to 1

    Economy
    Russia 1.6 trillion
    Germany: 3.7 trillion
    France: 2.6 trillion

    Advantage: F&G 3.9 to 1

    Military spending
    Russia $62 billion
    Germany $53 billion
    France $53 billion

    Advantage: F&G 1.7 to 1

    Situation: Russia invades (the only scenario you’re concerned with, right?). So all those drunk-ass Russian soldiers won’t be defending their nation. Compare the Soviet soldier’s performance in WW2 to Afghanistan. In contrast, the French and Germans will be HIGHLY motivated.

    History:

    Germany, with a tiny assist from Romania and Italy, almost defeated the Soviet Union while also fighting Canada, England, and lots of others, including the French Resistance.

    Russia is smaller, older, and worse in many ways compared to the ex-USSR. Yet you talk as if Russians are super-human. Naw, they are only a threat to the parts of the USSR that broke away after Afghanistan trounced them. And only if the rest of the world shrugs their shoulders. And that isn’t happening because…

    Poland, Germany, and France would see Russia’s expansion beyond the ethnically Russian part of Ukraine as an existential threat. And adding Poland and Ukraine (and Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc) to the already overwhelming force F&G can bring to bear would flatten the Russian bear rather quickly.

    You think like a coward, needing 100 to 1 odds to feel semi-safe. Little girl, that Russian spider is bluffing. You can just squish it and it knows it. Too bad you’re too much of a scaredy cat to see the blatently obvious.

    Read the damn numbers above and get back to me, MCUG.
    (That’s Mr Cowardly UnAmerican GOPper).

    If you’re a real American Man you will discuss the Russian threat honestly. So, are you a man or a mouse?

    Come on, squeak up.

  9. 359

    RC asks: “Does anyone here know where Killian stands on all three of the above?” [I.e., pesticides, mechanization, fertilizer.]

    I answer: “Not me.”

    Slightly longer version: “I’d expect all three to be ruled out as unsustainable, just as nigel guessed. But that would be at odds with the latest Killian pronunciamento, apparently.”

    Confusing, but I won’t lose sleep over it.

  10. 360
    nigelj says:

    Quite an interesting history of solar geoengineering:

    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/geoengineering-a-worst-case-plan-b-or-a-fuse-not-to-be-lit/

    “Geoengineering: A worst-case Plan B? Or a fuse not to be lit?”

    it all looks risky to me. It’s just a good read. I know some people can’t help but jump to conclusions that because I post something like this I must support it or I’m a closet conservative or luke warmer or whatever. Dishonest, impulsive dim wits.

  11. 361
    David B. Benson says:

    https://www.nuscalepower.com/Projects/Carbon-Free-Power-Project
    mentions that the Idaho National Laboratory site project will use dry cooling.

  12. 362
    Piotr says:

    Richard Caldwell (356): A swarm of small, cheap, and safe nukes

    But HALF A MILLION of them? That’s how many 77MWe Nuscale you would need to run them in a fully decarbonized economy around 2050 according to Jacobsen et al,
    see Piotr(348) – most of which to be built in developing countries – with questions about political stability, civil wars, technological gap, professional training of the operators.

    And while some dangers may be less per MW than those in the large power plants, other may be more pronounced – say – vulnerability to attack by guerrillas /terrorists /hostile neighbouring state, or of acquiring the material for a “dirty bomb”. May not be easier if have 15 times more reactors to protect.

    And you don’t need huge reactors to use it as an excuse for nuclear proliferation – to provide a cover story to buy a dual-use nuclear equipment, acquire dual-use technical training for your people, and produce materials for the bomb. And having so many of them – would make keeping the tabs on all of them so much more difficult.

    And then there is even more fundamental question if, and if yes – to what extent, to go nuclear – see the paper our DB Benson unintentionally brought to our attention – see Piotr(270).

  13. 363
    Piotr says:

    Nigel (360) – I would make two points they already make – stronger/more complete:

    1. not only SRM does not do stop ocean acidification – but is likely to make it worse – by addressing the universally-felt symptom (warming) takes away the urgency to address the other – less known and not so universally-perceived – if you are do not live at the coast – you don’t see the impacts of ocean acidification.

    2. the reason why “halting the temperature-masking spray [leading to a very RAPID temp increase to the level corresponding with high CO2] would almost inevitably end in massive death – SOME ecosystems/species may adapt/evolve to higher temps, or to physically move into colder regions (e.g. treeline, benthic organisms) – BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH TIME either for the selection to work, or to be able to physically migrate (treeline can move only so much each year, the same goes with the benthos that does not have a large larval dispersal). Halting the spray and resulting RAPID inc. in temp. – robs them of that time.

  14. 364
    Killian says:

    355 Richard Caldwell says:
    13 Jun 2021 at 9:20 AM

    RC: Killian WANTS about 6.75 billion people to just die, already.

    Another scumbag.

  15. 365
    Killian says:

    353 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    13 Jun 2021 at 8:01 AM

    BPL: Compared to you, he is the very model of honesty.

    K 342: Lie. You can’t cut and paste a single one.

    BPL: And right on schedule, he accuses me of lying as well. Your repertoire is really limited, Killian. Can you think of something else besides calling people liars?

    And, right on cue, caught lying, knowing you were lying, couldn’t back up the lie, and knew all along you couldn’t, and then deflect.

    Can you do something besided lie?

  16. 366
    Killian says:

    No surprise: I posted every insulting comment by the rest of you – no point in including mine since you all make me the topic of every FV – and it was a long list. The point, clearly, is the hypocrisy of most of you.

    It was not allowed to post by whoever is moderating.

    Fair and balanced.

    But you all lying, insulting, all that? That always makes it through.

    Fair and balanced.

  17. 367
    Susan Anderson says:

    Last I checked, this is:

    “RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists” – some of the best.

    Also: “A bimonthly open thread on climate solutions. Perhaps unsurprisingly this is always the most contentious comment thread on the site, but please try and be constructive and avoid going off on wild tangents.”

    Can the endless point counterpoint of call and response just please stop? If you’ve made your point, consider it heard. Each time it is repeated, rebutted, rerepeated, rerebutted, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, it is less likely to garner attention as worth reading and more like some kind of ego trip to be ignored.

    My scrolling mouse is exhausted and many good contributors have probably decided not to bother.

  18. 368
    Killian says:

    359
    Kevin McKinney says:
    13 Jun 2021 at 2:41 PM

    RC asks: “Does anyone here know where Killian stands on all three of the above?” [I.e., pesticides, mechanization, fertilizer.]

    I answer: “Not me.”

    Slightly longer version: “I’d expect all three to be ruled out as unsustainable, just as nigel guessed. But that would be at odds with the latest Killian pronunciamento, apparently.”

    You want to pretend saying something is unsustainable = something has no use whatsoever and should never be used. Those are your head worms, not mine.

    And you say this despite knowing the following:

    All decisions are ultimately local. Niche uses exist for pretty much everything, most likely.

    Bridge Technology – using *existing* technology to achieve regenerative outcomes.

    Appropriate Technology – Similar to bridge, but really just means use the resources you have. This OBVIOUSLY can mean using something unsustainable if NECESSARY.

    Principle: Natural before mechanical, mechanical before high tech/chemical

    All of the above have been repeated on this site. You KNOW all of these. Al of you do. You are being dishonest when you say you do not, when you say I have never clarified these issues, etc.

    You. Are. Lying. All of you.

    Why?

  19. 369
    nigelj says:

    Richard Caldwell @357

    “YO! Mrkia, France and Germany could ‘own’ Russia with no help from the USA. It seems that you have never studied the military capability of any nation, because if you had you’d know that Russia is such a p*ssy that it can’t even take out Ukraine. Heck, Afghanistan defeated and literally brought down the Soviet Union dang near single-handedly. Ray-gun and the USA had little to do with it….”

    Yes pretty much right overall. Russias military has become pretty run down especially with all the economic sanctions against them in recent years. They do have some good technology in long range gliding style missles, but the rest is fairly dated. Its the same with Iran.

    Although Russia wasn’t really trying that hard to take out the Ukraine. It was a calculated move just to make Putin look like Mr Tough Guy, to intimidate the west and impress the Russian sheep, oops I mean citizens, but not frighten the western world so much that they take retaliatory action. Putin talks a big game and puffs himself up. I have to give the horrible man points for immense native cunning. Next he will be flying around in a jet pack (powerd by Russian gas) wearing a flowing black cape to make the short arse look bigger than he is.

    “And China doesn’t invade. China trades without scruples. I doubt China would fare very well if they chose to invade, for example, Vietnam. Your fears are illogical. ”

    And none of the super powers are going to do any serious invading especially of each other, due to the nuclear weapons deterrent.

    “Said fears were deliberately planted by the military industrial complex specifically to enrich themselves at your expense.”

    Suggest you read George Orwells 1984 if you havent already about said fears being deliberately planted…

    Richard Caldwell @358

    “Economy: Russia 1.6 trillion, Germany: 3.7 trillion, France: 2.6 trillion”

    Someone pointed out to me a while ago that the economy of Texas is 1.8 trillion. Just one state! So while I think you guys don’t want to cosy up to Russia or take them too lightly, a lot of the fears of Russia do seem rather overblown.

  20. 370
    Mr. Know It All says:

    357 & 358 Richard Caldwell
    “If you’re a real American Man you will discuss the Russian threat honestly.”

    Did someone say something about Russia? Not me. I asked nigelj how his Chinese lessons were coming along, not Russian. If push comes to shove, they’ll likely stick together though.

    Those were mighty brave insults you made while hiding behind your keyboard.

  21. 371
    nigelj says:

    Kevin @359

    “Does anyone here know where Killian stands on all three of the above?” [I.e., pesticides, mechanization, fertilizer.]”

    “I answer: “Not me.” Slightly longer version: “I’d expect all three to be ruled out as unsustainable, just as nigel guessed.”

    Just a couple of nit picks, because I don’t want Killian using your comments against me. I didn’t quite say that although I know you were just parphrasing in good faith. I said essentially that Killian appears to oppose the use of industrial fertilisers and pesticides as part of some simplification plan. And I didnt say its because they were unsustainable as such. To be honest I don’t like the word sustainable or unsustainable because it means different things to different people.

    And I didn’t say Killian rules out mechanisation. He does accept the use of some mechanisation provided its for an essential service like farming, and for something that cant be done by human labour for example: refer his comments @342: “choose natural (human labor) before mechanical, and mechanical before hi-tech/chemical.”

    But this leads to a problem with this principle worth mentioning. How do you apply this principle? Almost anything can be done by human labour given enough time (eg the pyramids of egypt) so why do we need the principle? Or is the principle saying use mechanical labour if doing something by hand is too difficult, labour intensive or fiddly. I can see debates where people discuss this, and do we really need to get a tractor or harvestor for example, and after slaving in the fields they will soon get a tractor.

  22. 372
    Killian says:

    355
    Richard Caldwell says:
    13 Jun 2021 at 9:20 AM

    Scumbag.

  23. 373
    Richard Caldwell says:

    Re Nigel’s SRM link:

    At one point your link mentioned using a base, chalk, instead of an acid, sulphur. So….

    Maybe do SRM lower in the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean specifically to protect the ice, with care that the direct shading effects don’t significantly affect other areas?

    Maintains our northern ice mirror while reducing ocean acidification. Plus it will tend to maintain the equivalent of today’s (yesterday’s?) pole-to-equator thermal differential, at least for the North Pole. And fortunately, the South Pole is more resiliant.

    What could go wrong? Besides minor stuff like setting off a world war…

    ____________

    Michael Sweet: Reading more about the proposed NuScale plant I find that they are not proposing to build a 77 MWe plant as you suggest at 346. The original proposal was to build a 12 module, 770 MWe plant

    RC: Hmm. I see no issue. This discussion has talked about the size of a nuke. To me, that’s the size of a single unit, not the whole swarm. And it sounds like 77MWe is a reasonable expression of the capacity for a single unit.

    So maybe DBB typoed or was less than perfectly clear. Dunno and don’t actually care, so if you want to (for whatever reason)convince me that DBB is wrong or nefarious or whatever you’ll need more.

    But yes, I’m paying attention. This whole topic is in continual flux and focuses on intellectual property, so what the ‘experts’ pontificate about it is almost certainly obsolete.

  24. 374
    nigelj says:

    More regarding K @342: “choose natural (human labor) before mechanical, and mechanical before hi-tech/chemical.” relating to farming. I guess building a reasonable sized bridge would be one example where you would definitely need mechanical labour. But most essential farmwork and related infrastructure construction could be built by hand with basic tools if you slaved away at it long enough.

  25. 375
    Richard Caldwell says:

    Nigel: Dishonest, impulsive dim wits.

    RC: Proactively responding to expected bad behavior is fraught. You can surely see how it increases bad behavior.

    Just saying. This remote Internet thingy ain’t anything like what your species was designed for. Insulting some invisible entity that produced some text on your screen doesn’t raise the same warnings and self-limitations that proactive in-person insults seriously scream.

    It doesn’t feel like it, but we’re talking to actual real people here.

  26. 376

    RC 357: China doesn’t invade.

    BPL: That would come as news to India, Pakistan, and Tibet. Not to mention Taiwan, which is bracing for a coming PRC invasion.

  27. 377
    David B. Benson says:

    Piotr @362 — Most thoughtful commenters on the future of the grid anticipate a continued support of 20% from nuclear power plants.
    Still, that’s about 100,000 NuScale modules. Will need quite a few factories to quickly build so many.

    As for proliferation risk, if you had bothered to read the NuScale Internet site, you too would know that the modules are to be kept in holes in the ground.

  28. 378
    William Jackson says:

    #364 I can see no way for your gish gallop to work without nearly 7 billion people dying. Please explain if you can.

  29. 379
    nigelj says:

    Killian @ 368 since you appear to be saying industrial fertilisers and pesticides may be used in some situations if decided “locally” its hard to figure out why you reacted negatively to my comments that we may have to phase in regenerative agriculture in the sense we keep the use of some limited amount of industrial nitrates and fertilisers. If you had just said its a local decision, etc, it would have saved misunderstandings.

  30. 380
    nigelj says:

    Piotr @363 yes. The following is a rather entertaining science fiction movie, but does highlight just how much could go wrong with geoengineering at a political level.

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/geostorm-movie-shows-dangers-hacking-climate

    “Hollywood’s latest disaster flick, “Geostorm,” is premised on the idea that humans have figured out how to control the Earth’s climate. A powerful satellite-based technology allows users to fine-tune the weather, overcoming the ravages of climate change…. (of course it all goes very wrong. some group wanting world domination and money hacks into the computer control system)”

    Of course solar geoengineering is a bit different, but the system could be manipulated or sabotaged.

  31. 381
    nigelj says:

    Mr. Know It All @370, I cant remember what that china discussion was about but heres what I think. if you want sensible commentary on China read the economist.com. China is a problem but not to the ridiculous extent Donald Trump portrays. He used them as a scapegoat for his and Americas failings. China has designs on Taiwan but they know there could be a big price to pay if they invade, both with trade retaliation and possible military response.

    My country has a big trade relationship with China but we wont stand for human rights abuses or naked aggression and our government made our feelings clear but in a measured diplomatic way. If we have to find other trade partners we will. We have done it before. BUT we are not stupid, and will not be picking a huge verbal fight or trade war with china for the sake of it. They get our exports we get cheap consumer goods. Its a win win situation for both countries.

  32. 382
    nigelj says:

    “RC: Killian WANTS about 6.75 billion people to just die, already.”

    “K: Another scumbag.”

    See how Killian deliberately quotes people out of context? When Richard made it plain this was a crazy hypothetical example.

  33. 383
    nigelj says:

    Killian @359 says “All decisions are ultimately local. Niche uses exist for pretty much everything, most likely. Bridge Technology – using *existing* technology to achieve regenerative outcomes. Appropriate Technology – Similar to bridge, but really just means use the resources you have. This OBVIOUSLY can mean using something unsustainable if NECESSARY. Principle: Natural before mechanical, mechanical before high tech/chemical…..”

    The logic is clear enough, but its such a complex system with so many things to weigh up with literally every decision, and so many decisions will be subjective like defining what is necessary. I just see it as a potential train wreck. People literally aren’t good enough for stuff like this (Richard alluded to the same I think).

    And if all decisions are ultimately local, how can we say such an approach would work to solve the climate problem and simplify the world in the next 10 – 20 years? Because we have no idea what decisions would be made. There is not even a rough appraisal at what’s most likely to happen.

  34. 384
    John Pollack says:

    RC @373 “And it sounds like 77MWe is a reasonable expression of the capacity for a single unit.”
    From the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) News Aug. 28 2020: “The SMR’s 12 modules, each producing 50 megawatts, are all submerged in a safety-related pool built below ground level.” …

    “NuScale has indicated it will apply in 2022 for a standard design approval of a 60-megawatt-per-module version of the design. That version will require additional NRC review.

    Neither a standard design approval nor a design certification grant permission to build or operate a reactor. Full certification, if granted by the Commission following the staff’s recommendation, allows a utility to reference the design when applying for a combined license to build and operate a nuclear power plant.”

    https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2020/20-043.pdf

  35. 385
    Richard Caldwell says:

    MrCUG: Those were mighty brave insults you made while hiding behind your keyboard.

    RC: LOL.
    6440 Railroad Ave
    Omaha, NE 68107

    See you soon. I’ll tell you about my bar fight. I took on an actual gang of about ten guys to protect a drunk as a skunk friend and left without a scratch. Bring it.

    My point is obvious: you aren’t here to do anything productive. Change that or leave.

    Killian, I asked a question about your opinion on mass death. Please answer it. I’ll be fair by answering it, too:

    If I had a magic button that would erase 90+% of humanity painlessly I would be sorely tempted. I do not know what I would do. (Though if I could tweak the magic so as to preferentially eradicate GOPpers… I gotta admit it, I wouldn’t miss you at all MrCUG.)

    BPL,Yep. China defines ‘China’ fairly broadly. Of course, Taiwan is part of China as it is technically a cold civil war. Tibet is a big topic that I’d want to study before commenting on. And yes, in China’s many thousands of years China has fought various neighbors, especially, iirc, Vietnam, who trounced China in the late 70s, which is why I mentioned them. I suspect that the Chinese leadership studied the ramifications and lack of productivity of past wars and has decided to go with economic warfare instead. This meshes with pretty much everything I have ever heard about China.

    Do you think China is or will become a military threat beyond their declared boundries (that include Tibet, Taiwan, and the South China Sea?

    The Great Wall of China wasn’t built because China has expansionist tendencies. And such physical works influence a people. Imagine how different the USA would be if the French hadn’t given them lady Liberty.

    But yes, China has a huge population and they will soon be members of the first world (educated, long lived, and wealthy). And yes, that is scary for smallish countries like the USA. It sure is disconcerting when one’s nation falls off the peak. China has triple the USA’s population and holds a ton of USA debt.

    I’m reminded of the old joke:

    When you owe the bank $100,000 it is your problem. When you owe them $100,000,000 it is the bank’s problem.

    How much does the USA owe China? Imagine the ramifications of the USA responding to a Chinese invasion of Vietnam by simply ripping up the debt. Who would side with China? Would they have to eat the loss?

    Dunno. But neither do the Chinese.

  36. 386
    Killian says:

    Climate activism and efforts are heavily skewed toward CO2, but excess atmospheric GHGs are not a cause, they are an effect of the actual cause, abuse of Earth’s resources/ecosystem services.

    Mitigation and adaptation are focused on drawing down CO2, which *is* necessary, but without ecosystem restoration, drawing down CO2 will not save us from ecosystem collapse, thus societal collapse.

    A comprehensive approach that draws down C, actively restores the ecosystem and avoids consuming finite/unsustainable resources and/or uses sustainable resources too quickly. And it must be done quickly. Biota are already at collapse levels, tipping points have been and soon will be passed, so solutions must be rapid.

    Only regenerative simplicity meets all these criteria

    https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2021/06/19/loss-of-biodiversity-poses-as-great-a-risk-to-humanity-as-climate-change

  37. 387
    nigelj says:

    Piotr @376

    “Richard Caldwell (356): A swarm of small, cheap, and safe nukes….But HALF A MILLION of them? That’s how many 77MWe Nuscale you would need to run them in a fully decarbonized economy around 2050 according to Jacobsen et al,”

    Just out of idol curiosity, nothing on television, and an innate desire to stand up for the underdog (the much criticised nuscale reactor) I wondered how many wind turbines you would need to power the world, thinking it would be a massive number of tens or hundreds of millions of turbines, that would make nuscale look quite good! But a google search came up with some interesting results:

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-to-power-the-world-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

    “What would a world powered by wind actually look like? Steve Sawyer the Global Wind Energy Council’s Secretary General, did the maths: 21,000 terawatt-hours (the average annual global electricity consumption) divided by 0.005256 terawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 3,995,434 onshore turbines.”

    “Depending on the size of the turbine (larger ones can produce more electricity), we might need fewer wind turbines overall. If we only used extremely efficient turbines (i.e. ones that create 4 MW of power at 40% capacity), about 1.49 million turbines could supply the world’s electricity consumption.”

    So if wind turbines were used for a fully decarbonised economy not just electricity generation, that is approximately 9.6 million high efficiency turbines. It’s a big number, and ignores a possible need for an overbuild, but it sounds like less of a general all purpose headache than half a million nuclear reactors!

    ­­­­­­­­­­­­—————————————————–

    Richard Caldwell @373

    Your idea of solar geoengineering just over the arctic and at relatively low level does sound quite good. You ask about the downsides. Others have also considered this although at stratosphere levels as below. This has some side effects that might also apply to your idea.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-017-3810-y#Sec2

    There are just so many things to consider. I just dont have the expertise. I thought a while back maybe solar geoengineering would be useful over the antarctic area which is the big potential source of sea level rise, but then came across this problem recently:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/12/geoengineering-the-planet-may-not-save-west-antarctica-study-finds/

  38. 388
    Killian says:

    374 nigelj says:
    14 Jun 2021 at 4:38 AM

    More regarding K @342: “choose natural (human labor) before mechanical, and mechanical before hi-tech/chemical.” relating to farming. I guess building a reasonable sized bridge would be one example where you would definitely need mechanical labour. But most essential farmwork and related infrastructure construction could be built by hand with basic tools if you slaved away at it long enough.

    Study the issue or stop talking about it. Two choices for an ethical man.

    Dear Readers, this man has nothing to say on the issues of permaculture, regenerative practices of any kind, mitigation or adaptation. Please disregard all comments on those topics.

  39. 389
    Killian says:

    371 nigelj says:

    But this leads to a problem with this principle worth mentioning. How do you apply this principle? Almost anything can be done by human labour given enough time (eg the pyramids of egypt) so why do we need the principle? Or is the principle saying use mechanical labour if doing something by hand is too difficult, labour intensive or fiddly. I can see debates where people discuss this, and do we really need to get a tractor or harvestor for example, and after slaving in the fields they will soon get a tractor.

    Study the issue or stop talking about it. Two choices for an ethical man.

    Dear Readers, this man has nothing to say on the issues of permaculture, regenerative practices of any kind, mitigation or adaptation. Please disregard all comments on those topics, just as he disregards something I know he has read here many times: ALL regenerative design is place-based. Which for those Dear Readers of good will and intent obviously answers the ignorant question raised – and that’s just one of several ways it could be answered, and one of several ways that have been shared on these boards repeatedly.

    Yet we are expected to suspend disbelief and assume it is asked with good will…

  40. 390
    zebra says:

    Susan Anderson #367,

  41. 391
    zebra says:

    Susan Anderson #367,

    “many good contributors have probably decided not to bother”

    More important, it almost certainly discourages new contributors.

    But, as per my recent comment on UV, the co-dependent, repetitive, call-and-response you describe seems to be some form of… addiction?

    Or perhaps the point is, in fact, just to fill up the pages to keep out any new people or ideas?

  42. 392

    K 368: You. Are. Lying. All of you.

    BPL: We’re all out to get you, Killian. We lie awake at night, plotting against you. That’s when we’re not doing it explicitly in smoke-filled rooms deep in our secret headquarters.

  43. 393

    Killian, #368–

    All of the above have been repeated on this site.

    Yes, they have. We’ve had a ton of general principle. What we’ve (mostly) lacked is a coherent explanation of what the practical implementation would look like. Hence everybody’s reported sense of uncertainty re pretty much everything you advocate.

    Now, perhaps we really are all gormless idiots, full of bad faith and prone to endless dishonesty. But we’re what you’ve got on this forum. If you wish to convince/educate/inform, you’ll need to work within our manifest limitations.

  44. 394
    Piotr says:

    nigelj 387: I wondered how many wind turbines you would need to power the world.

    Nigel – Jacobsen et al. have their estimates for their renewable mix, both for baseline and the backup/storage see Table 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.003

    2.2 mln onshore, and 0.7mln offshore, which is less than yours because it assumes a mixture of renewables and ability to use their different patterns to match them as much possible within a grid (when the sun does not shine wind may be blowing and vice versa).

    And you can put in much more wind turbines than by nuclear reactors – you can grow crops within the windfarm, with nukes – with their containment buildings, cooling system and security exclusion zone – not so much.

    And in the offshore – you can actually use the windfarms as de-facto marine reserves – as fishing is typically not allowed there, the underwater portions of the towers function as artificial-reefs, and their hydrodynamic interaction with waves could perhaps enhance vertical mixing (which providing oxygen into deep water and nutrients from deeper waters up).

  45. 395
    Piotr says:

    David B. Benson (377) Most thoughtful commenters on the future of the grid anticipate a continued support of 20% from nuclear power plants.

    What are you saying ??? That your friend, the Nuclear Poet – is NOT thoughtful???

    He despises renewables so much that, like another Poet (currently in – poet-in-residence in Mar-a-Lago), he destroys the credibility of his enemies by coining a derogatory nicknames for them, say:
    Gentlemen and ruinables fags
    Engineer Poet, forced-responses-oct-2020

    Do you really think that somebody like that would agree to the ruinables providing 80% of power???

    And what about the thoughtfulness of some David B. Benson – whose source was
    an article with an unthoughtful title: “ Two’s a crowd: Nuclear and renewables don’t mixhttps://techxplore.com/news/2020-10-crowd-nuclear-renewables-dont.html
    and contained unthoughtful research, like:
    “[In a certain large country, the negative] relationship between renewable electricity and CO2-emissions is up to seven times stronger than the corresponding relationship for nuclear.”
    and equally unthoughtful conclusions. For both see: Piotr (270).

    As for proliferation risk, if you had bothered to read the NuScale Internet site, you too would know that the modules are to be kept in holes in the ground.

    If I bothered to read your site, would it enlighten me how keeping them in holes would stop Iran and other countries from using them as a “cover story to buy a dual-use nuclear equipment, acquire dual-use technical training for your people, and produce materials for the bomb“?

    And since most of the nukes would need to be placed in developing countries – are you saying that keeping them in holes (which have to be accessible for operating and/or servicing), would …. stop the dictators, factions in a civil war, or terrorists from getting their hands on the material for a dirty bomb? Particularly if there will be 100,000 of them to guard?

  46. 396

    @377:

    Still, that’s about 100,000 NuScale modules. Will need quite a few factories to quickly build so many.

    A NuScale module is about 1/10 the size and mass of a Liberty ship, which the USA was producing at a rate of 3 per day at one point in WWII.

    30 NuScales per day 250 days a year is 7500 per year.  You can get to 100k units pretty quickly with that kind of production rate, and with production at several sites world-wide that wouldn’t be much of a problem.

    @392:  <snort!>

  47. 397
    nigelj says:

    Killian @388 & 389 says “Dear Readers, this man (me) has nothing to say on the issues of permaculture, regenerative practices of any kind, mitigation or adaptation. Please disregard all comments on those topics.

    Dear readers, I suggest look beyond Killians empty dismissals to the way he rarely answers peoples questions, and when he does its wordy and obscure, and he often doesnt rebut actual points made, instead launching into something unrelated. And notice how often he quotes people out of context. Accident or deliberate?

    And we are all expected to have read his every word going back ten years, and memorised the whole lot and pieced it all together. And if we dare to criticise it no matter how politely we are called ignorant fools, or some endless variation on that. And when killian discusses or criticises anything including topics outside his expertise that’s quite ok apparently. Its only the rest of us who are forbidden to do that.

    And like KM says @393 we have been given some so called general principles but not much on real world practical implementation, which is why I raised some practical implications above. The stock standard answer is people will “decide locally” and you have been told that before. Any difficult question gets a response “people will decide locally”. Do people here think that’s an adequate answer?

    Right, back to my smoke filled room with BPL and others to plot and plan against Killian. Complete with the upside down cross, homage to our illuminati masters, and an animal sacrifice or two.

  48. 398
    Piotr says:

    Richard Caldwell (373) “ Maybe do SRM lower in the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean specifically to protect the ice, with care that the direct shading effects don’t significantly affect other areas?

    see the nigel’s geoengineering link:
    material injected into the lower atmosphere, which falls or is washed to the ground in days“.
    so “lower in the atmosphere” would not do.

    So it would have to be stratosphere where “is distributed widely on planet-encircling winds. There’s hardly any vertical movement of air in the stratosphere, so the material would remain aloft for months.

    Now I am not sure whether in the stratosphere there is any strong N-S component in its winds – IF not and the winds are mainly latitudinal then I guess what sprayed in the Arctic should stay in the Arctic.

    The Mt. Pinatubo suggest that there is some N-S:
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

    but we won’t exactly mimic Pinatubo ….

    Then there may be logistics are the enough good airstrips in high Arctic and high Antarctic – we are talking probably about massive cargo planes – so you may
    take off 100s 1000s km away from your “spray-location”, and stay long enough there to spray it – you can’t just dump your cargo in one go…

    I assume that there is not enough water vapour in lower stratosphere to form
    clouds – high clouds, unlike low clouds may net warm Earth
    (another reason why you don’t want to spray “lower” as in troposphere you would have enough water vapour to make clouds)

    As for using CaCO3 – certainly better for acidification than sulphates – but I don’t know if it stays in atm. as long as sulphates. Then there is a mysterious line in the article:
    In his 2006 editorial, Crutzen had said the UV light effect would be tolerable if sulfites were used.

    I don’t know what do they mean by “the UV light effect” – that sulfites, unlike sulphates, won’t mess up with ozone layer???

    And fortunately, the South Pole is more resiliant.

    The Pole – yes – the Western Antarctic iceshelves – NOT!.

    Which also goes to the issue that a lot of melting of those iceshelves are melted from the deep -by warmer ocean i.e by the subsurface waters that warm outside your high-lat umbrella.

  49. 399
    Killian says:

    393 Kevin McKinney says:
    15 Jun 2021 at 9:02 AM

    Killian, #368–

    All of the above have been repeated on this site.

    Yes, they have.

    Well, there you *finally* have it. Some truth.

    We’ve had a ton of general principle. What we’ve (mostly) lacked is a coherent explanation of what the practical implementation would look like.

    Yes, Kevin, pretend you have not been told ALL DESIGN IS ULTIMATELY LOCAL, so I cannot tell you what it might look like where you are without a discussion with you about… where you are. Which. I. Have. Said. Repeatedly.

    But you damned sure can pick up one of the many permaculture books and read it or take a permaculture course. I have *repeatedly* offered to do one specifically for people on this site. (So, please, tell us all yet again how I am withholding information from you…)

    I will say again, if you understand and assimilate the principles, that is the key. Everything else is on the internet or in books.

    Anything else you wanted to learn, you would buy a book, watch a video or search online, but not this. Why? Let me answer: You do not *want* to know so you can continue to blame me for your self-inflicted ignorance on the subject. You want a free permaculture course on a MESSAGE BOARD, for chrissakes. I. Have. Said. This. Before.

    You refuse to understand simplicity is… simple. You want some great, complex thing because that has been the norm for 10k years – increasing complexity. But Regenerative systems are *simple*, and you have to take the time to really understand the principles at a fundamental level, and that takes some pondering. Why haven’t you already pondered rather than ask to be spoon-fed by someone who cannot possibly know what you know about where you are?

    You need the principles and the process. Buy a goddamned book. Take a course.

    And let’s pretend you haven’t been told by me:

    **Study permaculture.**
    – Assimilate the principles into your thinking so that it takes no thinking to apply them. The principles are how and why you could ask me about any approach, method, technology and I can tell you with either no or very little thought whether it’s sustainable or not.

    – Learn the design process.

    Also:
    **Study TEK.**
    **Study intact aboriginal communities.

    ALL THESE ARE YOUR HOW, YOUR DETAILS, GET IT?

    Then do this:

    ****Create a regenerative design for your community.****

    Then do this (which you can do without studying permaculture):
    Start a garden.
    Start a community food system.
    Start managing water.
    Start localizing energy.
    Start an egalitarian neighborhood/community council.
    Start building elements of your local Commons. (Tool shares, book shares, community kitchens, community gardens. community water management, community energy, time bank, etc. You don’t have to jump to a full Commons today.)

    Referring back to what I said about instantly knowing whether something is sustainable or not, if you also add a long list of other concepts that are not derived from permaculture/TEK, this becomes all the more possible. And I have shared ALL of them on this site:

    Localization
    Chaos Theory
    Resource Limits
    Hubbert’s Curve
    Liebig’s Law of the Minimum
    Jevons’ Paradox
    Collapse is a choice
    Diminishing Returns on Complexity
    Economics is philosophy, not science, and useless to a sustainable society
    Dunbar’s Number
    How aborigine societies maintained and made more productive their lands
    Bio-char/Terra Preta
    Soil biology
    composting
    regenerative agriculture ( <– No, this is not permaculture, which is a design science/process I would prefer to call Regenerative Ecological Engineering.)

    Etc.

    You all have been told all this before, yet continually claim that I have never shared what you need to know. This is false. Because you have had me repeating all this for a decade, you are ALL better prepared to start your localization process than any other neophytes on the planet.

    But, of course, I have told you nothing of use…

    Finally, learn the Regenerative Governance model for connecting your small community to the rest of humanity for a shared, equitable use of the ecosystem.

    To be absolutely clear: The details once you have the above in your head can only be known by you and your community. Nobody can design it for you unless they do it *with* you.

    And I'm not doing a permaculture course on a message board. BUY A GODDAMNED BOOK AND STOP ATTACKING ME WHEN IT IS YOUR SELF-INFLICTED IGNORANCE THAT IS TO BLAME.

  50. 400
    Killian says:

    383 nigelj says:
    14 Jun 2021 at 10:54 PM

    Killian @359 says “All decisions are ultimately local. Niche uses exist for pretty much everything, most likely. Bridge Technology – using *existing* technology to achieve regenerative outcomes. Appropriate Technology – Similar to bridge, but really just means use the resources you have. This OBVIOUSLY can mean using something unsustainable if NECESSARY. Principle: Natural before mechanical, mechanical before high tech/chemical…..”

    The logic is clear enough, but its such a complex system with so many things to weigh up with literally every decision

    nigel: Simplicity is SOOOO complex!

    Monopoly and poker seem complex until you play them for an hour.

    and so many decisions will be subjective like defining what is necessary.

    Yup, only regenerative design has any subjectivity! Oh, wait… but does it? I wonder what all those principles over there in the corner are for…?

    I just see it as a potential train wreck.

    You’re a train wreck.