Some positive climate change news for a change:
QuoteBritain went a full day without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, the National Grid says.
QuoteBritain's longest continuous energy period without coal until now was 19 hours - first achieved last May, and again on Thursday.
The government plans to phase out Britain's last plants by 2025 in order to cut carbon emissions.
Friday is thought to be the first time the nation has not used coal to generate electricity since the world's first centralised public coal-fired generator opened in 1882, at Holborn Viaduct in London.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39675418
I thought coal was obsolete. Almost like petrol is about to be. Goodbye drivers.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 22, 2017, 06:25:19 PM
I thought coal was obsolete. Almost like petrol is about to be. Goodbye drivers.
Goodbye food supply. Unless you live on a farm and have a horse to pull the plow ... are you Amish? Actual renewable technology is a horse and buggy. Man and woman also self renew ... you know how ;-) Pure solar/wind power ... without evil corporations and governments.
A step in the right direction, at least.
Quote from: trdsf on May 11, 2017, 10:38:59 AM
A step in the right direction, at least.
The alternative is nuclear, with breeder reactors to make lots of plutonium. There are no nice alternatives, with a world population over 1 billion. Thermal pollution, it isn't just CO2 ... happens by the consumption of power in all forms. Even solar cells and wind farms raise temperatures.
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2017, 12:45:49 PM
The alternative is nuclear, with breeder reactors to make lots of plutonium. There are no nice alternatives, with a world population over 1 billion.
There are lots of alternatives, and while nuclear power is better than coal and natural gas (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/), it carries a huge stigma and remains a political hot potato. That's a shame, because it would've been a great stepping stone in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources.
QuoteThermal pollution, it isn't just CO2 ... happens by the consumption of power in all forms. Even solar cells and wind farms raise temperatures.
Waste heat, huh? That's practically nothing compared to the greenhouse effect of fossil fuels (https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm).
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 11, 2017, 02:15:26 PM
There are lots of alternatives, and while nuclear power is better than coal and natural gas (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/), it carries a huge stigma and remains a political hot potato. That's a shame, because it would've been a great stepping stone in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources.
My attitude toward nuclear is that it's distasteful but necessary (said growing up in the shadow of the Davis-Besse plant, responsible for two of the five worst incidents at commercial nuclear power generating facilities). Just don't site them in seismically active areas, and let them carry some of the load until renewable, cleaner, greener, and non-long-term-waste-producing systems can fulfill demand.
Yep. And newer nuclear reactors are far safer and generate less nuclear waste per unit than older reactors. But the general public doesn't look up that sort of information. They know about Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island and Fukushima and assume any nuclear plant is a ticking time bomb.
Meanwhile, coal plants belch out pollutants into the air which kills thousands of people every year. But that's not the kind of thing people worry much about. It helps that those deaths are typically from a lengthy, mostly invisible process compared to the far more photogenic nuclear meltdowns.
It's so strange how people's perception of danger and actual danger often don't match up. Like people people who are terrified of flying in a plane but don't bat an eye at going on a 5-state road trip. Why can't more people look at this stuff rationally?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 11, 2017, 02:15:26 PM
There are lots of alternatives, and while nuclear power is better than coal and natural gas (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/), it carries a huge stigma and remains a political hot potato. That's a shame, because it would've been a great stepping stone in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources.
Waste heat, huh? That's practically nothing compared to the greenhouse effect of fossil fuels (https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm).
Do you walk to work? If not ...
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2017, 06:55:52 PMDo you walk to work? If not ...
The old hypocrisy argument (which fyi, can be used against changing anything) That argument never gets old. I thought at last you had abandoned it after the last time it blew up in your face. No such luck, it seems.
I suppose you'd need to change the subject considering how terribly wrong you were/are about waste heat.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 11, 2017, 08:33:56 PM
The old hypocrisy argument (which fyi, can be used against changing anything) That argument never gets old. I thought at last you had abandoned it after the last time it blew up in your face. No such luck, it seems.
I suppose you'd need to change the subject considering how terribly wrong you were/are about waste heat.
Depends on definitions. Not counting nuclear power ... waste heat = heat generated from prior solar energy or heat generated from current solar energy. Of course if you don't consider current solar energy as "waste" then only heat generated from prior solar energy is "waste". You are a sophist, not an engineer. You argue words, not equations. And yes, the whole human race are ape people ... not evolved enough to be hypocrites. Large scale solar power, requires a decrease in the albedo of the Earth's surface. Large scale wind power converts wind energy into mechanical energy and hotter air. Entropy rules, not rhetoric. Thermal consequences don't matter, if there are only a million people ... but with billions it does, particularly if everyone gets to live like Elon Musk. The answer is ... get rid of 7 billion people. Then the engineering problem is much smaller, if not simpler.
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2017, 06:44:59 AMDepends on definitions.
No, it doesn't. I sent you a link for a reason. You are dead wrong. Period.
QuoteYou are a sophist, not an engineer. You argue words, not equations.
Then why is it you're the only one doing just that? The kettle calling the orange black yet again.
Show me an equation, word-smith ;-) You can't define albedo, or make a order of magnitude estimate as to how one solar roof vs a billion, isn't the same.
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2017, 12:53:13 PM
Show me an equation, word-smith ;-) You can't define albedo, or make a order of magnitude estimate as to how one solar roof vs a billion, isn't the same.
I'll step up.
The current albedo of the earth is about 0.3. The earth's diameter is 12,742 km, so it has a cross-sectional area of 1.275e14 m^2. With a solar constant of 1.361 kW/m^2, that gives us 3.745e21 kW over the earth's surface, 30% of which is reflected back out into space. That leaves us with 2.621e21 kW, or 2.621e12 TW, that is absorbed by the earth.
On the other hand, in the year 2013, it is estimated that the world energy consumption of the world was 13,541 Mtoe (568.722 EJ). So, that gives us an average of 18.023 TW (568.722 TJ/yr / 3.154e7 s/yr) energy consumption over that year. Our current energy consumption is maybe an order of mangitude more, so ballpark 180.23 TW. If we were to draw all of this power from solar radiation, then it would increase the absorbed amount of power by one part in 14 million. The decrease in global albedo would be about the same order.
Put another way, the current radiative forcing from the greenhouse effect is 2.9 W/m^2, or 0.2% of the solar constant. The waste heat from our activities is 0.028 W/m^2, or about one one-hundredth of that. But remember that 0.028 W/m^2 would be new heat added to the system (although it is in effect stored sunlight, it was effectively gone until we burned it for energy), instead of heat that would have been absorbed anyway from the sun.
There's also the fact that we can choose to cover low albedo areas with solar panels. You know, the solar radiation from those areas would be mostly absorbed anyway, but at least we'll get some useful work out of it.
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2017, 12:45:49 PM
The alternative is nuclear, with breeder reactors to make lots of plutonium. There are no nice alternatives, with a world population over 1 billion. Thermal pollution, it isn't just CO2 ... happens by the consumption of power in all forms. Even solar cells and wind farms raise temperatures.
list 25 did an interesting sum up of what would happen is humankind just disappeared, one of the more damming parts being there would be nobody around to maintain the cooling systems in nuclear plants, and they'd all eventually blow up. As a species we pretty much fucked up the environment guaranteed, dammed us being here, dammed without us.
Quote from: Munch on May 12, 2017, 06:21:28 PMlist 25 did an interesting sum up of what would happen is humankind just disappeared, one of the more damming parts being there would be nobody around to maintain the cooling systems in nuclear plants, and they'd all eventually blow up.
Wouldn't most of them enter safe mode (https://youtu.be/GyEUyqfrScU?t=3m28s)?
But yeah, the short-term (a couple of years) would be pretty catastrophic to the environment, albeit on a local scale. Dams would eventually break and fires would no longer be controlled. Major cities would likely go up in flame.
Long-term, the planet would be just fine. Water and air pollution would nosedive. Fish stocks would bounce back. A lot of endangered species would bounce back. Large predators would make a comeback. But most domesticated animals would perish, though I suppose some could successfully transition back to their feral state.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 12, 2017, 06:10:47 PM
I'll step up.
The current albedo of the earth is about 0.3. The earth's diameter is 12,742 km, so it has a cross-sectional area of 1.275e14 m^2. With a solar constant of 1.361 kW/m^2, that gives us 3.745e21 kW over the earth's surface, 30% of which is reflected back out into space. That leaves us with 2.621e21 kW, or 2.621e12 TW, that is absorbed by the earth.
On the other hand, in the year 2013, it is estimated that the world energy consumption of the world was 13,541 Mtoe (568.722 EJ). So, that gives us an average of 18.023 TW (568.722 TJ/yr / 3.154e7 s/yr) energy consumption over that year. Our current energy consumption is maybe an order of mangitude more, so ballpark 180.23 TW. If we were to draw all of this power from solar radiation, then it would increase the absorbed amount of power by one part in 14 million. The decrease in global albedo would be about the same order.
Put another way, the current radiative forcing from the greenhouse effect is 2.9 W/m^2, or 0.2% of the solar constant. The waste heat from our activities is 0.028 W/m^2, or about one one-hundredth of that. But remember that 0.028 W/m^2 would be new heat added to the system (although it is in effect stored sunlight, it was effectively gone until we burned it for energy), instead of heat that would have been absorbed anyway from the sun.
There's also the fact that we can choose to cover low albedo areas with solar panels. You know, the solar radiation from those areas would be mostly absorbed anyway, but at least we'll get some useful work out of it.
Doing someone else homework for them is cheating ;-)
Microclimate of LA changed by all the concrete and asphalt?
The point being solar, wind isn't enough, except in the fevered minds of Champaign liberals like Al Gore.
Just more BS from the free lunch brigade. Earth First Monkey Wrenches.
Quote from: Baruch on May 13, 2017, 12:18:37 AMDoing someone else homework for them is cheating ;-)
Yeah...spoiler alert, I'm not a scientist. But I do have a basic understanding of the topic and can point to experts who know their stuff. They contradicted your claim about waste heat, and you would've known that had you checked out the link. There's something deeply unsettling about a supposedly honest person who doesn't care about facts.
Well, let's see what Hakurei Reimu's number-crunching bought him:
QuoteThe point being solar, wind isn't enough, except in the fevered minds of Champaign [sic] liberals like Al Gore.
A claim literally no one made. Also, nice character assassination. That Al Gore guy sounds like a real wacko.
QuoteJust more BS from the free lunch brigade. Earth First Monkey Wrenches.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/8208f2cd8248e5a85e7dba09ca88410f/tumblr_n66ilk9N7p1tbhzz6o1_400.gif)
Wow, looks like a complete waste of time of Hakurei Reimu's part (and also my part). I suppose we should have seen it coming. I've gotta say, I can see why people who come across your unsourced, rectal-harvested nonsense often wisely opt to ignore it rather than waste time disputing it.
Get in your solar powered car and go to work then ;-) I would be happy to cut off your electricity from carbon sources, and nuclear too ... since anything that doesn't smell of granola and Woodstock ... isn't groovy ;-)
And yes, Al Gore is an idiot ... but then most politicians are.
Quote from: Baruch on May 13, 2017, 06:38:51 AM
Get in your solar powered car and go to work then ;-)
Don't you know? Cars are
already solar powered. It's fossilized solar power, but apparently that's good enough for you.
Quote from: Munch on May 12, 2017, 06:21:28 PM
list 25 did an interesting sum up of what would happen is humankind just disappeared, one of the more damming parts being there would be nobody around to maintain the cooling systems in nuclear plants, and they'd all eventually blow up. As a species we pretty much fucked up the environment guaranteed, dammed us being here, dammed without us.
That is why, in the Rapture, the good people are beamed up to a galaxy far far away ;-)
Quote from: Munch on May 12, 2017, 06:21:28 PM
list 25 did an interesting sum up of what would happen is humankind just disappeared, one of the more damming parts being there would be nobody around to maintain the cooling systems in nuclear plants, and they'd all eventually blow up. As a species we pretty much fucked up the environment guaranteed, dammed us being here, dammed without us.
There might be an explosion, but it would not be a
nuclear one as such, it would be from either the buildup of pressure or a meltdown rupturing the containment vessel, followed by the ignition of hydrogen as atmospheric oxygen got into the mix. And it is possible to design facilities that are effectively failsafe -- nothing is 100%, of course, but steps can be taken.
Quote from: trdsf on May 16, 2017, 01:00:45 PM
There might be an explosion, but it would not be a nuclear one as such, it would be from either the buildup of pressure or a meltdown rupturing the containment vessel, followed by the ignition of hydrogen as atmospheric oxygen got into the mix. And it is possible to design facilities that are effectively failsafe -- nothing is 100%, of course, but steps can be taken.
Most like Three Mile Island .. not like Chernobyl or like Fukushima.