Climate Change Solutions (1 Viewer)

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
I just read a blog on carbon capture as a solution, and it just seemed to me the wrong way to go.

I think capturing solar energy with solar farms and residential installed solar panels is established and should be encouraged.

Secondly we should do something like "plant a tree in 73" ... Some countries have been ridiculed for destroying their rainforests to create agricultural land. If all they do is burn the wood to create land for agricultural purposes then I understand the sentiment. But why not encourage them to process the wood and create replacements for plastic items?

Instead of burning the wood produced from the clearance ship it out as a biofuel?

It's easy for me to promote these ideas, it's much more difficult to get anything to work because there are many impediments, infrastructure, political shenanigans, to name the obvious.

This site has a wonderful collection of very intelligent and very experienced persons, people with a wide variety of backgrounds, and with the skill and experience to spot scams and the usual "political speak"...

Without turning this thread into a platform for the rivalry between opposing political views, can we come up with some sensible comment on the what we see, and hopefully create something useful!
 

Cronk

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 19:27
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,660
After some years of considering it, I took the plunge 12 months ago and had solar panels and a 10 kWh battery installed. So far, generated about 9 MWh. Also bought a Tesla so no gas cost. Not quite independent of grid because of need for more power at depths of winter for heating and less generated due to shorter days and less sun. Economics? Panels yes but battery not quite but there's a fun thing trying to manage power usage versus timing.
 

NauticalGent

CopyPaster of the First Order
Local time
Today, 05:27
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
4,856
Did you post a link to the blog?
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
What if you used solar power to run the carbon capture plants, thus giving a net positive effect?
 

Cronk

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 19:27
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,660
Did you post a link to the blog?
What blog?
What if you used solar power to run the carbon capture plants, thus giving a net positive effect?
Me personally? I can only use electrons for my own needs or supply back to the grid. I can't determine where my electrons go after that. I laugh when my electricity supplier offers me the choice to get green power - electrons aren't colored.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
Did you post a link to the blog?

See Here:-

I follow CASEY HANDMER'S BLOG:-

because he gives you in-depth information about SpaceX, NASA and a few other space related companies. That's my main interest in Casey's blog. He also does other interesting blogs. He's done two on carbon capture which are well worth Reading:-

So you want to build a carbon capture company

Scaling Carbon Capture

His most recent one:-

Starship is Still Not Understood

Casey Investigates the effect SpaceX will have on the space industry. Very eye-opening in its identification of the lack of interest of some of NASA's top people, and related government institutions about the future of space exploration.

To me it's obvious that SpaceX is going to change everything, just like Elon did with Tesla.

There's a lot of Deadwood, lot of jobs worth's and a lot of "political motivation" let's say driving things the wrong way in the upper echelons at NASA, which could well damage it's future.

I suspect this is him on LinkedIn, although I'm not sure:- https://www.linkedin.com/in/casey-handmer-60183262/
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
To me it's obvious that SpaceX is going to change everything, just like Elon did with Tesla.
It might explain Elon's net worth: $292,600,000,000.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
12 months ago and had solar panels and a 10 kWh battery installed

I am considering solar panels, but I'm not sure what to do about the battery?
 

NauticalGent

CopyPaster of the First Order
Local time
Today, 05:27
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
4,856
I am considering solar panels,
My step-father live in South Carolina and swears by them - claims an over 75% reduction in his electricity bill. As far as a battery goes, I just cant justify the expense. How long will it power your circuits before it runs out of juice? A standby generator seems a more viable solution.

Edit: Found a short video
 
Last edited:

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 02:27
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
35,682
A buddy had solar on his home in a city and basically reduced his bill to 0. In fact I think he got a check back every year. He's going to build a house in a rural area and has decided to go "off the grid" because of the expense of bringing power to that location ($50-100k). He's already got solar powering a well and an RV he has on the lot now.

We've thought about it, but our usage doesn't justify the expense.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:27
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,715
Climate change is a scam. The red flag, is changing the name from the specific concrete concern of "global warming" to the vague abstract term of climate change. Anything under that umbrella can be "supported". Also, as a scam freebie, many of those screaming the loudest, such as John Kerry, for climate change regulations don't seem to actually willingly modify their own behavior to support the climate change "solutions" by reducing their carbon foot print.

Climate change is not for the benefit of the planet, but for the people who live on the planet by maintaining the status-quo. The quote below is illustrative of that:
  • The ideal temperature is the one in which we have built our cities, to a large extent where the sea meets the ocean, the temperature in which we have developed our crops and the infrastructure to grow them. If the world had been three degrees warmer as we developed into a modern society, that would be the ideal temperature. Our cities would now be further upsteam from where they are today (on the higher sea shore) and our agriculture would have been developed over the years to fit this higher temperature and different climate zones.”1
  1. 1. https://skepticalscience.com/earths-ideal-temp.html#131399

The solution to climate change, if one is really serious, is population control, not technology. Of course, technology helps to ameliorate the effect of human use of the Earth. And it is being misleading "sold" as the utopian solution since it has the appearance of being a (future) painless all encompassing "solution".

Technology, despite its benefits, does not fully address issues related to the resources people use just to live. Every person on earth requires a carbon footprint. The size of that carbon footprint depends on your standard of living, the space you occupy, the amount of energy you use, the availability of water, renewable resources such as fish and forests, etc. The article below, though couched in terms of climate change, is really about the "excessive" number of people attempting to use that (scarce water) resource. This is one of many such articles concerning the shortage of water in the US west.

Without going into too much exposition. Think of this, the people who live in the US have a high standard of living with a relatively large carbon foot print. Those in the Third World have a lower standard of living with a consequent smaller carbon footprint. I would assume that everyone would like to see those in the Third World have a higher standard of living, but is that really possible with technological "solutions". To a degree, "yes", in the form of solar panels to provide cheap energy. But to a degree "no" as they will use more (high carbon footprint) consumable resources with a higher standard of living.

PS: The world population is expected to peak in 2055 at about 8.7 billion. The climate change activists scream that we must act now to prevent Armageddon. Nevertheless they have a point where the focus should be on population control.
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:27
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
22,514
The cynic in me hopes that the Chinese people foment active rebellion before too much longer. (Throw North Korea in the mix. They are terribly overpopulated too.) Then their armies will kill the rebels and reduce world population by a few percentage points, and in a country that is one of the worse polluters on the planet, and a country that didn't even take part in the climate talks this week. But then I remember that I have no quarrel with the Chinese people, only with the Chinese government and I calm down again.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:27
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
4,650
My concern with solar and green technologies, in general, is the batteries. Batteries are not earth-friendly at the present time. Secondly, The United States where I live has been declining its manufacturing base in favor of a more consumer-based economy. This leaves us very dependant on foreign manufacturing and supply. The third thing is the runtime of car batteries if I need to drive very long distances I will likely need to stop for hours on end to reach my destination.

1635784637091.png


Even if I have level 3 "fast charge" it can be many hours of delays if I am traveling a few thousand miles, unlike fossil fuel it takes minutes.
Finally, the price per kilowatt-hour might be cheap right now but what will it be once everyone is using it lower? It's already higher where I live in California. This is a business and the top companies who invest in fossil fuels also invest in green alternatives and they want to make money not necessarily to save the world.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
I hate to be a contrarian but I looked this up the other day so I could formulate an opinion. So here it is...

China is the worse polluter on the planet. Everybody says it. But what does that actually mean? They have a population of 1.5 billion so you would expect them to have a higher net output of CO2 emssions. What is a more reasonable measure? Per capita.

So let's look at the facts.

CO2 Emissions per capita (tons):

US: 15.52
China: 7.38

Slurce: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

China is offending at a rate of half that of the US.

Do you think you should look at it per capita, as I do? Or, do you think this is an unfair way to compare the two countries and instead you should ignore the size of the population? If the latter, then the US is doing a terrible job compared to 99.5% of the rest of the world.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
What is a more reasonable measure? Per capita.

You're going the right way @Jon, but I think an even more reasonable assumption is based on the following:-

What does China do? Rhetorical question! China creates things for the rest of the world, in effect the rest of the world is responsible for much of China's CO2 output. You could knock a couple of percent off the Chinese CO2 % figure, you might even justify setting it at ZERO!
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:27
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
China creates things for the rest of the world, in effect the rest of the world is responsible for much of China's CO2 output.
I was going to put that in, but I didn't want to dilute the simple argument of a per capita basis for identifying the most guilty. Yet when I hear Biden talk about how disappointed he was that the China and Russia leaders did not attend the climate summit, it implies that the US is doing a better job of things. But they are not. Their CO2 emissions are twice as bad. The same goes to all other countries (41 of them) with per capita output higher than China's.

Just quoting a gross figure of CO2 output is meaningless and just political speak to slur the less-guilty to the masses.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:27
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,715
Do you think you should look at it per capita, as I do? Or, do you think this is an unfair way to compare the two countries?
Yes, with caveats. Evaluating CO2 emissions based simply on the per-capita number of people appears to be a "fact" out-of-context. The standard-of-living in the US versus that of China should to be considered. Just as a quickie thought, how many Chinese still live at the basic subsistence level versus those in the US? Those living at the basic subsistence level would be close to having a 0 carbon footprint.

Also note the comment by @Uncle Gizmo: "China creates things for the rest of the world, in effect the rest of the world is responsible for much of China's CO2 output. You could knock a couple of percent off the Chinese CO2 % figure, you might even justify setting it at ZERO!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom