Climate continues to change.

[CandiCame]

Testy, testy

None of you climate scammists have ever raised the slightest provable fact. It's all superstition and self serving bs.

What's a "climate scammists"?

 

[gunthernehmen]

What's a "climate scammists"?

A scam artist that uses climate change to profit whether or not they believe in it. Al Gore would be one example. Past scams included Y2K, the ozone hole, basically anything to incite panic and make a buck "saving the day".

For the record, I believe climate is changing and always has been and always will be. I have no opinion on whether we humans are contributing to it.

If we are driving it, then we can change our behavior and reverse it. That means using FAR less energy either by ceasing to use it (conservation), or generating it differently. Do the math and you'll see our solar and wind technology cannot scale to run this planet's needs. Maybe it could someday but we'll never live long enough to see that. And people will never, ever stop using their comforts until the lights go out for good.

If we aren't driving climate change, then nothing we do matters at all concerning that.

There are PLENTY of reasons to be kind to the environment and use less industry. I love the woods and nature. It's far more beautiful than anything mankind has built. Taking care of it makes sense, but not for the reasons the scammers want. They just want to control money and people.

Last thought, using less energy sounds great until you realize that you can't deal up heat or cool with a wall thermostat. You'll come over a wood fire, in the dark and what you cook kiss what you catch. Honestly I'm good with that. Except for the cooking over a wood fire in the dark, that's how I live anyway. But it doesn't scale to a nation like ours. 90% or more of our population will be dead in a year if the lights go out for good tomorrow.

 

[CandiCame]

A scam artist that uses climate change to profit whether or not they believe in it. Al Gore would be one example. Past scams included Y2K, the ozone hole, basically anything to incite panic and make a buck "saving the day".

For the record, I believe climate is changing and always has been and always will be. I have no opinion on whether we humans are contributing to it.

If we are driving it, then we can change our behavior and reverse it. That means using FAR less energy either by ceasing to use it (conservation), or generating it differently. Do the math and you'll see our solar and wind technology cannot scale to run this planet's needs. Maybe it could someday but we'll never live long enough to see that. And people will never, ever stop using their comforts until the lights go out for good.

If we aren't driving climate change, then nothing we do matters at all concerning that.

There are PLENTY of reasons to be kind to the environment and use less industry. I love the woods and nature. It's far more beautiful than anything mankind has built. Taking care of it makes sense, but not for the reasons the scammers want. They just want to control money and people.

Last thought, using less energy sounds great until you realize that you can't deal up heat or cool with a wall thermostat. You'll come over a wood fire, in the dark and what you cook kiss what you catch. Honestly I'm good with that. Except for the cooking over a wood fire in the dark, that's how I live anyway. But it doesn't scale to a nation like ours. 90% or more of our population will be dead in a year if the lights go out for good tomorrow.

Wow. I... I didn't know you were this dumb.

Again, we can literally light up the country using solar from unused land in the desert. I've already linked it. We can light up the entire planet with the Sahara desert WITHOUT mining for new resources. If people don't want to use batteries to store it, again, deep cells that, by their nature have to be made from recycled materials and have to then be recycled themselves into new batteries for everything but the nickle, then yeah, we'd have to occasionally supplement with something like nucular. But overall it really is a, "Green energy ready to go whenever," situation. It's weird how when I break it down all people have is, "nuh-uh" and when I give proof all they say is, "Well then why aren't we doing it?" We're not doing it because of massive lobbying from the oil and coal industries. Full stop. It's not a "it doesn't scale" or "we can't do it" thing, it's a money thing.

Like talking about, "We ain't got the uranium to run the world on nuclear" when there's an untapped uranium vein the size of the entire US just sitting under a block of ice being guarded by a 100 nation army is disingenuous. It's not that we don't have it, it's that 1: In a universe of infinite starlight that we can harness with silicone, the second most abundant element after fucking oxygen it's unnecessary and 2: Oil and coal industries are literally bribing politicians and holding certain areas, like my region, hostage because late-stage capitalism is an incomprehensible hellscape where they fuck up the ground water so bad you have to buy water from the city. This is not a real problem, this is a made up problem that only exists because 100 people, in particular, are greedy. I'll link to them if you keep reading. We know exactly what the problem is and who's causing it.

Humans are unquestionably causing climate change at a rate that will kill us if we do nothing. Of course the climate always changes, but it shouldn't be changing this fast, it's doing that because of the weakening of the ozone layer (which you called a scam?? For some reason?? That's a real thing, it's the reason the sun is a deadly laser.) The planet will be fine. But this will cause an extinction event that we won't survive. Humans couldn't even survive if it was natural and should be scrambling to fix it. Humans evolved in an ice age, and can only survive in an ice age. We need the polar caps to regulate the environmental temperatures worldwide to prevent the plethora of chaotic natural disasters that happen if we lose them. Yes, there have been times in the earth's history when it was not an ice age, and when that happens, we see massive extinction events. And we should have MILLENIA to get ready for this if climate was just changing at the normal, natural rate. Like Mars is heating slower than us and Mars is a hellhole. But humans evolved in and can only survive in, an ice age the way we are right now. Maybe if we hadn't fucked ourselves and we had time to evolve to a changing planet we would have been fine, but we are in the middle of a major extinction event when it's nowhere near time for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html

So it's actually not just humans that are getting fucked over by this. Us speeding this up has already resulted in an extinction even rivaling the KT event. The biodiversity on this planet is dying and we are doing it. Which is a dick move.

Americans are doing a full fifth of that and we could cut it in half without noticing, like I did. If just rural areas would do what I'm doing we'd slow our contribution to a crawl.

100 businesses are causing 71% of global emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change Like... it's not just humans, it's these 100 CEOs in particular. We know exactly who is doing it and why.

We wouldn't actually have to change our lifestyles like... at all... to stop this. We would just have to stop subsidizing those companies in particular and then maybe switch to greener energy sources if we wanted to. That's it. Literally the only reason we haven't already done this is because money and evil. I know that's hard to wrap your head around, that people want major problems not to have fairly easy-to-implement solutions because then it seems like, "Well then why don't we just do that. Surely I would have to sacrifice my quality-of-life! I can't cut my energy use by 75% without living in the forest cooking over a campfire!"

Literally everyone in Europe does that, though. Europeans use a quarter to half the energy of Americans. Again, I already linked the stats. And they're fine. They're using climate control in their houses. Yeah, nobody in Europe lives in death valley California where it got up to 125 last August but I genuinely don't know why Americans are living there. That place is a monument to humanity's hubris. I get that y'all gonna run the air more than a European but you don't fucking need golf resorts so let's quit growing grass in the desert for no goddamn reason. Your tourist attractions can be those desert tours, because people do show up just because it's the hottest place on the planet. Like that's a shitty reason to go anywhere, but there is a thriving tourism industry around it. What do those tours even do? Is anybody from there? Because I can't wrap my head around that. It seems like the tour guide would just get off the bus and be like, "Hot as hell out here, ain't it?" -pause- "Welp. That's it folks. That's the tour. Hottest place on earth. Let's head to the gift shop." Like good for you Death Valley, it's fucking hot. This state has Disneyland why the fuck is this a tourism thing? Why would you go watch it be hot when you could go to Disneyland? People do weird shit that I want no part of.

My point is that the climate in the states is different than in Europe in some places, but it's hot as hell in the African deserts too and they also use half the power we do, so we're doing something wrong. Like Dallol is constantly fighting with Death Valley over the 'hottest place on Earth' title but folks in Dallol use a LOT less energy than folks in Death Valley.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html

"Renewable energies include wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy sources. This means all energy sources that renew themselves within a short time or are permanently available. Energy from hydropower is only partly a renewable energy. This is certainly the case with river or tidal power plants. Otherwise, numerous dams or reservoirs also produce mixed forms, e.g. by pumping water into their reservoirs at night and recovering energy from them during the day when there is an increased demand for electricity. Since it is not possible to clearly determine the amount of generated energy, all energies from hydropower are displayed separately.

In 2015, renewable energies accounted for around 92.2 percent of actual total consumption in Ethiopia."

So, yeah, maybe there are arguments to be made for, "I have to run the AC, it's literally a flesh melting 125 outside, the plastic parts of cars melted. Cars are melting on the street."

But y'all live in a desert so... solar. Like... again, hot as fuck in Dallol and they run the air, but they power it through solar because they don't have big companies lobbying for them to use the dumbest possible method of generating electricity.

A big part of it is that we should not need to have an impending apocalypse to know that we ought not do things the dumbest fucking possible way. Like our current system is the shittiest, least efficient way to do this. Coal is not a renewable resource and we're running out, so even if it wasn't bad for us we've about milked that as far as it's gonna go. It's drying up. I get that y'all don't live among miners, but we're talking about people who are grasping at straws driving several states away because somebody found a hint of vein in West Virginia and there's no coal left in Ky so you need to apply and you need to drive, and you will sleep in the bed of your truck if you have to to send some money to your family. We're just out. With our current reserves, even if the planet wasn't dying around us, we will be out of coal in the Appalachian mountain range, the current place we get it from, in 40 years. We don't have it. We can't magically produce it.

And because we're running out, our community, which has been a producer for the past century, is being abandoned. Those coal companies used us up, and as soon as the veins dried up and they couldn't get anything else, they abandoned us. And they'll tell you, "Well, your land is dry, so fuck you," to your face. And then you can go sit on a bus for days to tell Mitch McConnel that you're dying of black lung and all you want is jobs for your kids but when the coal dried up the company told you to go fuck yourself and left and there's literally no other job in the area that pays a living wage- and he won't give you more than a minute of his time.

Because we are doing this as ass-backwards, as shittily, as we possibly can.

So even if Climate Change was a made up scare tactic, which it's obviously not, we still can't keep doing what we're doing. There's a finite amount. We're out. We've been using it since the industrial revolution in the 1800s and we used it up. There is no more of it. It really is that simple.

The surveyors have been out since I've been in the world, trying to find more. You see them all the time out by the side of the road, because we're literally getting desperate enough that we'll tear roads up. But it's just not there. They can't magically make more of them.

So the people who want to deny reality are going to just keep going strong until 2060 when we throw in the last block, and then... what? What happens then? If people really want to be that stupid and shortsighted, what do they do at that point?

Ky's been more or less dry since 2009. And in the past decade we have fallen the fuck apart. That's why we're broke as shit. There is no more coal here. And that means there are no more jobs here. Without some kind of green energy plant, we will die a horrible death.

And like I said, the entire mountain range only has, at best, if we conserve the shit out of it, about 40 years left. Then we'll be out. That's all she wrote.

So acting like this is viable is fucking ridiculous. Come to my community and tell the people driving to West Virginia and sleeping in the back of trucks on the fucking HOPE that there will be a mining job left by the time they get there and that vein hasn't dried up that this is an acceptable way to do this.

Yes, humans are causing climate change. But even if we weren't, the current system of "use a place for all their nonrenewable resources then throw it and all the people there away" is the shittiest possible way to do it. Literally any alternative would be better than this. Only being rationed a quarter of current consumption would be better than this. By a lot.

I don't think that people who don't live here understand how bad it is. There are parts of rural Appalachia that look like a goddamn third world country because y'all wanna suck the dick of these corporations. Ky ran out first and we're seeing those effects. The whole fucking mountain range is gonna be this broke, hemorrhaging money- we need $10 in for every dollar we earn to keep our heads above water.

This is not fake bullshit to be debated on the internet to me. My community is dying. We were held hostage for a century with this threat, and now the threat is here and they did exactly what they threatened to do. We NEED an influx of green energy or this region is going to die and this kind of denial bullshit is putting the nails in our coffins.

That's WHY there are so many preppers. That's WHY so many people have solar and 'homesteads'. Because this community is DYING over this shit. This is my real fucking life. And nobody is willing to fix it because they want to pretend it would be hard.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Wow. I... I didn't know you were this dumb.

Again, we can literally light up the country using solar from unused land in the desert. I've already linked it. We can light up the entire planet with the Sahara desert WITHOUT mining for new resources.

I didn't realize you would be willing to annihilate all the indigenous species in the Sahara for our own comfort. But I guess as long as it isn't the US we're destroying that's ok with you.

Enough energy from the sun falls on a few acres of land to per the country. Sure. That's a genuine fact. (At least with cites it is, but I've seen the same studies so I'm not disputing it)

The problem is we lack the technology to capture it. And if we captured it we can't transmit it around the world. Go look up the specs on an 8000 mile long extension cord, big enough to run the US. Think before you call someone else dumb LOL

 

[CandiCame]

I didn't realize you would be willing to annihilate all the indigenous species in the Sahara for our own comfort. But I guess as long as it isn't the US we're destroying that's ok with you.

Enough energy from the sun falls on a few acres of land to per the country. Sure. That's a genuine fact. (At least with cites it is, but I've seen the same studies so I'm not disputing it)

The problem is we lack the technology to capture it. And if we captured it we can't transmit it around the world. Go look up the specs on an 8000 mile long extension cord, big enough to run the US. Think before you call someone else dumb LOL

I did. We can use fiber optics and be done. Like... there's no problem here unless you're using old school copper cable or something like that and idk why anybody would? Money maybe?

We do not lack the power or technology to capture, generate, distribute, or store this energy. That's not a thing.

And none of the land we'd need to use for the Saharan plant would disrupt indigenous species. Again, it's already been surveyed and it's being surveyed BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS so like. Again, just no. There are absolutely ethical ways to transplant the few native species that live on the actual region that would be used for the plant because the biome is so small and the area needed for the plant is also so small. The environmental footprint would be minimal and would not damage the surrounding environment.

These problems are invented. And they're being invented to cover for the shittiest possible way to do this. For no reason. Y'all are looking for minute problems that either don't exist or we already have workable solutions for, to preserve a system of dumbassery. Again, literally anything would be better.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I did. We can use fiber optics and be done. Like... there's no problem here unless you're using old school copper cable or something like that and idk why anybody would? Money maybe?

We do not lack the power or technology to capture, generate, distribute, or store this energy. That's not a thing.

And none of the land we'd need to use for the Saharan plant would disrupt indigenous species. Again, it's already been surveyed and it's being surveyed BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS so like. Again, just no. There are absolutely ethical ways to transplant the few native species that live on the actual region that would be used for the plant because the biome is so small and the area needed for the plant is also so small. The environmental footprint would be minimal and would not damage the surrounding environment.

These problems are invented. And they're being invented to cover for the shittiest possible way to do this. For no reason. Y'all are looking for minute problems that either don't exist or we already have workable solutions for, to preserve a system of dumbassery. Again, literally anything would be better.

I'm sure all that makes sense to you and sounds smart to you, but for the sake of humanity let's hope nobody with any actual ability to do it, agrees with you.

Stop reading science fiction. We don't have the technology and that's just not how electricity is sent. Jesus. You've got to be kidding.

 

[phrodeau]

I'm sure all that makes sense to you and sounds smart to you, but for the sake of humanity let's hope nobody with any actual ability to do it, agrees with you.

Stop reading science fiction. We don't have the technology and that's just not how electricity is sent. Jesus. You've got to be kidding.

Do you mean to say that we would need power transmission lines from coast to coast? I’m pretty sure that we already have those.

 

[Conager]

I did. We can use fiber optics and be done. Like... there's no problem here unless you're using old school copper cable or something like that and idk why anybody would? Money maybe?

We do not lack the power or technology to capture, generate, distribute, or store this energy. That's not a thing.

And none of the land we'd need to use for the Saharan plant would disrupt indigenous species. Again, it's already been surveyed and it's being surveyed BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS so like. Again, just no. There are absolutely ethical ways to transplant the few native species that live on the actual region that would be used for the plant because the biome is so small and the area needed for the plant is also so small. The environmental footprint would be minimal and would not damage the surrounding environment.

These problems are invented. And they're being invented to cover for the shittiest possible way to do this. For no reason. Y'all are looking for minute problems that either don't exist or we already have workable solutions for, to preserve a system of dumbassery. Again, literally anything would be better.

Do you mean to say that we would need power transmission lines from coast to coast? I’m pretty sure that we already have those.

So in your fantasy religion, an unlimited number of Angel's can dance on the head of a pin, then?

 

[RobDownSouth]

So in your fantasy religion, an unlimited number of Angel's can dance on the head of a pin, then?

^^^Shade's of Ishmael punctuation!

 

[von_Bismarck]

The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid

How a new class of startups are working to solve the grid storage puzzle

 

[gunthernehmen]

Do you mean to say that we would need power transmission lines from coast to coast? I’m pretty sure that we already have those.

He wants to use the Sahara desert to power the planet.

Also, while we have power lines all over the place it just doesn't work the way you think. Look it up for yourself.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid

How a new class of startups are working to solve the grid storage puzzle

2.5 trillion?

If that's all it will cost let's do it! Cheaper than the $50 trillion Warren wants to spend on universal healthcare!

 

[von_Bismarck]

2.5 trillion?

If that's all it will cost let's do it! Cheaper than the $50 trillion Warren wants to spend on universal healthcare!

The $2.5 trillion is for California alone, I believe. It gets exponentially more challenging to feed the grid based on solar and wind plus storage alone, after around 80%. 90% if we're looking at on the horizon storage technologies. But the cost and scaling of those technologies aren't proven yet.

 

[phrodeau]

2.5 trillion?

If that's all it will cost let's do it! Cheaper than the $50 trillion Warren wants to spend on universal healthcare!

It sounds like a chance for folks to make a lot of cash.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It sounds like a chance for folks to make a lot of cash.

Imagine that.

 

[thør]

https://www.woodmac.com/contentassets/dc3f757835974642964891e92e8dbe8b/imagecoay7.png

 

[phrodeau]

The $2.5 trillion is for California alone, I believe. It gets exponentially more challenging to feed the grid based on solar and wind plus storage alone, after around 80%. 90% if we're looking at on the horizon storage technologies. But the cost and scaling of those technologies aren't proven yet.

I see the $2.5 trillion as for a nationwide 12-hour battery system. I think other energy storage systems can slash that cost.

 

[gunthernehmen]

https://www.woodmac.com/contentassets/dc3f757835974642964891e92e8dbe8b/imagecoay7.png

I guess that means Americans tend to have larger homes?

Australians have on average, larger homes.

Your graph also doesn't take household density into account. Mexico has rather large homes, just they also have more people in each one. 4.3 to our 2.6.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/edc.h-cdn.co/assets/15/35/768x909/gallery-1440617303-love-abode-infographic-house-sizes-around-the-world-1.jpg

 

[von_Bismarck]

I see the $2.5 trillion as for a nationwide 12-hour battery system. I think other energy storage systems can slash that cost.

Ah yes, nationwide system. Problem is, for a nationwide system that can cope not only with daily cycles, but also with variations due to weather and seasons. We're talking a storage system that is robust over yearly variations. No doubt economies of scale and new technologies will drive down the cost. But it's far more cost effective to supply the grid with 10+% other power.

 

[CandiCame]

The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid

How a new class of startups are working to solve the grid storage puzzle

I'm still not understanding why we'd use a centralized battery system like in this article instead of what I was talking about where you have a bunch of small system scaled to individual needs and lease them like you do a modem? That would solve the problem they're talking about where they break and only last 5-10 years because they're constantly full.

I mean I get that upping the operating life would only cut the price by half but half of $2.5 Trillon is a huge amount of money to save on anything.

I also straight-up don't understand why everybody wants to be on the grid. I get that you have to do that in cities, but if everybody in rural areas would get solar systems and just fold them into the cost of home ownership, even a big ass $5k system is gonna be less than your closing costs. So like... why don't we do that? Like instead of a grid?

 

[phrodeau]

I'm still not understanding why we'd use a centralized battery system like in this article instead of what I was talking about where you have a bunch of small system scaled to individual needs and lease them like you do a modem? That would solve the problem they're talking about where they break and only last 5-10 years because they're constantly full.

I mean I get that upping the operating life would only cut the price by half but half of $2.5 Trillon is a huge amount of money to save on anything.

I also straight-up don't understand why everybody wants to be on the grid. I get that you have to do that in cities, but if everybody in rural areas would get solar systems and just fold them into the cost of home ownership, even a big ass $5k system is gonna be less than your closing costs. So like... why don't we do that? Like instead of a grid?

Membership in rural electric coops has always been voluntary. And even in rural areas, pooling resources for solar and wind farms makes more sense than individual setups.

 

[von_Bismarck]

As long as losses due to transmission are managed, it's more efficient and cost effective to have a centralized source of electricity. Commercial and industrial solar pv+storage, for instance, is way cheaper per kWh than on a residential basis.

 

[gunthernehmen]

CandiCame is maybe blowing it a little out of proportion, but rural off grid systems are totally appropriate for many consumers. Not all, but many. Too far to run lines or the terrain doesn't cooperate. Or the lines would be too susceptible to weather or other issues that would leave the consumer dark until repairs could eventually be made. Being completely off grid in the urban areas is probably a little silly, unless the consumer is just really antisocial.

But the rural use of energy is not the "problem", even if a problem is stipulated. CC is not causing climate change, not even collectively with all the other off gridders.

We can reasonably transmit power around 300 miles. Draw a bunch of circles around high population centers, 300 mile radius and those centers are where you need to place the nuclear power plants. Problem solved.

Maybe we can use those desert locations CC was talking about to stockpile all the waste (and then learn how to use and reuse it)

 

[CandiCame]

CandiCame is maybe blowing it a little out of proportion, but rural off grid systems are totally appropriate for many consumers. Not all, but many. Too far to run lines or the terrain doesn't cooperate. Or the lines would be too susceptible to weather or other issues that would leave the consumer dark until repairs could eventually be made. Being completely off grid in the urban areas is probably a little silly, unless the consumer is just really antisocial.

But the rural use of energy is not the "problem", even if a problem is stipulated. CC is not causing climate change, not even collectively with all the other off gridders.

We can reasonably transmit power around 300 miles. Draw a bunch of circles around high population centers, 300 mile radius and those centers are where you need to place the nuclear power plants. Problem solved.

Maybe we can use those desert locations CC was talking about to stockpile all the waste (and then learn how to use and reuse it)

We know how to reuse it. We make those magic crystal I linked to and use them as tiny batteries for pacemakers. It's only a matter of time until we figure out how to mesh a bunch of them together to run smart phones, people smarter than me are already working on it.

 

[CandiCame]

As long as losses due to transmission are managed, it's more efficient and cost effective to have a centralized source of electricity. Commercial and industrial solar pv+storage, for instance, is way cheaper per kWh than on a residential basis.

Is it, though? Because when the urban farming movement first started there was this whole thing about how factory farms were more cost effective than rooftop gardens, but then when everybody actually started doing rooftop gardens and they started factoring in the cost of delivery and everything everybody was forced to admit, "Oh shit, no it's not. Go get you some alley chickens, I guess."

I just think that this is one of those things we'd have to try, because most of the green urban buildings we're seeing are expensive to start but cheap to run. So it seems like maybe we can TRY solarpunk because, once again, what we're doing now is the stupidest possible way to do anything. Like let's just TRY to do it any other way and see what the hell happens.