[Misc] Global Warming

[The Clamp]

The kicker is the “on record” bit isn’t it………how many years are on record over the last 4.5bn years? At the beginning of the Tertiary period the global climate was tropical, and at the end it went into an ice age, humanity didn’t even exist.

https://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/tertiary_period.html

But then there’s what happens here on earth, and then what happens elsewhere…….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...r-than-ever-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse/
Change is constant, climate or otherwise……….belief we can change or affect it is the new religious mania, with all its incumbent visionaries, prophets, missionaries and evangelicals.

Plus ca change as they say in France.

You don’t think pumping carbon derivatives into the atmosphere will affect or change anything?

You don’t really do science, do you.

Soil, fossil, and rock evidence tells us about climate conditions in pre history.

Man made climate change is real. And it will kill us all. Sorry.

 

[abc]

The

Battery storage is already becoming part of the grid from microgenerators dumping their battery in peak hour. Batteries become VAT free from Feb (no longer needed alongside solar)

Really not a fan of solar on agricultural land, far better to cover industrlal builldings first, many have huge roofs without shade. Its a huge untapped resource, grid connections remain a challenge

Yes battery storage is now developing very fast and in use. There is a little way to go before its as commercially viable as needed for large scale commercial use and it is the holy grail for renewables. Very much on the way though.
Agree re roofs, though these will never achieve the large scale required on their own. Many older buildings are also not strong enough. Use of agric land is a concern and solar needs to be very carefully installed only on the least productive land. One major concern at the moment is large landowners kicking long standing farming tenants off their land for this use.
Grid infrastructure needs to be sorted for alle energy sources and yes, is a major national problem.

 

[nicko31]

The

Yes battery storage is now developing very fast and in use. There is a little way to go before its as commercially viable as needed for large scale commercial use and it is the holy grail for renewables. Very much on the way though.
Agree re roofs, though these will never achieve the large scale required on their own. Many older buildings are also not strong enough. Use of agric land is a concern and solar needs to be very carefully installed only on the least productive land. One major concern at the moment is large landowners kicking long standing farming tenants off their land for this use.
Grid infrastructure needs to be sorted for alle energy sources and yes, is a major national problem.

Amazed weight is that much of an issue, solar panels are pretty light these days.

 

[abc]

probably the wisest and most important point made on the subject.

are they talking about serious storage alternatives such as hydrogen, or hitching everything on the battery wagon? the pyhsics show the energy density isnt there, engineers say it's not feasible for periods in order of few days. needs a better medium term storage.

The investment, globally, into battery development is in the $billions and there is little doubt now that the physics and other issues (eg scale) will be resolved. Not a dissimilar journey to that of computer development from massive house size installations to micro PCS.
Hydrogen is interesting. Personally I once thought Hydrogen held the answer to just about everything but not so sure now. The financial, carbon and environmental cost of making hydrogen has not been overcome and I believe some of the multi nationals (who will ultimately develop all the tech we need whether we like it or not) are reducing investment in hydrogen R&D because they no longer see it as a viable solution.

 

[abc]

Amazed weight is that much of an issue, solar panels are pretty light these days.

It’s the combined weight of panels and the supporting framework. I’ve just worked on a small farm project where the roofs were not strong enough. The cost of reinforcement made the project totally unviable. It now has to go on the ground and consequently needs planning consent. Despite the main motivation of the farmer being a desire to achieve net zero, the planners are being incredibly unhelpful and the proposed siting is not even on farmland but in an existing farm yard. Frustrating but a bit depressing too.

 

[Audax]

I believe some of the multi nationals (who will ultimately develop all the tech we need whether we like it or not) are reducing investment in hydrogen R&D because they no longer see it as a viable solution.

Toyota, for example, made a big bet on hydrogen for cars, going as far as developing the Mirai, productionising it, selling it ... all at the expense of EV development. They've now backed away from hydrogen and have put a lot of effort into the solid state battery solution for EVs and have now (late to the party) started selling full EVs, having been hybrid-only for a long time.

 

[beorhthelm]

The investment, globally, into battery development is in the $billions and there is little doubt now that the physics and other issues (eg scale) will be resolved. Not a dissimilar journey to that of computer development from massive house size installations to micro PCS.

this is what scares me. battery tech cant just overcome physics, which tells us there is limited energy density in chemical batteries, even if some tech can change how fast you charge/discharge. comparisons to IT are desperatly misguided, for decades compute density miniturised as technology allowed, without touching the limits of physics. as we approached that limit we scaled out with parallisation and better execution. you can put 4 or 8 cores in the same 2 sq inch package as 1 core, 4 or 8 times the compute for same space. with energy storage, 4x the energy pretty much mean 4x the volume unless you drastically increase density. i saw headline for some breakthrough battery they may be available by 2030, it was not even double the current state of art.

i've always seen hydrogen as the obvious solution, incredibly high energy density, store the surplus electicity from wind/solar/nuclear and convert back on demand (thats vital for any energy production). of course it comes at a price, but so are battery arrays, which will need to be huge. nuclear has to part of a serious plan too, better designs can be safe and consume fissile material (even deals with existing waste according to some).

 

[sydney]

You don’t think pumping carbon derivatives into the atmosphere will affect or change anything?

You don’t really do science, do you.

Soil, fossil, and rock evidence tells us about climate conditions in pre history.

Man made climate change is real. And it will kill us all. Sorry.

well it won't kill all of us will it ?? In 1000 years the planet is going to look a hell of a lot different and hopefully as replanting gets under way the atmosphere will balance again , the disappearance of trees coupled with the massive increase in human population over the last 200 years is the crux of the matter , hopefully a global population of 2 billion who have stopped blowing each other up can bring the planet back into balance ......she will win in the end , there's no doubting that.

we have done a lot of damage in 200 yrs.

 

[abc]

well it won't kill all of us will it ?? In 1000 years the planet is going to look a hell of a lot different and hopefully as replanting gets under way the atmosphere will balance again , the disappearance of trees coupled with the massive increase in human population over the last 200 years is the crux of the matter , hopefully a global population of 2 billion who have stopped blowing each other up can bring the planet back into balance ......she will win in the end , there's no doubting that.

we have done a lot of damage in 200 yrs.

If we are honest, its never about 'saving the planet' is it? We mean saving the human race. Life has gone through numerous extinctions but the 'planet' has never been under threat. Perhaps if we all admitted this truth we might be a little more focused. I am not advocating human wipe out by climate change (not least as the poorest and many animal species will die first and they have no say in the decision) but the planet will be fine and dandy without us

 

[sydney]

If we are honest, its never about 'saving the planet' is it? We mean saving the human race. Life has gone through numerous extinctions but the 'planet' has never been under threat. Perhaps if we all admitted this truth we might be a little more focused. I am not advocating human wipe out by climate change (not least as the poorest and many animal species will die first and they have no say in the decision) but the planet will be fine and dandy without us

yes it will, there will be some lucky ones left though , hopefully the planet can rebound/ recover , not going to happen with the population growth the way it is.

 

[abc]

this is what scares me. battery tech cant just overcome physics, which tells us there is limited energy density in chemical batteries, even if some tech can change how fast you charge/discharge. comparisons to IT are desperatly misguided, for decades compute density miniturised as technology allowed, without touching the limits of physics. as we approached that limit we scaled out with parallisation and better execution. you can put 4 or 8 cores in the same 2 sq inch package as 1 core, 4 or 8 times the compute for same space. with energy storage, 4x the energy pretty much mean 4x the volume unless you drastically increase density. i saw headline for some breakthrough battery they may be available by 2030, it was not even double the current state of art.

i've always seen hydrogen as the obvious solution, incredibly high energy density, store the surplus electicity from wind/solar/nuclear and convert back on demand (thats vital for any energy production). of course it comes at a price, but so are battery arrays, which will need to be huge. nuclear has to part of a serious plan too, better designs can be safe and consume fissile material (even deals with existing waste according to some).

You may well be right, my knowledge of physics is below yours. My analogy to computers is from my own experience. 8 years ago we installed a battery set up to store a small level of solar output. It tookd up a whole ships container. The same amount of storage would now take up less than a quarter of the same space.

Sorry, cant get on board with nuclear at all!

 

[Bakero]

Amazed weight is that much of an issue, solar panels are pretty light these days.

It’s the combined weight of panels and the supporting framework. I’ve just worked on a small farm project where the roofs were not strong enough. The cost of reinforcement made the project totally unviable. It now has to go on the ground and consequently needs planning consent. Despite the main motivation of the farmer being a desire to achieve net zero, the planners are being incredibly unhelpful and the proposed siting is not even on farmland but in an existing farm yard. Frustrating but a bit depressing too.

Down here in Almeria a large chunk of Europe's fruit and veg is grown in vast expanses of greenhouses (Bit of an eyesore tbh but farming makes up almost half the province's GDP). The idea of turning the greenhouses into solar panels has long been touted but looks to be close to becoming a reality. One company has created a product called nano-paste, which can be used to turn any surface into a solar panel. Don't ask me how it works but apparently it's made from carbon nano-particles and is not only durable but also lightweight, recyclable and doesn't need any rare minerals. Could be a gamechanger.

 

[abc]

Down here in Almeria a large chunk of Europe's fruit and veg is grown in vast expanses of greenhouses (Bit of an eyesore tbh but farming makes up almost half the province's GDP). The idea of turning the greenhouses into solar panels has long been touted but looks to be close to becoming a reality. One company has created a product called nano-paste, which can be used to turn any surface into a solar panel. Don't ask me how it works but apparently it's made from carbon nano-particles and is not only durable but also lightweight, recyclable and doesn't need any rare minerals. Could be a gamechanger.

I wasn't aware that nano paste had moved on from the research stages to being used on a commercial scale in this way. Really interesting, thank you, and I will try and find out more as to what's happening down your way

 

[beorhthelm]

Down here in Almeria a large chunk of Europe's fruit and veg is grown in vast expanses of greenhouses (Bit of an eyesore tbh but farming makes up almost half the province's GDP). The idea of turning the greenhouses into solar panels has long been touted but looks to be close to becoming a reality. One company has created a product called nano-paste, which can be used to turn any surface into a solar panel. Don't ask me how it works but apparently it's made from carbon nano-particles and is not only durable but also lightweight, recyclable and doesn't need any rare minerals. Could be a gamechanger.

wouldn't anything applied on the glass inhibt the sunlight going to plants?
though this reminds me of some paint product, perhaps the same stuff, that could be painted on building turning them into low level solar panels cheaply.

 

[Commander]

If we are honest, its never about 'saving the planet' is it? We mean saving the human race. Life has gone through numerous extinctions but the 'planet' has never been under threat. Perhaps if we all admitted this truth we might be a little more focused. I am not advocating human wipe out by climate change (not least as the poorest and many animal species will die first and they have no say in the decision) but the planet will be fine and dandy without us

The idea that humans can somehow 'destroy the planet' by being a bit grubby for a hundred years or so is absolutely laughable. The planet has been bombarded with apocalyptic-sized asteroids and comets for billions and billions of years. It's been through freezing and warming and huge extinction events many times before, and it's always been just fine. If humans do wipe ourselves out through climate change then it will be the equivalent of a human getting headlice for a few days and then treating them with that rank smelling headlice shampoo a couple of times, and that's the end of the problem, once the hair has recovered from the nasty chemical stuff it will be fine again in a couple of days, with no more headlice. The planet will go on perfectly fine for another few billion years, without the parasites that infected it for a tiny speck of time.

 

[pb21]

belief we can change or affect it is the new religious mantra

Belief we cant/don't affect the environment/climate is, of course, the old religious mantra, preached by all kinds of nutjob. Plus ca change as they say in France, indeed.

 

[bluenitsuj]

The planet will continue fine once us humans have all disappeared. What's the issue?

 

[Mustafa II]

The planet will continue fine once us humans have all disappeared. What's the issue?

Football would continue fine if BHAFC disappeared.

That doesn't make it a non-issue.

To humans, humanity is important - we all have other humans that we care about, and we all hold great value humanities achievements.

It would quite obviously be tragic for the planet, and possibly the universe, if we ceased to exist.

 

[Bakero]

wouldn't anything applied on the glass inhibt the sunlight going to plants?
though this reminds me of some paint product, perhaps the same stuff, that could be painted on building turning them into low level solar panels cheaply.

The current greenhouses are made of plastic. But, anyway, I believe this nano-paste is translucent and the transparency level can be modified to suit the crop/time of year.

 

[abc]

It would quite obviously be tragic for the planet, and possibly the universe, if we ceased to exist.

You are being sarcastic aren’t you?