Climate change challenge thread - you fix it

[DrPizza]

1) First off, gasoline for a car has never really been a great energy source. It really is a low energy threshold for the mass it takes as well as the pollution it puts out. The reason it was chosen was because it made for an easy delivery system. There are for energy dense compounds that are easy to create, cheap to produce anywhere, and have a lot less pollution side effects. Gun powder would be an example as such, but there are others. The point of the car engine was to create a contained and controlled explosion. The result of which would turn a crank.

2) Lockheed martin and others are working to miniaturize fission reactors and have stated to have a working prototype by years end. If so, that would go a long way to removing the world's dependency upon oil and coal as well.

Those two things would change much.

What you're speaking of are not energy sources- they are systems to transport energy.
2. Fusion, not fission. Learn the difference.

Of course, hydrogen and other energy dense enough agents could be used instead and have been used in various engines successfully to do something simple enough like turn a crank to a vehicle.

Ditto. Hydrogen is not an energy SOURCE unless you're referring to fusion.

And roll out solar roads and highways over all of America.

Solar roads are nonsense. See criticisms after the jubilant celebration of that non-invention.

 

[stormkroe]

I'm more into baby-steps these days, such as a 1500 watt windmill on EVERY hi voltage tower/ small power pole that can safely hold one (approx. 6 ft. Diameter) on their own transmission line tying in at an anti-islanding grid sync every 40 or so poles (whichever quantity is most cost effective.)
This leads to another point: get crews re-insulating hi lines and step up voltage to double or more on our transmission. I shudder to think how many kW we lose as heat across the usa alone.

 

[Moonbeam]

The best idea in my opinion that I know of is the work being done by the chemist, Dr. Nocera, to split water photovoltaicly as done in the leaf using cheap catalysts. The advantage of this system is that hydrogen gas can be produced and stored for use when the sun isn't shining. With abundant hydrogen everything can be powered by fuel cells, recreating the water that was used to produce the hydrogen. This would allow every house that gets sun on the roof to produce all or most of the energy needed locally in the home as well as the gas for the car.

 

[OverVolt]

Wait, are you trying to say that the construction of those plants would cause more emissions than they would save? That's certainly incorrect.

The 100,000 (probably more) workers commuting back and forth to construct highspeed rail using oil powered construction equipment? Absolutely. The climate types never think about this stuff and only look at miles saved after its built. There are no GAAP CO2 accounting standards or anything

Besides concrete releases lots of CO2 anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete

The cement industry is one of the primary producers of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas.

So time for a quadrillion tons of concrete for infrastructure projects to save the planet huh?

 

[fskimospy]

The 100,000 (probably more) workers commuting back and forth to construct highspeed rail using oil powered construction equipment? Absolutely. The climate types never think about this stuff and only look at miles saved after its built. There are no GAAP CO2 accounting standards or anything

So that is what you're arguing. The answer there is an obvious no. First, you are wildly overestimating the number of workers needed. A Florida high speed rail proposal would have taken one quarter that many workers at most, and even that is inflated.

Second, the idea that construction of a line, even with 100,000 people working on it, would create more carbon than would be saved is simply wildly inaccurate. For example, an SFO to LA high speed line is estimated to carry more than 10 million riders yearly and exist for decades into the future. That easily crushes the carbon output of construction even if we used your inaccurate figure.

I don't think you've thought this through. Where did you get your figures from?

Besides concrete releases lots of CO2 anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete

So time for a quadrillion tons of concrete for infrastructure projects to save the planet huh?

Transportation is a much larger source of carbon emissions than concrete and unlike concrete transportation emissions are ongoing.

So yeah.

 

[massmedia]

I'm more into baby-steps these days, such as a 1500 watt windmill on EVERY hi voltage tower/ small power pole that can safely hold one (approx. 6 ft. Diameter)

small wind turbines spin too fast and kill birds like crazy.

the very large turbines spin much much slower and don't kill birds like crazy.
so as much as I like turbines, the small ones should be avoided. it's also cheaper to build the very large ones.

 

[norseamd]

Exactly what the guy above me said.

 

[glenn1]

Pressure the automobile manufacturers to start switching over to plug-in ICE-Electric EREV possibly with hydraulic assistance.

From what I have read a long time ago it seems a lot of the pollution from cars is due to the gasoline and not the car. Pressure the oil refineries to do much more complete and clean refinement of the gasoline.

Start to implement full environmental regulation of power plants and factories in America. From what I understand they are the biggest polluter in America.

Federal incentives for adoption of solar panels for businesses, homeowners, and other organizations.

Develop a national smart grid network with ease of energy transfer and energy storage.

Develop a national supercomputer program to study climate with as much technology as possible.

Start building next generation nuclear power plants like generation 3+ and generation 4. Looks like the Russians are way ahead of us. Make me think about if that plant is successful and the Russians go on a national nuclear power plant building program if they could start to compete with us or even outcompete us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor

Start full scale research into nuclear fusion power

Start full scale research and production of wind, tidal, and wave power

Start research and production of solar electric supertankers and superfreighters

Start full scale research into biofuel and hydrogen technologies

Start full scale production of nationwide vertical farming

Full scale research and utilization of 21st century urban technologies and planning

Start full scale research and exploration of the deep sea by the NOAA

National high speed rail program over all of America

Consider funding resource prospecting and exploitation for space and the deep sea. The deep sea has lots of resources but you have to be careful about how you interact with the environment.

Would all those truly get us 40% or more carbon savings though? Electric rather than ICE cars still need to be powered, you're simply moving the source from a distributed production source in each car to central generation. Admittedly maybe a large generation plant is more efficient, but wouldn't line loss from the electric wires do away with those efficiencies?

No problem with solar subsidies but doesn't seem like they're currently efficient enough to make a difference except for limited application like attic fans and water heaters.

Vertical farming might be worthwhile on its own merits. The best 21st century urban planning might be to deemphasize cities altogether by mandatory teleworking wherever possible, that solves the vast majority of transportation issues as well.

I think environmentalists would flip out over your nuclear and deep sea ideas so you'd have to rein them in.

 

[fskimospy]

No, line loss would in no way do away with the increased efficiency of power plants vs. ICE.

 

[norseamd]

No, line loss would in no way do away with the increased efficiency of power plants vs. ICE.

Not to mention with vehicles causing so few emissions the focus would start looking around and start to realize that factories cause huge emissions. That said EREV are actually hybrids that get like 50 to 100 miles to the gallon depending on the vehicle. So you might not even need to deal with increased power plant production and line loss.

 

[norseamd]

No problem with solar subsidies but doesn't seem like they're currently efficient enough to make a difference except for limited application like attic fans and water heaters.

I think solar power is most effective as decentralized power production like many homeowners now do. Centralized power production can utilize nuclear plus some renewables.

Vertical farming might be worthwhile on its own merits. The best 21st century urban planning might be to deemphasize cities altogether by mandatory teleworking wherever possible, that solves the vast majority of transportation issues as well.

Well we actually want to increase urbanization because it has far less impacts on the environment especially when we can grow food without using up lots of land.

I think environmentalists would flip out over your nuclear and deep sea ideas so you'd have to rein them in.

Probably. But nuclear is worth every penny and some ignorant protesting from "environmental activists" is not worth listening to. As for deep sea resources that is a very complex issue so you have to be careful what you exactly do. There is a lot about deep sea life we do not understand right now. However there are also lots of resources down there like minerals and hydrocarbons. Also a lot of the area seems like empty wasteland but like I said earlier we do not actually know much about the deep sea. Regardless I am certain there are some ways to at least research and maybe mine the resources in the deep sea without destroying that much of the environment. This is also why we need to dramatically increase the funds for NASA and the space industry.

There is more to these ideas especially stuff like urban planning.

 

[fskimospy]

There is more to these ideas especially stuff like urban planning.

It's funny that he would try to argue against cities in terms of climate change. If you are really trying to limit carbon emissions the best thing we could all do is have everyone move to a big city. The average city citizen has vastly lower emissions than suburban or rural people.

NYC is one of the greenest cities in America precisely because of its density.

 

[stormkroe]

small wind turbines spin too fast and kill birds like crazy.

the very large turbines spin much much slower and don't kill birds like crazy.
so as much as I like turbines, the small ones should be avoided. it's also cheaper to build the very large ones.

I admit I haven't researched data on avian death in large vs. small wind turbines, perhaps you could give us a link? It's true that small turbines spin at much more RPM than large, I would imagine blade speed at point wouldn't be that different.

As to the last point, cost, I'm gonna definitely call you to back that claim. Just a quick calc with the google machine produces this:

Vestas V90-3MW
300 feet diamter, 41 TONS weight (Nacelle 70 TONS!!!)
70650 sq ft blade face @ 3 million watts = 42.46 watts/sq ft.
Cut in speed 8.9 mph
Life expectancy 20-25 years
Price: $$3,500,000+

Mwands Freedom 1600
62.5 inch diamter, 38.4 pounds
21.29 sq ft blade face @ 1600 watts = 75.15 watts/sq ft
Cut in speed 6 mph
Life expectancy around 15 years
Price: $350.00

I should point out that cut in speed (other than price) is absolutely the best thing about small turbines. Simply put, they 'run' more hours in a year.

Thanks for reading

 

[glenn1]

It's funny that he would try to argue against cities in terms of climate change. If you are really trying to limit carbon emissions the best thing we could all do is have everyone move to a big city. The average city citizen has vastly lower emissions than suburban or rural people.

NYC is one of the greenest cities in America precisely because of its density.

If the majority of employees teleworked, wouldn't that vastly reduce the major efficiency drivers of a city, namely proximity reducing the need for transportation? Sure you might save some small amount in reduced need to extend infrastructure to further distances but a possible upside is that it wouldn't need to be built quite so robust. Things like heat island effect seem like a non-factor since it's either a positive or negative based on location and season. In short it seems that allowing people to work in place and reducing their need for transport would exceed the cost savings by moving them into cities by many orders of magnitude.

 

[norseamd]

If the majority of employees teleworked, wouldn't that vastly reduce the major efficiency drivers of a city, namely proximity reducing the need for transportation? Sure you might save some small amount in reduced need to extend infrastructure to further distances but a possible upside is that it wouldn't need to be built quite so robust. Things like heat island effect seem like a non-factor since it's either a positive or negative based on location and season. In short it seems that allowing people to work in place and reducing their need for transport would exceed the cost savings by moving them into cities by many orders of magnitude.

Yes but the land not taken up by rural residents is what is the most prominent concern.

 

[glenn1]

It's funny that he would try to argue against cities in terms of climate change. If you are really trying to limit carbon emissions the best thing we could all do is have everyone move to a big city. The average city citizen has vastly lower emissions than suburban or rural people.

NYC is one of the greenest cities in America precisely because of its density.

Only Manhattan is really dense, and it's population is itself dwarfed by the daily commuter influx. LA is actually more dense than NYC if you consider the metro area as a whole rather than one small portion of it like you're doing. If you were slightly less egocentric about your city you would more accurately understand your strengths and weaknesses.

 

[fskimospy]

If the majority of employees teleworked, wouldn't that vastly reduce the major efficiency drivers of a city, namely proximity reducing the need for transportation? Sure you might save some small amount in reduced need to extend infrastructure to further distances but a possible upside is that it wouldn't need to be built quite so robust. Things like heat island effect seem like a non-factor since it's either a positive or negative based on location and season. In short it seems that allowing people to work in place and reducing their need for transport would exceed the cost savings by moving them into cities by many orders of magnitude.

What makes you think the majority of people can telework? Cashiers, grocers, service people of all types cannot do this.

Simply put, the big cities that you hate so much are massively more efficient. The future of humanity is obviously big cities.

 

[glenn1]

What makes you think the majority of people can telework? Cashiers, grocers, service people of all types cannot do this.

Simply put, the big cities that you hate so much are massively more efficient. The future of humanity is obviously big cities.

I don't hate cities but also don't fetishize them like you. And if more people were teleworking, why would you need nearly so many cashiers, grocers, etc. in the city core? Hell, if anything many businesses would scale down their hugely expensive real estate and human capital in city cores in favor of far cheaper and smaller holdings in smaller cities in the Midwest, Rockies, etc. There's no inherent reason why having a large operations center in Manhattan is better than having it in Sioux City if most of your employees telework anyway.

LOL at you mentioning grocers as not teleworkers since plenty of cities don't even have grocery stores to speak of, thus the origin of the term "food deserts."

 

[fskimospy]

I don't hate cities but also don't fetishize them like you. And if more people were teleworking, why would you need nearly so many cashiers, grocers, etc. in the city core? Hell, if anything many businesses would scale down their hugely expensive real estate and human capital in city cores in favor of far cheaper and smaller holdings in smaller cities in the Midwest, Rockies, etc. There's no inherent reason why having a large operations center in Manhattan is better than having it in Sioux City if most of your employees telework anyway.

LOL at you mentioning grocers as not teleworkers since plenty of cities don't even have grocery stores to speak of, thus the origin of the term "food deserts."

This is confusing. Denser populations are more efficient. Full stop.

This should be obvious logically. If anything, we should use telework to eliminate rural and suburban populations.

 

[norseamd]

The problem is that we need the land for the ecosystem to survive.

 

[OverVolt]

It's funny that he would try to argue against cities in terms of climate change. If you are really trying to limit carbon emissions the best thing we could all do is have everyone move to a big city. The average city citizen has vastly lower emissions than suburban or rural people.

NYC is one of the greenest cities in America precisely because of its density.

Ah yes the hyper efficient big rigs stuck in perpetual traffic.

The only reason its efficient is because its on the Hudson. Which is where I'm coming from. We need water/rail shipping.

There are towns that are entirely dependent on oil. They pump their water uphill both ways, ship everything in by truck, and aren't near any major rivers. Like Las Vegas. And many, many, many suburbs.

 

[norseamd]

Any high speed rail shipping in the world by any countries?

 

[WHAMPOM]

I'm tired of all the threads where climate change gets argued endlessly and the argument gets reduced to "scientific concensus" and "deniers." I'd rather talk the real instead of theoretical so this thread will do exactly that.

Our premise is that manmade climate change/global warming is stipulated. Again, if you want to argue about whether it's real or not this is not your thread, please do not post.. Further, you as someone who believes in MMGW has been elected President/dictator for life of the USA, now it's now your job to "fix" the problem. Since there seems to be disagreement on what the proper fix is, we'll go with a matching the recent EU pledge of reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. Bonus points for anything higher, and if you can figure out how to do 80% by 2050 which is the EU stretch goal then you win all the internets. How you go about fixing the problem is up to you, subject to some simple rules.

1. Premises and solutions need to reflect scientific reality; e.g. you can't simply imagine that the sun's output will increase over time making solar more productive. Or cherry pick conditions to say everywhere in the U.S. can enjoy ideal conditions in every aspect - the geothermal capability of Iceland, the solar power of Spain, etc. all at the same time.

2. No deus ex machina solutions - no simply decreeing that a new energy source will be discovered. Even if you wanted to dump money into a "Manhattan Project" style project for a new energy source that doesn't guarantee you'll develop anything.

3. Solutions have to be moral and not completely trash the Constitution. For example, saying you'll simply kill 75% of the world's population to reduce CO emissions isn't acceptable, nor would simply having the feds impound all automobiles in the nation.

4. Solutions costs need to be recognized and/or either accepted or mitigated. For example, if you want to raise automobile mileage standards by X percent, you would acknowledge it will raise car prices by Y percent, thus making car ownership unaffordable to Z percent of the population.

5. Solutions need to be realistically scalable and robust. For example, if you want to increase solar production you should also account for how baseline power production will be maintained when it's not sunny outside. Or if you're going to focus on mass transit, how you'll expand ridership.

Other than that, have fun. Let's see what solutions are out there.

It is too late to fix. we have to ride out the changes and hope cutting back carbon emissions will help speed a return to a livable equilibrium. Or get ready to label Earth VenusII.

 

[Zaap]

First thing I'd do is what we should have been doing 30+ years ago if not for mass hysteria caused by the enviro-wackos: full steam ahead on nuclear energy.

We now actually have an advantage of sorts in that we've got 5 or 6 generations newer nuclear tech that's been going strong in countries that didn't succumb to the enviro-wacktardedness, so we can leapfrog several generations ahead and rebuild our infrastructure with the latest/greatest.

Next-gen nuke plants are practically self-contained- and they can run off the waste produced by the older generation plants, so many of the "what do we dooooo with all the waste?!" arguments are based on outdated FUD that's still spread by the enviro-wackos.

Wind power is crap- if its located near enough to people, it's a hazard, and if it's located remotely, it becomes just as big of a hazard to wildlife and for potential fire hazards, as well as requiring a shitload of traditional energy spent maintaining it. (If you locate it out in the wilderness thinking you've solved the problems, you need ROADS and infrastructure and fuel use getting maintenance out to the 'wilderness' which it really won't be anymore.)

Wind has limited uses, but to pretend we can rely on it in greater and greater scales is stupid, especially in place of nuclear which it can't hold a candle to.

Solar should also be used much more, and a huge emphasis put on energy storage technology. A big problem with solar as I understand it, has always been that it generates energy during the times when it actually isn't as badly needed (during the day, when there's sunlight) when what's really needed is the power at peak times (in the evening and at night when there's no sun). So we should work on ways of generating tons of solar power during the day that's stored more effectively for when it's needed most until it can actually become a much more reliable part of the grid. As I understand it currently- you can't just shut traditional power plants on and off a whim just because you're generating solar- the power plants must run all the time, solar or not. Until solar can actually 'pull its own weight' and take more traditional energy plants off the grid (which involves much better storage technology that's truly reliable) it's true potential will be severely limited.

I'm all for research into any other forms of alternative next-generation energy, but first and foremost, we need to kick the enviro-nuts to the curb and get nuclear up and running, pronto.

 

[ivwshane]

Was my plan too detailed? Lol not even some criticism?