Climate Contrarian Predictions - How have they done?

[Ajay]

Necessity isn't particularly relevant. Cost absolutely is.

With the decreasing cost of renewable energy production and storage (plus increasing energy density of storage systems); affordability will greatly improve in the next 20 years, except for special cases that I’ll omit for now.

Something I'd like to point out is that a more carbon-rich and thus a more energetic atmosphere isn't necessarily a bad thing. What's bad is that we don't currently know how to effectively harvest that excess energy, and balance it to our environmental needs. But someday we will. Hopefully sooner rather than later, right?

Most of the heat energy is stored in the ocean. Setting up a 100M heat pumps in the worlds oceans will never be feasible.

 

[Brainonska511]

Because all these techniques are too expensive by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Just look at the article. This plant removes the equivalent of "790 cars" worth of carbon emissions per year. You'd need about half of million of those plants to negate the emissions from all the cars in the world. Then there's all the rest of the emissions.

People will seemingly support anything if it means they won't have to slightly alter their energy guzzling, automobile-centric, single-family home lifestyle.

 

[Vic]

People will seemingly support anything if it means they won't have to slightly alter their energy guzzling, automobile-centric, single-family home lifestyle.

Which is why we should be pragmatic rather than forceful in our solutions. And also in our messaging. You're always going to face strong public resistance over fixing climate change if all your solutions and messaging are that people will need to be poorer.

 

[Vic]

With the decreasing cost of renewable energy production and storage (plus increasing energy density of storage systems); affordability will greatly improve in the next 20 years, except for special cases that I’ll omit for now.


Most of the heat energy is stored in the ocean. Setting up a 100M heat pumps in the worlds oceans will never be feasible.

Improvements in the cost and efficiency of renewable energies, by themselves, will only lead to increased consumption. It will only be when the cost of renewables drops below that fossil fuels that fossil fuel usage will start to phase out. And that's not going to be easy because the cost of fossil fuels will drop if demand for it slows due to increased competition from renewables.
Meanwhile, we don't need heat pumps in the oceans when a major byproduct of that heat is kinetic energy in the form of waves. And capturing that wave energy is very feasible.

 

[Vic]

Because all these techniques are too expensive by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Just look at the article. This plant removes the equivalent of "790 cars" worth of carbon emissions per year. You'd need about half of million of those plants to negate the emissions from all the cars in the world. Then there's all the rest of the emissions.

Well then, we better start working on improving that still-infant technology because we are already way past the point where just reducing emissions is going to fix the problem. Hell, we could go zero emissions today, and we'd still be f'ed. Recapturing carbon and harvesting excess atmospheric and oceanic energy need to be part of the solution.

 

[Brainonska511]

Which is why we should be pragmatic rather than forceful in our solutions. And also in our messaging. You're always going to face strong public resistance over fixing climate change if all your solutions and messaging are that people will need to be poorer.

Changing people's day to day life does not mean they will be poorer.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well then, we better start working on improving that still-infant technology because we are already way past the point where just reducing emissions is going to fix the problem. Hell, we could go zero emissions today, and we'd still be f'ed. Recapturing carbon and harvesting excess atmospheric and oceanic energy need to be part of the solution.

Not sure if your first two sentences jive with the latest IPCC report. But I'm not going to pick nits over that, because the fact is, we aren't going to reduce emissions to zero even by 2030.

This free air carbon capture is way off. If you look over that article, not only do you notice how little carbon the plant actually removes, but it's much worse than that. The plant is powered by geothermal... Meaning that this clean energy is being used to capture teeny weeny bits of carbon from the air instead of being used to meet market demand for power, which turn reduces the use of fossil fuels. In other words, by prioritizing inefficient carbon capture over much more efficient emissions reduction, this plant makes climate change worse, not better.

Free air carbon capture is never going to be viable until either emissions reach zero or it becomes like literally 100 fold more cost efficient.

 

[Ajay]

Meanwhile, we don't need heat pumps in the oceans when a major byproduct of that heat is kinetic energy in the form of waves. And capturing that wave energy is very feasible.

The major 'byproduct' is that the oceans become warmer (if you prefer, the H2O molecules smash into one another at higher velocities). Anyways, all the wave action is spread over the whole ocean. It's only that it's highly visible near the shore for all of us land lubbers. Twenty, 30 and 40+ ft swells are not uncommon out in blue water - not a big deal to those with sea legs, but barf worthy to me. We are pretty much constrained to harvesting ocean energy near the shore, out of simple logistics. The winds coming off the ocean are, thus far, our best means to capture some of that heat energy in the oceans that accelerates the air near it's surface.

Under water turbines near the coast, where the water accelerates as the sea level decreases, sound great, but have many hurdles head - including environmental ones.

 

[MtnMan]

there's less than 70,000 coal miners in the US. we'd be much better off just paying them not to work.

But they typically vote republican, so their jobs must be protected, never mind the cost to the planet, it doesn't vote.

 

[Vic]

But they typically vote republican, so their jobs must be protected, never mind the cost to the planet, it doesn't vote.

It's not just that they vote Republican, but that they vote Republican in jurisdictions that are disproportionately represented in Congress.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

World's largest plant capturing carbon from air starts in Iceland

The world's largest plant that sucks carbon dioxide directly from the air and deposits it underground is due to start operating on Wednesday, the company behind the nascent green technology said.

www.reuters.com

There’s ways to direct air capture CO2 operating today - but they are currently a drop in the bucket.

Yeah but what happens to it once captured? If it stays in gaseous format, it's basically useless for fracking. The reason we use water is it's incompressible and tends to stay where you put it, gas won't. It'll just re-enter the atmosphere.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Is that stable? Like in a non-controlled, brick or powder form?

Of course. Sodium carbonate is practically a brick. Convert it to calcium carbonate (chalk) and bury it in the ground. There had been some really crazy catalysts I recall that were possibly doing carbon capture, maybe some artifical photosynthesis stuff...can't remember and need to look at it again.

 

[Vic]

The major 'byproduct' is that the oceans become warmer (if you prefer, the H2O molecules smash into one another at higher velocities). Anyways, all the wave action is spread over the whole ocean. It's only that it's highly visible near the shore for all of us land lubbers. Twenty, 30 and 40+ ft swells are not uncommon out in blue water - not a big deal to those with sea legs, but barf worthy to me. We are pretty much constrained to harvesting ocean energy near the shore, out of simple logistics. The winds coming off the ocean are, thus far, our best means to capture some of that heat energy in the oceans that accelerates the air near it's surface.

Under water turbines near the coast, where the water accelerates as the sea level decreases, sound great, but have many hurdles head - including environmental ones.

Agreed that there are a great many hurdles to any solution to climate change, but the long-standing strategy of zero emissions or bust, and shaming virtually powerless end-consumers for not meeting that goal, has not proven effective. Nor is it likely to IMO.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Of course. Sodium carbonate is practically a brick. Convert it to calcium carbonate (chalk) and bury it in the ground. There had been some really crazy catalysts I recall that were possibly doing carbon capture, maybe some artifical photosynthesis stuff...can't remember and need to look at it again.

Sounds like a plan, is it scalable? Or does it require covering the world's dirt with carbon capture plants or something?

 

[hal2kilo]

Alternate energy solutions are more than on the horizon. Silly cold fusion. It's a joke right?

Science | CLEAN PLANET Inc.

Quantum Hydrogen Energy ～ Preparing for Commercial Appl

www.cleanplanet.co.jp

 

[uclaLabrat]

Sounds like a plan, is it scalable? Or does it require covering the world's dirt with carbon capture plants or something?

Can't imagine why it wouldn't be. Would need a plant for sure but no idea what the turnover would be or the foot print needed.

 

[Brainonska511]

Agreed that there are a great many hurdles to any solution to climate change, but the long-standing strategy of zero emissions or bust, and shaming virtually powerless end-consumers for not meeting that goal, has not proven effective. Nor is it likely to IMO.

You don't have to shame consumers, but you can exert economic and regulatory power on them to "encourage" better choices when it comes to energy consumption and enable better ways to save energy (ie, allow denser housing to be built in appropriate areas).

 

[Vic]

You don't have to shame consumers, but you can exert economic and regulatory power on them to "encourage" better choices when it comes to energy consumption and enable better ways to save energy (ie, allow denser housing to be built in appropriate areas).

I am 100% in favor of removing SFR-only zoning laws, and have said so here many times before.
But IMO we need face certain facts in the larger picture of climate change, such as that while denser housing will lead to more efficient energy consumption, there will still be more energy consumption. Because there will still be more houses. Yes, we'll be using less energy than we would have, but it will still be more energy overall.

 

[Leeea]

Climate Contrarian Predictions - How have they done?

I am going to go the other way, and predict the apocalypse in our lifetime.

To many points of no return are being ran right over.

For example, when the permafrost melts it will release 1,400 gigatons of CO2, 4x what humans have released since the beginning of time.

The permafrost was not supposed to melt until 2090, but unfortunately someone noticed it is melting right now:

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

As the forests burn off of our planet they also release massive quantities of CO2:

Vast wildfires in Russia's Yakutia set emissions record - monitor

Summer wildfires have already produced a record amount of carbon emissions in Russia's Siberian region of Yakutia, with still more weeks of the fire season to come, according to the European Union's Copernicus satellite monitoring unit.

www.reuters.com

but there is great news, the polar ice caps will keep us cool as they melt. It takes a lot of energy to turn water from a solid to a liquid. They are only melting at a rate of 13% per decade, with an 50% increase in the rate of ice melt:
87% of 2021 levels in 2031 - 13% melt
67% in 2041 - 19.5% melt
38% in 2051 - 29.5% melt
0% in 2061 - so much for planet earth

 

[Brainonska511]

I am 100% in favor of removing SFR-only zoning laws, and have said so here many times before.
But IMO we need face certain facts in the larger picture of climate change, such as that while denser housing will lead to more efficient energy consumption, there will still be more energy consumption. Because there will still be more houses. Yes, we'll be using less energy than we would have, but it will still be more energy overall.

I largely agree with the general premise that energy use will continue to grow, because the population will continue to grow. However, I think you severely underestimate the energy efficiency of higher density living. People in 2-4 unit apartments are using ~50-60% of the electricity relative to single-family detached homes in the same area. Throw some transit and walkability into those neighborhoods, and you can drive down total energy use even more.

Electricity use in homes - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Types and amounts of electricity use in U.S. homes.

www.eia.gov

If we provide the right housing and other incentives, we can flatten that rate of energy consumption growth and better alter the mix of how individuals are getting the energy the consume (ie, get people to use more energy from the grid instead of fossil fuels, since it will be easier to dump them into renewables at the point of generation).

 

[woolfe9998]

Does getting a new iphone every 5 years instead of every 2 years mean we're living poorer?

Want to help the climate crisis? Don't toss your old iPhone, fix it | CNN Business

As taxing as the manufacturing process is on the environment, it's only made worse by how quickly most consumers discard their devices.

www.cnn.com

Production of complex electronic devices like smart phones requires mined resources from a variety of locations, and transport costs for said resources. Meanwhile, manufacturers like Apple, Google and Samsung charge insane prices to repair broken phones, and purposefully do not supply parts to independent repair shops who can really only replace cracked screens. Encouraging consumers to buy new phones instead of repairing existing ones.

The EU has already passed "right to repair" regulations requiring manufactures to supply parts and repair manuals to the general public. The US should do the same.

Many common sense regulations can be implemented which will help with the climate crisis and aren't exactly going to make us any poorer.

Indeed, this particular regulation makes us richer in effect by giving us the option to inexpensively repair our devices instead of buying an expensive new device. All at the expense of tech gazillionaires of course who might have a few billion less to brag about and don't pay taxes on any of it. Oh the inhumanity.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I largely agree with the general premise that energy use will continue to grow, because the population will continue to grow. However, I think you severely underestimate the energy efficiency of higher density living. People in 2-4 unit apartments are using ~50-60% of the electricity relative to single-family detached homes in the same area. Throw some transit and walkability into those neighborhoods, and you can drive down total energy use even more.

Electricity use in homes - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Types and amounts of electricity use in U.S. homes.

www.eia.gov

View attachment 50952

If we provide the right housing and other incentives, we can flatten that rate of energy consumption growth and better alter the mix of how individuals are getting the energy the consume (ie, get people to use more energy from the grid instead of fossil fuels, since it will be easier to dump them into renewables at the point of generation).

Rooftop solar is growing rapidly. As panels continue to become cheaper and more efficient, many homes in the United States will be able to generate more electricity than they produce.

 

[Brainonska511]

Rooftop solar is growing rapidly. As panels continue to become cheaper and more efficient, many homes in the United States will be able to generate more electricity than they produce.

Yes, but many homes are still heated by natural gas or oil, which is one of the biggest sources of emissions in housing; people are still living in sprawl and dependent on driving to get anywhere. We're not going to get out of climate change by just slapping solar panels on the roofs of SFHs and driving electric cars. Those things will help, but there also just needs to be change to the built environment (and we also need to work on our built environment because these issues intersect with so many other problems - unaffordable housing, general auto dependence requiring further monthly expenses for many, excessive congestion in cities because everyone needs to drive).

 

[Roger Wilco]

Hope yall don't like snow crabs.

"The changes in the Bering Sea include dramatic declines in winter ice cover in 2018 and 2019, which resulted in reduced size of a cold pool on the bottom favored by young crab."

“We really do think that … some sort of mortality event did occur,” said Katie Palof, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist who advises the North Pacific council about crab.

Alaska snow crab harvest slashed by nearly 90%

Officials have announced a massive reduction in the catch of snow and king crab. Researchers said survival rates appeared to have plummeted during a period of warmer temperatures at the bottom of the Bering Sea.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[hal2kilo]

Hope yall don't like snow crabs.

"The changes in the Bering Sea include dramatic declines in winter ice cover in 2018 and 2019, which resulted in reduced size of a cold pool on the bottom favored by young crab."

“We really do think that … some sort of mortality event did occur,” said Katie Palof, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist who advises the North Pacific council about crab.

Alaska snow crab harvest slashed by nearly 90%

Officials have announced a massive reduction in the catch of snow and king crab. Researchers said survival rates appeared to have plummeted during a period of warmer temperatures at the bottom of the Bering Sea.

www.seattletimes.com

Nothing but work to get a little strip of crab. Give me blue or Dungeness any day. For buffet huggers.