Thread for discussing climate change

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Cultellus

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Cultellus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:11 pm
Mike, can you answer the question instead of Gish galloping about things you’ve said multiple times? What is the primary source of CO2 emissions for layers you raise in your backyard?
I am still stuck on the assertion that roofers did not exist 200 years ago. I don’t think we can proceed without that being resolved.

For example, would any part of the pyramids be considered a roof, and would those installers be considered roofers? It’s tricky, because the shelter is made up of triangle walls that connect at the peak, together, they also form a roof.
Last edited by Cultellus on Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by canpakes »

Cultellus wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:06 pm
I am still stuck on the assertion that roofers did not exist 200 years ago. I don’t think we can proceed without that being resolved.

For example, would any part of the pyramids be considered a roof, and would those installers be considered roofers? It’s tricky, because the shelter is made up of three walls that connect at the peak, together, they also form a roof.

I see that you haven’t looked at a picture of a pyramid in a while.

: )
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I raised chickens for three or four years at my old place in SLC. At one point I had ~20 layers and three roosters. I got rid of the roosters for *reasons*. Zero ROI on roosters. Eventually we pared our flock down to six hens, and then right before I moved we rehomed the remaining chickens. Resources that went into caring for chickens in the mountain west region:

1 chicken pen @ 6ft high @ 400 sq ft living area - lumber, nails, chicken wire, gate hardware

1 main chicken house - lumber, hardware, chicken wire, roofing material, bird spikes

Maintenance- pine shavings, heater lamps, butt washing, medical gel for fights, water trays for chicks

Food - scraps, bags of feed, occasional worms to supplement, water

So, when you look at expenditures between gas to not only get to a feed store, but all the fuel to get material and supplies to the feed and home improvement stores you start to see how each individual chicken ends up causing more CO2 than industrial operations where expenditures are divided out amongst thousands of chickens. Let’s not forget about the costs to create the materials in the first place, too.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

A timely article by an energy sector executive WHO EMPLOYED PEOPLE SO HIS OPINION IS 100% LEGITIMATE:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... e=Connatix
Marc Peterson: Solve climate change with creativity, not misinformation

Solar and wind energy have a lot more going for them than some people may think.

By Marc Peterson | Special to The Tribune

| Oct. 22, 2021, 8:00 a.m.

There is so much misinformation in Don Gayle’s commentary in the Salt Lake Tribune of October 15 that it is hard to know where to begin.

I’m a retired electrical generation executive, having spent 30 years in the industry. I was first involved with fossil fuels, and then later with renewables. I was a founding member of one of the largest studies completed on how to provide a low CO2 solution for the Western U.S. electrical grid. This study grew to include 34 energy companies, was technically reviewed by 11 grid participants, and was performed by two of the most knowledgeable grid consulting companies in the world.

Gale’s assertions incorrectly assume the weather and performance impact incurred by a wind and solar based grid system is the same as that incurred by one wind turbine or one solar section, in one location. A grid system is impacted much less than a single turbine or solar section.

For example: Excess solar energy produced during a sunny day in Southern California can be used in Utah, or almost anywhere in the Western U.S.. if the need exists. This system is called the Energy Imbalance Market and has been in operation since 2014. Also, wind and solar systems are highly complementary. Wind usually blows stronger in the evening, at night, and in the morning. Solar generation is obviously more productive during the day. A cloudy day is windier. And a sunny, low-wind day produces more solar generation.

Gale’s statement that you can’t turn electricity generated from wind and solar down is incorrect. Individual wind turbines or solar sections can be turned off, reducing the output of a wind or solar facility. His statement that you can turn fossil fuel generated electricity up is correct, but only to the extent those resources were operating below their designed capacity. You can also turn on wind turbines or solar sections to the extent that the generation facility was operating below its designed capacity.

Gale’s assertion that a renewables-based system requires standby backup resources that need to be kept ready to generate electricity 24 hours a day is correct. But the same is also true of a fossil fuel generation system.

His assertion about needing two transmission systems for each electrical source is incorrect. Some new transmission would need to be built to new renewable generation facilities, but only to existing transmission lines already providing power from fossil fuel plants. The reduction in electricity transmitted from fossil fuel plants opens up space for renewables on those transmission lines.

His comment that the most demand wind and solar could cover is “maybe 30 percent” is incorrect. Denmark currently produces over 50% of their energy from wind and solar. Scotland met over 97% of its electricity demand with renewables in 2020. Do a web search and you will find that many countries are currently producing more than 30% of their electrical demand from clean energy and many have plans to hit 100%.

Gayle is correct that climate change is a real and critical problem. It has already had a large impact on us here in Utah.

The most efficient solution is placing a fee on CO2 emissions (partially compensating for societies cost impact of those emissions) and let the market choose what technologies are used. Utilities, including Rocky Mountain Power, already have plans to significantly increase their generation from wind and solar. If nuclear power, or fossil fuels (with 100% carbon capture and sequestration), can cost-effectively solve the issue, the market will make that decision.


- Marc Peterson is a retired electrical generation industry executive living in Sandy.
I still think nuclear is a good option to stabilize renewables.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Res Ipsa »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:03 pm

I still think nuclear is a good option to stabilize renewables.

- Doc
I agree, in theory. In practice, the industry has a miserable record when it comes finishing on time and at budget.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgi ... s-unveiled

We just got done paying off four nuclear plants that were never finished in Washington. The Bonneville Power Administration and the nuclear industry sold my state a bill of goods based on projected need for electricity that anyone who took introductory microeconomics should have recognized as significantly overstated. The forecasted that, by now, we’d need something like 15 nukes for our power demand. We have one that was built as part of a weapons program.

From my reading, my understanding is that the private market won’t touch these suckers. No private financing available. And they require a massive subsidy in the form of immunity from civil liability.

There is also the problem of the need for water — something we’re running a little short of in the west.

If the industry could get its act together, having caseload nuclear generation to support wind and solar would be ideal.

But, hey, fusion is just around the corner. Just like it has been for decades…
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by drumdude »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:09 pm
But, hey, fusion is just around the corner. Just like it has been for decades…
Fusion doesn't even make sense with back of the envelope calculations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by canpakes »

.
Interesting idea. Seems like a great way to harvest power on the same acreage as certain crops, and it comes with the possibility of additional financial benefit to the farmer.

MATT SIMON10.14.21 7:00 AM
FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Growing Crops Under Solar Panels? Now There’s a Bright Idea

In Jack's Solar Garden in Boulder County, Colorado, owner Byron Kominek has covered 4 of his 24 acres with solar panels. The farm is growing a huge array of crops underneath them—carrots, kale, tomatoes, garlic, beets, radishes, lettuce, and more. It’s also been generating enough electricity to power 300 homes. “We decided to go about this in terms of needing to figure out how to make more money for land that we thought should be doing more,” Kominek says.

Rooftops are so 2020. If humanity’s going to stave off the worst of climate change, people will need to get creative about where they put solar panels. Now scientists are thinking about how to cover canals with them, reducing evaporation while generating power. Airports are filling up their open space with sun-eaters. And space doesn’t get much more open than on a farm: Why not stick a solar array in a field and plant crops underneath? It’s a new scientific (and literal) field known as agrivoltaics—agriculture plus photovoltaics—and it’s not as counterintuitive as it might seem.

Yes, plants need sunlight, but some need less than others, and indeed get stressed by too many photons. Shading those crops means they will require less water, which rapidly evaporates in an open field. Plus, plants “sweat,” which cools the panels overhead and boosts their efficiency.

“It is a rare win-win-win,” says Greg Barron-Gafford, an earth system scientist at University of Arizona who’s studying agrivoltaics. “By growing these crops in the shade of solar arrays, we reduce the amount of that intense sunlight that bakes off the water and stresses out the plant.” Barron-Gafford is among the recipients of a new $10 million grant from the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture to research agrivoltaics for different regions, crops, and climates.

Barron-Gafford has been running experiments to quantify several variables—like growth, water use, and energy production—to determine which crops might benefit most. For instance, he’s grown salsa ingredients—cilantro, peppers, and tomatoes—and found that they grow just as well, if not better, under solar panels than in the open. They also only use half the water. (“Think if you spilled your water bottle in the shade versus the sun,” says Barron-Gafford.) He also found that the panels significantly reduce air temperatures, which would benefit farmworkers tending to the plants. His work suggests that the panels might act as a protective bubble to shield crops from extreme heat associated with climate change, which overwhelms crops and decreases their yields.
More at:

https://www.wired.com/story/growing-cro ... ight-idea/
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Chap »

drumdude wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:21 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:09 pm
But, hey, fusion is just around the corner. Just like it has been for decades…
Fusion doesn't even make sense with back of the envelope calculations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U
Let us rather say that fusion power is 'unlikely to power a major part of our energy grid by 2040'. It is not going to solve our immediate energy needs. That's not really the same as saying it 'doesn't make sense'.

The way ahead for fusion

As the construction of the ITER tokamak enters its next phase — the machine assembly — now is a good time for a recap of the history and current status of nuclear fusion research.

Nature Physics volume 16, page 889 (2020)
Sometimes small changes can have a big effect. When Ernest Rutherford, Marcus Oliphant and Paul Harteck carried out experiments in 1934, they were “surprised to find that on bombarding heavy hydrogen with diplons [deuterons] an enormous effect was produced”1, whereas in previous studies with alpha particles impinging on a deuterium target, no significant effect had been observed. Besides the discovery of tritium and helium-3, their experiment achieved the first fusion reactions in the laboratory — fusion research took off with a bang.

Among the first concepts of magnetic confinement fusion devices were the stellarator (with its helically twisted plasma shape), proposed by the American physicist Lyman Spitzer, and the tokamak (which confines the plasma in the form of a donut), introduced by Soviet scientists Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm. Another approach (inertial confinement fusion), put forward by John Nuckolls and colleagues, implodes capsules filled with heavy hydrogen isotopes using high-energy laser beams2.

Today’s fusion community actively explores all these paths — alongside other concepts — as we highlighted in a special Insight issue back in 2016. In September 2019, the Nature Conference “Advances and Applications in Plasma Physics” not only brought together scientists working on different fusion concepts but also connected the wider plasma physics community — from astrophysical plasmas to laser–plasma interactions, cold/dusty plasmas and applications. In the sessions dedicated to magnetic confinement fusion, the ambivalence of the audience was tangible: will the ITER tokamak (which is Latin for ‘the way’) live up to expectations and demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion power?

Large-scale international projects come into existence on the timescale of decades rather than years, and ITER is no exception. As Matteo Barbarino recounts in a Comment on the history of nuclear fusion, the ITER collaboration was founded more than thirty years ago by the European Union (through the Euratom treaty), Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States, who were later joined by the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and India. From the initial proposal to the start of construction in the South of France, around twenty years should pass.

Problems with the design and management issues delayed the start of operations and led to a substantially revised budget of roughly €20 billion. However, following the arrival of Director-General Bernard Bigot in 2015, a root and branch review of the project led to a new baseline design. This revised schedule marked a turning point for the construction of ITER: the first hydrogen plasma discharge is expected in 2025, and the work to achieve this is 70% complete and therefore on track. We spoke to Bernard Bigot and Tim Luce, head of ITER’s Science & Operations Department, about the status of the project. You can read the conversation elsewhere in this issue.

The progress is most strikingly visible at the ITER worksite in St. Paul-lez-Durance, France. Earlier this year, the tokamak building was handed over to the ITER Organization and the 1,250-tonne cryostat base was installed within the required precision of only 3 mm. With the first major components, such as toroidal or poloidal magnetic field coils, also arriving on site, the focus has now shifted from the construction of the infrastructure to machine assembly, a milestone that was celebrated on 28 July.

The next milestones include the commissioning of the liquid helium cryogenic plant and the pre-assembly of the (nine) vacuum vessel sectors with two toroidal magnetic field coils each and thermal shielding, with the first module expected to be installed towards the end of the year. In addition, the first of six magnets making up the central solenoid is expected to be shipped from the United States to France later this year. The solenoid will be the last major component to be installed before the cryostat will be closed up in late 2024, followed by a period of integrated commissioning and testing to prepare for First Plasma.

Of course, these milestones might require some adjustment due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: work on site has been reduced to critical activities with precautionary safety measures in place and lockdown measures such as the temporary closures of workshops or factories in individual member states might affect the delivery of critical components. A report on the impact is expected this month, but Bernard Bigot believes this not to be a major setback.

The strong performance and vigorous pace of progress demonstrated by the ITER Organization in reaching critical milestones of the new baseline has also shifted public perception. The conversation is now less cynical compared to the first, rather troubled, years of the project — with the growing public awareness that the issue of climate change becomes ever more urgent. After First Plasma, installation of critical components for deuterium–tritium operation such as additional heating or a fuel recycling system will prepare the machine for its ultimate goal: the demonstration of the feasibility of fusion power is expected to commence in 2035. This seems like a long way down the road, but ITER’s recent track record is impressive.

Although ITER will not be the immediate solution to the problem of clean and affordable energy, it will be crucial in informing the design of the next generation of fusion reactors that will produce electricity instead of heat. Scientists are thinking way ahead: conceptual designs for commercial tokamaks as a globally distributable, sustainable supply of energy are already underway. This is the way towards a future with safe and sustainable energy.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Cultellus

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Cultellus »

I found some really good links on the internet that say some of what you guys say about climate change and some different things.

Some people agree and some disagree.

Should we all be super duper scared of this Glabal Warming crap or just mostly scared?
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: Thread for discussing climate change

Post by Gunnar »

I am convinced that the discussion should be at least as much about the economic, environmental, entrepreneurial, health and job creation benefits of working to achieve a green, sustainable economy, as about the potential dangers of failure to achieve it. The Rocky Mountain Institute is one of the most intriguing and effective organizations pointing the way.
RMI is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization of experts across disciplines working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve lives. Since our founding in 1982 by Amory Lovins, RMI’s chairman emeritus, we have grown to 300 staff working on four continents with a global reach and reputation.

Our Mission: Transforming the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.


I encourage you to explore their site. There is a lot of fascinating, exciting information there about what they have already achieved and hope to achieve.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Post Reply