Upper Atmosphere Cooling

[Bristol-Cruiser]

Perhaps @Bristol-Cruiser has something to add in this regard?

I wish I did. Xi has followed Mao's model of making sure that he has no real rivals, although using different methods. For Mao, the best example was the Cultural Revolution in which a number of potential threats were neutralized. A guy named Lin Bao, who was pretty much the biggest rival for Mao died in a plane crash that likely was not an accident. For Xi, the fight against corruption has provided a handle opportunity to put people he doesn't like in prison. He has also fought against the Chinese 'oligarchs' (if I can use that term) to reduce the enormous power they were developing.

When Mao died his successor was nominally Hua Guofeng who was really a non-entity who was quickly, and non-violently replaced by Deng Xiaoping who set the country on its remarkable transition to a largely market economy. Deng was an old Communist and had seen his stock go up and down a number of times over the decades. During the CR he was very much on the outs.

Xi has not suggested publicly who might take over after him. The members of the Standing Committee of the Politboro (6 men) are entirely Xi loyalists and I am not aware of any seen as likely rvals. This could change if Xi were seen to be seriously ill. People in the West should know more about the Standing Committee since it is where the real power lies in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_Standing_Committee_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party

Edit: I had another thought and it is about Xi's mortality and his place in history. He sees that Mao and later Deng fundamentally changed the country. He has a vision for what he wants China to be but realizes that he will not live all that long, could be 10 years or a bit more, could be somewhat less. This might lead to a potential invasion of Taiwan before its chance of success is high. I think what has happened to Russia has chastened him dramatically. I would not be surprised to see his main focus shifting to taking advantage of a much weakened Russia.

 

[epoxypete]

You must be baiting with those figues, or reading old studies from the 70s on the Net return on energy invested.

If only it was that simple, Boomer. The figures I stated are from 2021-22, not 40 odd year old studies. Corrupting so much of the data and thus misleading folks, are the giant subsidies wind and solar receive, the near complete avoidance of truly calculating energy used for production/mining,processing,transportation,manufacturing, and recycling, while narrowly focusing on only generation of power.This gives the press and even politicians a distorted profile for renewables like wind and solar.
Wind and solar by their very nature, were, are and will remain the most dilute and unreliable sources of energy. "The sun don't always shine and da wind she don't always blow,mon ." as someone once famously said. And she is correct!
I would like to see far more expansion and use of nuclear power stations, as these have small land footprints and produce reliable energy on demand all day and night long.

 

[veni vidi vici]

 

[boomer]

If only it was that simple, Boomer. The figures I stated are from 2021-22, not 40 odd year old studies. Corrupting so much of the data and thus misleading folks, are the giant subsidies wind and solar receive, the near complete avoidance of truly calculating energy used for production/mining,processing,transportation,manufacturing, and recycling, while narrowly focusing on only generation of power.This gives the press and even politicians a distorted profile for renewables like wind and solar.
Wind and solar by their very nature, were, are and will remain the most dilute and unreliable sources of energy. "The sun don't always shine and da wind she don't always blow,mon ." as someone once famously said. And she is correct!
I would like to see far more expansion and use of nuclear power stations, as these have small land footprints and produce reliable energy on demand all day and night long.

Provide a link for this study.

Wind and Solar https://thundersaidenergy.com/2023/03/23/eroei-energy-return-on-energy-invested/

 

[boomer]

Commitments made by governments to date fall far short of what is required. Current national climate plans – for 193 Parties to the Paris Agreement taken together – would lead to a sizable increase of almost 11% in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. Getting to net zero requires all governments – first and foremost the biggest emitters – to significantly strengthen their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and take bold, immediate steps towards reducing emissions now.

To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C – as called for in the Paris Agreement – all counties emissions in total need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Reductions of 25-30% won't do it.

The Group of 20 (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union) are responsible for about 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The top seven emitters (China, the United States of America, India, the European Union, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Brazil) accounted for about half of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The only way we achieve this is if all counties reduce CO2 emissions to 30%, is carbon capture of at least 13-15% and methane capture of 3-5%. But the most viable way is reducing CO2 with renewables. The alternative is doing nothing and burning up.

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.


Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

 

[Gissie]

I wish I did. Xi has followed Mao's model of making sure that he has no real rivals, although using different methods. For Mao, the best example was the Cultural Revolution in which a number of potential threats were neutralized. A guy named Lin Bao, who was pretty much the biggest rival for Mao died in a plane crash that likely was not an accident. For Xi, the fight against corruption has provided a handle opportunity to put people he doesn't like in prison. He has also fought against the Chinese 'oligarchs' (if I can use that term) to reduce the enormous power they were developing.

When Mao died his successor was nominally Hua Guofeng who was really a non-entity who was quickly, and non-violently replaced by Deng Xiaoping who set the country on its remarkable transition to a largely market economy. Deng was an old Communist and had seen his stock go up and down a number of times over the decades. During the CR he was very much on the outs.

Xi has not suggested publicly who might take over after him. The members of the Standing Committee of the Politboro (6 men) are entirely Xi loyalists and I am not aware of any seen as likely rvals. This could change if Xi were seen to be seriously ill. People in the West should know more about the Standing Committee since it is where the real power lies in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_Standing_Committee_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party

Edit: I had another thought and it is about Xi's mortality and his place in history. He sees that Mao and later Deng fundamentally changed the country. He has a vision for what he wants China to be but realizes that he will not live all that long, could be 10 years or a bit more, could be somewhat less. This might lead to a potential invasion of Taiwan before its chance of success is high. I think what has happened to Russia has chastened him dramatically. I would not be surprised to see his main focus shifting to taking advantage of a much weakened Russia.

When Xi first took over he declared war on corruption which was greeted as signs of hope by those further down the ladder. Then it became apparent that it was all a smokescreen to weed out any potential competition. The fall out had some interesting unforeseen effects.

For me the big one was customs. Gone were the days of a CD case of money slid across the table. Those at the coalface didn't want to get caught up, but at the same time no one really knew what the rules were. Was carnage for around six months as it got sorted out. In the long run it was a good thing for China, just wish it was when I wasn't there at the time.

The other was the top restaurants and bars. Once the domain of the rich and entitled, suddenly they were more than happy to have anyone with some money walk through the door. Many even shut down during golden week, normally a time to splash out on those you wish to impress.

As for Taiwan, I am not sure if they prefer it as a bogeyman they can bring out to stir up some nationalism when the lower ranks get restless. There is already lots of Taiwanese investment in China and hat will only grow, the takeover could well be bloodless given time. My concern was if China's economy truly tanked, something that could really cause shit to flow. Invading Taiwan would be an easy out. Chinese are very proud of their country and given the right story it would be all on. Losses not that important compared to the middle class focusing their anger on the standing committee.

As for a weakened Russia, they have already been slowly moving in over the border in places. It will certainly continue.

 

[Gissie]

The only way we achieve this is if all counties reduce CO2 emissions to 30%, is carbon capture of at least 13-15% and methane capture of 3-5%. But the most viable way is reducing CO2 with renewables. The alternative is doing nothing and burning up.

Yet this is an impossible ask. Not in the time frame demanded. Not in the slightest. So there is the conundrum, we need to cut back to unachievable targets or we are all going to die.

Running around telling everyone we are all going to die, while at the same time pushing the tipping point of certain death further out when it gets close doesn't help. The average human, just trying to get by, feed the kids, pay the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home), survive the year, no longer care.

Why would they. The calamity is starting to look like fusion reactors, it will be here next year. But next year never comes. The strident extremist makes things even worse - there must be no discussion, you are a believer or a sceptic. Sceptics are, by modern definition fascist Nazis and should be locked up for daring to question The Word. Even though The Word is now on revision 356.

So we waste our time and energy on things that tinker futilely around the edges. Things we can proudly point to and scream 'I am doing my bit'. But you aren't, you aren't making actual sacrifices that hurt. Shit no, that's for others to do. You demand solar panels with no idea on what to do with them in 25 years when millions around the world need to be dumped. Plus they will need to be replaced, wonder where they will come from. And you demand wind turbines with no plan on where to buy the blades when they need replacing. Well we do know one place you don't want them buried - in your back yard.

Future generations will look back at zealots, like yourself, in amazement. They will wonder why, why with all the warning you didn't plan for what is coming. Why did you waste your time supporting idiocy, when you could have used your time and expertise to come up with a realistic plan

Is it hubris, gullibility, lack of intelligence (certainly not in your case booms), wanting to be part of a screaming crowd. I just cannot understand it. Let's assume the science is correct this time, why no effort into preparing for the worst. Surely at most it would be wasted money, at best it would be invaluable to following generations.

But to suggest such a plan is to bring down the wrath of the zealot. We must not give up they cry. We can do this with the new technology that is coming. And on and on and on. Look at random for a great example of the this, perhaps even a mirror.

So whatever is coming is going to arrive, even if you hide under your lovely solar panels. Your greatgrandkids will wonder why, instead of getting all religious, you didn't do something to help them.

 

[boomer]

Yet this is an impossible ask. Not in the time frame demanded. Not in the slightest. So there is the conundrum, we need to cut back to unachievable targets or we are all going to die.

Running around telling everyone we are all going to die, while at the same time pushing the tipping point of certain death further out when it gets close doesn't help. The average human, just trying to get by, feed the kids, pay the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home), survive the year, no longer care.

Why would they. The calamity is starting to look like fusion reactors, it will be here next year. But next year never comes. The strident extremist makes things even worse - there must be no discussion, you are a believer or a sceptic. Sceptics are, by modern definition fascist Nazis and should be locked up for daring to question The Word. Even though The Word is now on revision 356.

So we waste our time and energy on things that tinker futilely around the edges. Things we can proudly point to and scream 'I am doing my bit'. But you aren't, you aren't making actual sacrifices that hurt. Shit no, that's for others to do. You demand solar panels with no idea on what to do with them in 25 years when millions around the world need to be dumped. Plus they will need to be replaced, wonder where they will come from. And you demand wind turbines with no plan on where to buy the blades when they need replacing. Well we do know one place you don't want them buried - in your back yard.

Future generations will look back at zealots, like yourself, in amazement. They will wonder why, why with all the warning you didn't plan for what is coming. Why did you waste your time supporting idiocy, when you could have used your time and expertise to come up with a realistic plan

Is it hubris, gullibility, lack of intelligence (certainly not in your case booms), wanting to be part of a screaming crowd. I just cannot understand it. Let's assume the science is correct this time, why no effort into preparing for the worst. Surely at most it would be wasted money, at best it would be invaluable to following generations.

But to suggest such a plan is to bring down the wrath of the zealot. We must not give up they cry. We can do this with the new technology that is coming. And on and on and on. Look at random for a great example of the this, perhaps even a mirror.

So whatever is coming is going to arrive, even if you hide under your lovely solar panels. Your greatgrandkids will wonder why, instead of getting all religious, you didn't do something to help them.

Never been one to give up, can't and won't aren't words I use, but rarely.

We’ve (my wife and I) aligned our life to be more in balance with the planet for the past 50 years since before coming down from Alaska. Building an envelope house with throm wall up through several floors to capture and hold heat in the winter and a rock and concrete throm under the envelope greenhouse portion, to add heating and cooling mass in the summer, for our first home stateside, which was common with back to the landers in the 70s. Embracing a basic off the grid lifestyle, raising our own beef, raising both egg laying and meat producing chickens, raising duck and geese, raising goats and milking them. Raising most of own vegetables and fruit.

I've been retired 12 years, and took even more sustainability measures since retiring - reducing car dependence, I reduced driving from 35-50K a year, to 10 K a year, then since 2015 to 5-6K a year, since 2018 reduced it more to an average of 2500 miles a year. Increased my biking and walking more since 2016. Since 2014 reduced air travel to nothing. Kept the thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer, though we don't use a thermostat much, more relying on passive solar for heat, and stone and concrete mass for cooling. Cut back on eating beef to about once per week since 2012, now eat red meat (beef) once a month. We've always got a lot more out of purchase. If we buy something new, it’s from a trusted brand that will last. We actually found that frugality and sustainability go hand in hand. Use it up, wear it out. Make do or do without we use this motto and mend many things and when we buy things, we choose items that will last and can be repaired. When making purchase decisions, we think refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order. I get a kick out of using my imagination and patience to figure out a way to get by without buying something. Modern society prioritizes convenience over everything else, so this is a challenge to train yourself to do. Buy groceries with less packaging. Share with neighbors and friends. Help the elderly in our town with projects, they can't do or afford - which is more about giving back to our community. That's the short list, everything we do is in regards to sustainability, if that means a quick shower, once or twice a week, and sponge baths the rest the time, since retiring - then so be it.

What methods I've come up early within this thread - aren't stick your head in the sand approach. Making something happen. Doing something, anything, is preferable to doing nothing at all. The difficult should be done directly, doing the impossible, takes outside the box thinking, and takes a wee bit longer.

At the end of the day, our biggest problem isn’t climate change. It’s us.

To address climate change, we need to change ourselves. Rather than keep focusing on what we can do to ‘treat’ the symptoms of climate change, we need to dedicate ourselves to curing the underlying cause, and shifting our own behavior.

It won’t be easy, and it won’t be painless, but when we stop simply relying on the status quo and instead explore the problem, we find that we actually already have solutions ready and available.

We can stop blaming others for not doing enough, take responsibility, and help lead the change. All that remains is to get on with it.

Outside the box solutions to climate change

MIT engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air

World’s largest carbon removal facility could suck up 5 million metric tonnes of CO2 yearly

Fully decarbonizing global industry is essential to achieving climate stabilization. I think you want to read the amazing paper "Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070". Bottom line: There are many more pitfalls to decarbonization than carbon capture. Leakage (some might call this off shoring), policy makers being controlled by vested interests, lack of global incentive are key problems. That's where the legal aspects, brought up earlier come into play. Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070

Earth will continue to get warmer and warmer due to CO2, so we HAVE to remove CO2 in the air to stop the temperature from rising to above +2 degC from what it was before the industrial revolution

In terms of trying to reach a pre-industrial average temperature (or reducing the average temperature more generally), in the short term this would require carbon capture and storage. However, this does not mean that emission reduction is pointless. In general, yes, even if we stop emitting any CO2 (and methane, etc) tomorrow, we have already "baked in" some amount of warming given the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere + the warming that has already occurred. However, when you hear people talking about "limiting us to X degrees of warming", we're generally talking about different projections of how emissions will evolve and the projected outcomes of those in terms of global temperature, etc. Thus, reduction of emissions now limits the amount of future warming compared to the alternative of continuing to emit at current rates (or increasing emissions). Also generally, the negative outcomes of climate change scale with the degree of warming, so limiting the amount of warming is far from pointless.


BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, also sounds too good to be true. But in its 2018 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change described carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies including BECCS as indispensable if warming is to be limited to 1.5C. CDR could offset remaining emissions from sectors where zero carbon is not feasible by absorbing between 100 billion and 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 by 2100. Existing and potential CDR measures include forestation, land restoration and soil carbon sequestration, BECCS, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering and ocean alkalinisation. These vary widely in terms of maturity, potential, costs and risks, with only forestation and BECCS close to maturity.

Carbon is removed from the atmosphere by plants via photosynthesis, and the higher the carbon content of the atmosphere the more carbon plants capture. How many trees have you planted on your property? Just getting everyone to plant trees, shouldn't be to difficult, even if only a few trees are planted. Plant a couple 10 billion trees would go a long way to carbon capture via photosynthesis. Join in with tree planting organizations. 15 Organizations to Plant Trees With If planting 500 trees a years is what it takes to offset out carbon footprint, then so be it.

Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage (DACCS) is an approach to carbon removal in which mechanical systems capture carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the atmosphere and compress it to be injected into geological storage or used to make long-lasting products, such as cement. There are a variety of technologies for doing this. Some use chemicals that bind with CO2 in the air and release the CO2 when heated. Others use changes in temperature, humidity, or electrical charge to capture and release CO2.

Other uses of direct air capture technology, such as using captured CO2 in greenhouses or to manufacture synthetic fuels, are a form of carbon capture, or “carbon recycling” because the CO2 returns to the atmosphere quickly after the products are consumed. Synthetic fuels made with direct air capture (“air-to-fuels”) could still contribute to mitigating climate change by displacing fossil fuels.

The potential scale of carbon removal via DACCS could be very large because it requires far less land than approaches like bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and forestation and because it could be sited near appropriate geological reservoirs, avoiding the need for extensive pipelines. Carbon Engineering claims its Texas facility will capture CO2 at around $200 per ton, and after start up, more facilities project costs will fall to $100 a ton or less.

To begin, as hard as it may be, we need to recognize that (with few exceptions) we are all a part of the problem. Carbon emissions are high because generally speaking we as a society pushed them there. Historically, we didn’t know it would be an issue. Now we do though, and we need to acknowledge and embrace that as part of the solution will be changing our own behavior. This will mean different things for each us of, from addressing how we live, to where we go, and even what we’re willing to pay in order to get there.

Once we’ve taken responsibility however, we can own it. Better yet, we can make it work for us.

 

[Gissie]

Never been one to give up, can't and won't aren't words I use, but rarely.

We’ve (my wife and I) aligned our life to be more in balance with the planet for the past 50 years since before coming down from Alaska. Building an envelope house with throm wall up through several floors to capture and hold heat in the winter and a rock and concrete throm under the envelope greenhouse portion, to add heating and cooling mass in the summer, for our first home stateside, which was common with back to the landers in the 70s. Embracing a basic off the grid lifestyle, raising our own beef, raising both egg laying and meat producing chickens, raising duck and geese, raising goats and milking them. Raising most of own vegetables and fruit.

I've been retired 12 years, and took even more sustainability measures since retiring - reducing car dependence, I reduced driving from 35-50K a year, to 10 K a year, then since 2015 to 5-6K a year, since 2018 reduced it more to an average of 2500 miles a year. Increased my biking and walking more since 2016. Since 2014 reduced air travel to nothing. Kept the thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer, though we don't use a thermostat much, more relying on passive solar for heat, and stone and concrete mass for cooling. Cut back on eating beef to about once per week since 2012, now eat red meat (beef) once a month. We've always got a lot more out of purchase. If we buy something new, it’s from a trusted brand that will last. We actually found that frugality and sustainability go hand in hand. Use it up, wear it out. Make do or do without we use this motto and mend many things and when we buy things, we choose items that will last and can be repaired. When making purchase decisions, we think refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order. I get a kick out of using my imagination and patience to figure out a way to get by without buying something. Modern society prioritizes convenience over everything else, so this is a challenge to train yourself to do. Buy groceries with less packaging. Share with neighbors and friends. Help the elderly in our town with projects, they can't do or afford - which is more about giving back to our community. That's the short list, everything we do is in regards to sustainability, if that means a quick shower, once or twice a week, and sponge baths the rest the time, since retiring - then so be it.

What methods I've come up early within this thread - aren't stick your head in the sand approach. Making something happen. Doing something, anything, is preferable to doing nothing at all. The difficult should be done directly, doing the impossible, takes outside the box thinking, and takes a wee bit longer.

At the end of the day, our biggest problem isn’t climate change. It’s us.

To address climate change, we need to change ourselves. Rather than keep focusing on what we can do to ‘treat’ the symptoms of climate change, we need to dedicate ourselves to curing the underlying cause, and shifting our own behavior.

It won’t be easy, and it won’t be painless, but when we stop simply relying on the status quo and instead explore the problem, we find that we actually already have solutions ready and available.

We can stop blaming others for not doing enough, take responsibility, and help lead the change. All that remains is to get on with it.

Outside the box solutions to climate change

MIT engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air

World’s largest carbon removal facility could suck up 5 million metric tonnes of CO2 yearly

Fully decarbonizing global industry is essential to achieving climate stabilization. I think you want to read the amazing paper "Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070". Bottom line: There are many more pitfalls to decarbonization than carbon capture. Leakage (some might call this off shoring), policy makers being controlled by vested interests, lack of global incentive are key problems. That's where the legal aspects, brought up earlier come into play. Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070

Earth will continue to get warmer and warmer due to CO2, so we HAVE to remove CO2 in the air to stop the temperature from rising to above +2 degC from what it was before the industrial revolution

In terms of trying to reach a pre-industrial average temperature (or reducing the average temperature more generally), in the short term this would require carbon capture and storage. However, this does not mean that emission reduction is pointless. In general, yes, even if we stop emitting any CO2 (and methane, etc) tomorrow, we have already "baked in" some amount of warming given the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere + the warming that has already occurred. However, when you hear people talking about "limiting us to X degrees of warming", we're generally talking about different projections of how emissions will evolve and the projected outcomes of those in terms of global temperature, etc. Thus, reduction of emissions now limits the amount of future warming compared to the alternative of continuing to emit at current rates (or increasing emissions). Also generally, the negative outcomes of climate change scale with the degree of warming, so limiting the amount of warming is far from pointless.


BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, also sounds too good to be true. But in its 2018 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change described carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies including BECCS as indispensable if warming is to be limited to 1.5C. CDR could offset remaining emissions from sectors where zero carbon is not feasible by absorbing between 100 billion and 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 by 2100. Existing and potential CDR measures include forestation, land restoration and soil carbon sequestration, BECCS, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering and ocean alkalinisation. These vary widely in terms of maturity, potential, costs and risks, with only forestation and BECCS close to maturity.

Carbon is removed from the atmosphere by plants via photosynthesis, and the higher the carbon content of the atmosphere the more carbon plants capture. How many trees have you planted on your property? Just getting everyone to plant trees, shouldn't be to difficult, even if only a few trees are planted. Plant a couple 10 billion trees would go a long way to carbon capture via photosynthesis. Join in with tree planting organizations. 15 Organizations to Plant Trees With If planting 500 trees a years is what it takes to offset out carbon footprint, then so be it.

Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage (DACCS) is an approach to carbon removal in which mechanical systems capture carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the atmosphere and compress it to be injected into geological storage or used to make long-lasting products, such as cement. There are a variety of technologies for doing this. Some use chemicals that bind with CO2 in the air and release the CO2 when heated. Others use changes in temperature, humidity, or electrical charge to capture and release CO2.

Other uses of direct air capture technology, such as using captured CO2 in greenhouses or to manufacture synthetic fuels, are a form of carbon capture, or “carbon recycling” because the CO2 returns to the atmosphere quickly after the products are consumed. Synthetic fuels made with direct air capture (“air-to-fuels”) could still contribute to mitigating climate change by displacing fossil fuels.

The potential scale of carbon removal via DACCS could be very large because it requires far less land than approaches like bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and forestation and because it could be sited near appropriate geological reservoirs, avoiding the need for extensive pipelines. Carbon Engineering claims its Texas facility will capture CO2 at around $200 per ton, and after start up, more facilities project costs will fall to $100 a ton or less.

To begin, as hard as it may be, we need to recognize that (with few exceptions) we are all a part of the problem. Carbon emissions are high because generally speaking we as a society pushed them there. Historically, we didn’t know it would be an issue. Now we do though, and we need to acknowledge and embrace that as part of the solution will be changing our own behavior. This will mean different things for each us of, from addressing how we live, to where we go, and even what we’re willing to pay in order to get there.

Once we’ve taken responsibility however, we can own it. Better yet, we can make it work for us.

Boomer, we will never agree. I do wonder if part of it is it is easy to see the problem from our own life and culture. For the US to run down the road of expensive carbon capture and 'green' power is possible. Maybe. Although once the real costs need to be paid for there could be push back.

Then there is the rest of the world. Take our little place. We could go carbon neutral sort of. However we would need to destroy our main form of income to do it. There are certainly plenty kiwis that think we need to push ahead and do this, but it is just unrealistic. Might as well let the world burn and take our chances.

Then you get countries like India and China. They need energy, lots of it and it needs to be cheap. China could do what the US is doing, but the economic fallout would topple the government. So unlikely.

Then there are the other developing countries. Again they need energy, plentiful cheap energy. When your choice is survive the next week or perhaps save the world in 100 years time, the answer is easy and not the one you want.

Like you, I also live a reasonably simple life, although my home doesn't have tonnes of polluting concrete in it. 😉 I have planted over 100 trees, without including the regeneration. But so what.

I can claim I have a simple and small footprint. The reality is I still rely on all the other stuff to keep going. The roads, trucks, shipping, oil and coal for plastics. Cities to keep the banks going and the services. Shit there is no real need for the internet as it chews through vast amount of power with it's huge server farms. Yet try and turn them off and every greenie will have your nuts.

So let's leave it alone. Assuming the science is correct I hope your dreams of carbon capture and a world of no oil and gas arrives in time. Personally I wish there was a lot more money and planning on what to do if your plan fails to deliver. We have a dream of a plan A, with no plan B.

 

[Goodvibes]

What you leftwits can not understand (or at least admit) that the greatest immediate threat the world now faces is not climate change, but China's expansion and world domination.

 

[boomer]

All depends what one's needs are in regards to electricity and power. In Alaska we lived in a simple small cabin without electricity. We used batteries for the radio, and gas for cooking and lighting. In the winter the cabin would snow over, except the peak and the stove stack, which meant digging down through 8'-10' of snow to gain access. Running water could be bucketing water in galvanized bucket during a snowstorm whiteout, or giving birth to child in a snowstorm white out. Not many experience that, let alone want to. Before I came to Alaska I spent time in SE Asia, the Indian Ocean, then on to New Guinea for humanitarian projects where we drilled wells and installed water systems the indigenous New Guinea triblal people, many whom didn't see a point of a water system, replacing there simple community water catchment. Then went to Micronesia and the Truk atoll, where everyone embraced anything we could do in terms of installing westernized infrastructure, water systems, clinics, schools and community meeting centers. The point is, not everyone embraces western culture. Even in island countries like Philippines, not everyone wanted western culture in the early 70s, though most did.

When we finally returned stateside, and I'd been saving every cent I could, continued our saving ways - to save up for buying property and put enough cash together to build a home and outbuildings and fencing for livestock, roughed it on a Columbia 38, then a CT 41 in '76, as we fixed them up for resale. When we built our envelope house, we first tried the no electricity route again, using Alladin Kerosene Lamps and a Shipmate Kerosene oven with three burners on top. Milking goats, besides cleaning the udder and milking, require straining the milk through cheese cloth, and then immediately put on ice, Raising beef and foul and butchering foul and 100 Cornish Cross Chickens for meat, is what drove us to finally get electricity, so we could run two refrigerators and three freezers. I know most people, can't, don't won't live like that - most want to have the Westernized conveniences. But it was a good way to live and raise kids, in a way that few experience. Fortunately my wife a farm girl was raised similar, which made it easier all the way around.

Since 2000 when we cruise anywhere to the San Juans, British Columbia or up the inside passage, we like the convenience of GPS and staying connected in remote locations, first with cell towers, and now with Satellite which wasn't always possible. But if we had to let those two conveniences go we could. Getting rid of a 1000 watt inverter, would be a toss up, since I like the convenience of the inverter, as long as we're making power for a number of things on board, besides computers and devices. I also like bringing dark roast coffee beans, for a good cup of drip coffee, wherever I go, is about the only thing I wouldn't want to give up.

Despite both of us being early tree-huggers, we didn't know much about what the worst polluters were, though we practiced good earth husbandry as best as we knew back then and still do, but with more enlightenment. Using concrete was a no-brainer, for a good solid foundation, and for having mass for heating and cooling for my homes. The net gain in heating and cooling after 40 years, offset the CO2 from manufacturing concrete long ago. It wasn't till recent years I found out about concrete - and in my line of work building bridges, dams and upgrading hydro-electric power stations, as well as constructing cofferdams, docks, wharfs, piers and large waterfront structures for Port District and federal or military infrastructure projects, we used much concrete. Except in some cases where steel can be used, concrete is one of the most versatile materials worldwide for infrastructure projects.

Being in leadership roles most my life, it goes against my beliefs and everything I was taught in the Seabees, and all the projects since. I don't believe in doing nothing. I live by the old Seabee sayings of, "Can do" & "The Difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a bit long" especially if it takes developing a plan well outside the box. Sometimes one just has to soldier on and get it done despite the obstacles, even if the food is horrible.

 

[epoxypete]

I am not certain this PDF link will work,Boomer, but if it does, it is worth the read. I hope it entertains further discussion on the subject at hand.

En: Full Cost of Electricity ‘FCOE’ and Energy Returns ‘eROI’ De: Strom-Vollkosten 'FCOE' und Energierenditen 'eROI'

this paper is available in English and German (both in the same download pdf file)<br><br>Reprint of Peer-reviewed paper <br>https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/ind

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

 

[boomer]

I am not certain this PDF link will work,Boomer, but if it does, it is worth the read. I hope it entertains further discussion on the subject at hand.

En: Full Cost of Electricity ‘FCOE’ and Energy Returns ‘eROI’ De: Strom-Vollkosten 'FCOE' und Energierenditen 'eROI'

this paper is available in English and German (both in the same download pdf file)<br><br>Reprint of Peer-reviewed paper <br>https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/ind

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

Thanks Pete! - will take time to do a complete reading.

 

[boomer]

I am not certain this PDF link will work,Boomer, but if it does, it is worth the read. I hope it entertains further discussion on the subject at hand.

En: Full Cost of Electricity ‘FCOE’ and Energy Returns ‘eROI’ De: Strom-Vollkosten 'FCOE' und Energierenditen 'eROI'

this paper is available in English and German (both in the same download pdf file)<br><br>Reprint of Peer-reviewed paper <br>https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/ind

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

Had to bend on new sails and take them for a spin yesterday, so finished reading this morning. Thanks for the read Pete. Will have to get the three authors book, it should be an interesting read.

Despite solar PV and wind costs coming down dramatically on a strictly per kwh to grid basis, we all know that's not where the real costs are. It's the intermittency, the diffuse nature of the power source being all over the countryside and having to try and concentrate that into the cities, and the seasonal variations.

The biggest takeaway for me is, wind and solar will not be able to replace all other forms of energy by 2050. Energy policy and investors should not favor wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, gas, or coal but should support all energy systems in a manner which avoids energy shortages and energy poverty, including variable ‘renewable’ energy systems where they make sense.


My biggest grip is technological advancement just makes this ridiculously massive impact on EROEI. The best example of this is polycrystalline silicon PV modules. We've gone from requiring 0.25mm wafers (that is massively thick and energy intensive) to 25-40µm wafers, with less and less cutting losses by the year. Likewise, we've gone from high panel costs requiring maximum possible yield (and thus mechanical heliostats) to module costs so low that you can install them in a field. Overall, this has led to not just cost, but actually mostly energy reductions of literally orders of magnitude. And now the important bit: there is no fundamental energy intensiveness floor for PV module manufacturing. In principle, we can get another good order of magnitude wafer thickness reduction, we can use plastics instead of glass for encapsulation and we can get rid of high-energy copper and indium and supplant those with aluminum conductors.

There is this pervasive line of thinking with traditional energy experts that technologies have to be developed until they're ready for the market (price parity), and after that the law of supply & demand will keep the technology at whatever price the market can afford, regardless of underlying cost. With PV solar, this is just not true. The march is monotonically downward, past every other energy source. And yes, I'm now talking economics, but this has just as much bearing on EROEI. Every other energy source has a vastly lower learning effect. PV is in many ways unlike anything else, at least in principle.

Lastly, especially when considering traditional energy sources (fossil, nuclear, hydro), there's a big distinction to be made between overall and marginal costs. When you have a coal mine in place, it scales up extremely well. When your pumpjacks have been drilled, it is almost trivial to ramp up and down oil production by orders of magnitude at basically no cost. Using averages of all energy sources or cherrypicking sources really makes the EROEI calculation opaque. In reality, something like oil has an initial EROEI of <5, but a marginal EROEI of thousands. Conversely, solar and wind don't scale at all. It's an apples and pears comparison.

Reading various other papers on EROEI, I'm very unconvinced that EROEI is a metric at all. It seems to be a single name for something that ambiguously exists in many forms, which has such a low absolute accuracy as to be useless for comparing different energy sources. In energy policy, I'm beyond skeptical about its usefulness.

EROEI can be easily manipulated to get the results you want. Decommissioning assumptions for example - scrap steel from wind turbine towers or solar farm racking can be recycled yielding new steel products at reduced energy investment. Steel recycling requires 1/4 the energy of primary production - not counting the difference in energy requirements for iron ore mining compared to pulling steel posts from the ground. Renewables look bad on an EROEI basis because they require a lot of materials, but the assumptions made about recycling can change that materials cost by a factor of 4, or possibly more.

The reality is that the energy landscape is constantly changing on a monthly basis, every new wind turbine or solar array or power storage device not only changes the equations for the next expansion, both short term and long term, but also for the existing generators/infrastructure. This comes full circle to develop all energy systems in a manner which avoids energy shortages and energy poverty, including variable ‘renewable’ energy systems where they make sense.


One glaring standout - Nuclear power is our best option for a clean, cheap energy solution. The EBR2 is the Experimental Breeder Reactor number 2, a waste-eating nuke. It not only 'ate' nuclear waste, but had passive safety. If the EBR2 design had been used at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the world wouldn't know those names. It ran for decades and had some awesome safety tests where the human operators stood back from the control panels and let a total power failure rip as in the video below.



I notice that we've got around 12,000 reactor years and only 2 bad 'accidents', one of them in a reactor nobody but the Soviets were stupid enough to build and another a natural disaster that modern reactors would have easily survived. Yes, there was an accident called Chernobyl - a reactor we've never built, and running around screaming "We can't build nukes because of Chernobyl" is like shouting "Stop the planes because of the Hindenburg!" Chernobyl, Fukushima, radiation - Oh my!

One final argument the treehuggers won't like - A solar thermal plant uses 15 times the concrete of nuclear, 75 times the steel, and 2,530 times the land. It requires all those mirrors to be cleaned regularly, and service and maintenance of all the swinging mirrors to track the sun during the day. Whether it's solar thermal requiring cleaning and service techs, or all those wind turbines needing regular servicing, and the technicians driving all over the county checking on these wind turbines spread out over miles, you cannot deny that everyone admits that renewables just employs so many people it's legendary for creating 'green jobs'. Oh the jobs! Politicians and reporters wax lyrical about green jobs. EG: The Independent said "US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined, report shows" with the sub-heading "From 2015-2015, solar energy employed 43 per cent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce, while traditional fossil fuels combined made up just 22 per cent, according to report." Let's look at the numbers. According to that report:

"Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report."

But wait a minute: all renewables only produced 12.6% of America's electricity, and 19.8% of the domestically produced electricity in the United States in 2020 and solar was only 1.3% of the country's electricity! That's 374,000 people to provide 1.5% of the jobs, or 24.9 MILLION people to provide 100% solar! (But then you'd still have to build all the PHES or Pumped Hydro Electricity Storage dams to back up solar.)

Now, let's look at nuclear. NEI says there sure are lots of American jobs!

The nuclear energy industry is a powerful engine for job creation. America’s nuclear power plants directly employ nearly 100,000 people in high-quality, long-term jobs. This number climbs to 475,000 when you include secondary jobs. We cannot afford to lose nuclear jobs by closing plants, nor can we afford to miss out on thousands of jobs that building new reactors will create.

Nuclear already supplies 20% of America's electricity. All you need is a fivefold increase in the industry, and you've got 100% clean reliable baseload electricity that actually works at night, and maybe only requires a tiny fraction of the PHES to cover spikes. Multiply the 475k people above by 5, and you get 2.37 million people, less than 10 times the expensive salaries it would take to run America on solar (and again, we're ignoring this thing called "night time" or "wind" in that equation). It's just a side effect of the fact that renewables rely on an energy source spread out diffusely over a vast area, whereas nuclear is all about splitting the atom which generates 2 million times the energy of breaking the chemical bonds in fossil fuels. At this stage in our technological evolution, solar requires 10 times the human input. It's just part of the story of why renewables countries like Germany pay double the cost of electricity of the French who have already mostly cleaned up their grid.

 

[boomer]

What can handle what's coming in the way of extra demand from EV's. Nuclear power. The studies say that we're only going to charge something like 75% of the light vehicles on today's grid. That's with all power plants turned up full. Now, we can demand shift so that more EV's charge when the sun's up beating down on the solar PV, but you can see the immediate effect. The solar PV abundance at lunchtime evaporates as we start to get into EV's in a big way, and nukes get to do what they love: full burn all day long day and night.

 

[billy backstay]

China’s Solar Boom Is Already Accelerating Past Last Year’s Record Surge​

• Nation already had world-leading pace of renewable deployments
• Lower costs, rising power demand driving installations higher

By
Bloomberg News
May 22, 2023 at 7:00 PM EDTUpdated onMay 22, 2023 at 11:57 PM EDT

China’s Solar Boom Is Already Accelerating Past Last Year’s Record Surge

China’s solar sector is accelerating an already world-beating pace of installations as costs tumble and demand keeps rising, putting it on track to rush past last year’s record.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[boomer]

China’s Solar Boom Is Already Accelerating Past Last Year’s Record Surge​

• Nation already had world-leading pace of renewable deployments
• Lower costs, rising power demand driving installations higher

By
Bloomberg News
May 22, 2023 at 7:00 PM EDTUpdated onMay 22, 2023 at 11:57 PM EDT

China’s Solar Boom Is Already Accelerating Past Last Year’s Record Surge

China’s solar sector is accelerating an already world-beating pace of installations as costs tumble and demand keeps rising, putting it on track to rush past last year’s record.

www.bloomberg.com

The only problem is the needed grid infrastructure - is six to eight years behind, with their planned growth they'll fall further behind. The grid catch up time will take 12 years minimum, and up to 16 years to complete properly. The wise dollars in China is investing in next gen smart grid, which ties into a nationwide smart grid, as should Texas, as well as the US as a whole.

China today operates on two wide area synchronous grids: the State Grid in the North and China Southern Power Grid in the South. The grids are operated by two respectively named grid operating companies. Integrating them into two next gen smart grids has been the wise choice.

China’s electric power industry started at the end of the 19th century and developed rapidly, especially after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. The overall grid included AC/DC transmission systems with 500 kV, 330 kV, 220 kV AC lines, and ±500 kV DC lines. Initially, there were six regional grids and three independent provincial grids which were gradually integrated over time. The northern power grids have been synchronized in 2005 and since 2011 all provinces are interconnected. Today’s two regional grids are joined by HVDC back-to-back connections.

Prior to 1994, the electricity supply was managed by the provincial electric power bureaus. To improve the efficiency of the system, utilities today are managed by corporations outside of the government administration structure. While there is a plethora of power companies, thereof are five dominating big ones and several specialized ones such as the China Three Gorges Hydro Cooperations which operates the hydropower plant at the Three-Gorges dam.


According to the most recently available official figures from 2020 provided by the National Bureau of Statistics, thermal – or mainly coal-fired – power remains the biggest source of electricity. A recent IEA report estimates China’s total electricity production for 2021 at 8,100 TWh, an annual increase of 8% from last year. While coal continues to dominate electricity generation with roughly 60%, China has seen the fastest expansion of alternative sources of electricity in recent years. Today, hydropower (17%) and wind power (6%) are making inroads. Electricity from solar PV and natural gas combined made up 3% in 2020, while nuclear power contributed 5%. The Chinese government has set targets for the share of non-hydro renewables of up to 25.9% in 2030 and 36.0% in 2035, expanding its total installed capacity of wind and solar power to over 1 200 GW by 2030.


China’s grid faces the gargantuan task of redistributing power generated in remote but resource-rich inland regions and instead needed in resource-poor, but densely populated, industrially and commercially active coastal regions. For example, hydropower resources proliferate in the Southwest; wind energy resources in the North, Northwest, and Northeast regions, while solar photovoltaic equipment is mainly situated in the Northwest, North, and East regions; and finally, nuclear power plants are mainly distributed in the southeastern coastal areas. Thus, coal remains the fuel of choice for thermal power, as it is an easily transportable, relatively cost-effective commodity, that can be turned into electricity at the site where the power is needed – mainly in coastal regions with high industrial and commercial activity.


In order to cope with the power transmission challenges, China’s government put forward its “Power Transmission from the West to the East” plan in 2005, which stipulated the development of a new 1000 kV UHVAC and ±800 kV UHVDC transmission system. These were expected to increase the power transfer capacity through three important transmission corridors, i.e., the north, mid, and south. With the ascent of renewable energy, this challenge has further increased as – unlike coal – hydro, wind or solar power needs to be transported through long-distance transmission lines from source to end consumer. To this end, China has been installing ultra-high voltage power lines in recent years. These lines transmit energy at 800,000 volts and above, double the voltage of conventional high-voltage lines, allowing them to transmit up to five times more electricity at minimal energy loss. The first UHV line came into operation in 2009 and the system has been expanded to a current network of 31 lines and another 7 lines in the planning over the next 5 years.


However, challenges remain with this technology as many lines are only running at 60% of their design capacity. Issues that hamper the use of the UHV transmission lines to full capacity are manifold: discrepancies in planning that lead to synchronization gaps between the completion of power source and transmission lines, discrepancies in engineering leading to design faults restricting the ability to feed electricity into the grid, as well as market-related issues resulting from different interests and perspectives between supply and demand parties (power generators, grid companies, and local governments) concerning prices, volumes, duration of contractual obligations, etc.

In addition, the amount of green electricity from renewable sources remains wanting as the current technology cannot handle the instability of load from renewable sources. It has to be bundled with other more stable sources, such as coal, to ensure the stability of the grid. A pure-green energy mix presents a risk in that its supply could suddenly drop.


Nevertheless, China’s decarbonization hopes rely on the electrification of the country’s operations – from transport to industrial production. In addition to improving the grid technology is on the government’s agenda. A new generation of UHV lines is expected to be better able to handle solar and wind variability, but such initial technology remains in development. Another technological solution could be the pairing of renewable power sources with storage, making the output less variable and thus more usable by UHV lines. Grid improvement to allow for better use of long-distance UHV transmission lines for the transportation of green electricity will need strong investment into better generation sources, storage capacity, and better market-based supply and demand adjustment.


Beyond improving the technological base of power generation and the grid to achieve China’s decarbonization goals, introducing market-based tools to regulate the use of fossil fuel-based electricity will play a crucial role. According to an EIA report, the secret to China’s decarbonization lies in the improvement of carbon pricing mechanisms and the nationwide ETS system which came into operation in 2021 and is the world’s largest ETS, covering its initial phase annual gas and coal-fired power sector emissions of around 4.5GtCO2. To this end, the EIA analyzed various models of ETS systems, concluding that integrated systems including – among others – all electricity generating technologies, carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies, a shift from free allocations to auctioning of allowances, as well as a shift from intensity targets to a cap-and-trade target, would be best suited to support the decarbonization of China’s electrification efforts.

China introduced new incentives in 2022, to cut pollution and carbon emissions; to make coal use cleaner and more efficient, update coal-fired power plants to make them more efficient, and enhance the capacity of grids to absorb power produced by renewable sources. China did reduce polution from coal by several percentage points, but needs to modernize coal-fired power plants nation-wide.

With China now entering a period of population decline due to the one child policy and excess males from 1.3B to 600-800M will lead to reduced electrical demands as well, as well as smart appliances of the future coupled with a smart grid, will reduce electrical consumption further.

As China declines, India if they choose to do so, is positioned to expand and become the predominant power in the region, eventually passing China, as China goes into a state of population decline.

 

[Jules]

leading the world to install roof-top solar

That might have been the US, back in the late 70s, had not the all-knowing Regan torn the solar panels off the White House roofs.

The forgotten story of Jimmy Carter's White House solar panels » Yale Climate Connections

More than four decades ago, President Carter said the U.S. could harness “the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[boomer]

That might have been the US, back in the late 70s, had not the all-knowing Regan torn the solar panels off the White House roofs.

The forgotten story of Jimmy Carter's White House solar panels » Yale Climate Connections

More than four decades ago, President Carter said the U.S. could harness “the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”

yaleclimateconnections.org

Yes I recall shaking my head at Reagan's ongoing slap in the face to the environment. Then rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington. Also, Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W and Trump's hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; was just picking up where Reagan left off.

 

[claudiajohnston]

The Upper Atmosphere Is Cooling, Prompting New Climate Concerns​

A new study reaffirming that global climate change is human-made also found the upper atmosphere is cooling dramatically because of rising CO2 levels. Scientists are worried about the effect this cooling could have on orbiting satellites, the ozone layer, and Earth’s weather.

While the blanket of air close to the Earth’s surface is warming, most of the atmosphere above is becoming dramatically colder. The same gases that are warming the bottom few miles of air are cooling the much greater expanses above that stretch to the edge of space.

etiquette training certification online

The findings of the study indicate that human-made global climate change is not only causing warming near the Earth's surface but also leading to significant cooling in the upper atmosphere. This cooling effect is a result of rising CO2 levels. Scientists are concerned about the potential consequences of this cooling trend, particularly its impact on orbiting satellites, the ozone layer, and Earth's weather systems. While the lower layers of the atmosphere experience warming due to greenhouse gases, the upper atmosphere is experiencing a pronounced cooling effect. This highlights the complex and interconnected nature of climate change and its implications for different parts of the Earth's atmosphere.