Planet of the Humans

[Knob Oddy]

On 5/8/2020 at 10:10 AM, micahc said:

the problem is climate, and environmental debates have been taken over by right wing kooks, and left wing kooks.  The truth is, we should be moving away from fossil fuels because its smart.  pretend all you want, but they pollute and they are finite.  

The kooks are all in bed together in this one, left and right are making money off "clean" energy. The problem is, the energy isnt clean and doesnt replace coal or natural gas.

Perhaps Doug can jump in and tell me about his tree rings instead of what the documentary discussed

[Doug1029]

22 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

The kooks are all in bed together in this one, left and right are making money off "clean" energy. The problem is, the energy isnt clean and doesnt replace coal or natural gas.

Perhaps Doug can jump in and tell me about his tree rings instead of what the documentary discussed

Sorry.  I promised to stay on subject on this thread.

The problem would seem to be that big business has found the way to neutralize climate politics so it won't inconvenience them.  That, and there are a lot of well-meaning people out there who have no idea of the consequences of what they do.  Ever get a bill with one of those plastic windows in it?  The plastic can't be recycled, so the whole envelope can't be recycled.  I don't think this is deliberate, but nobody ever stopped to think about what they were doing.

In Washington (state), "environmentalists" decided to clean up the parks after the salmon run.  They gathered up and removed all the dead salmon.  Then the salmon runs started to decline and it looked bad for salmon.  Some scientists finally figured out that when they removed the dead salmon, the decomposing bodies were not available to provide nutrients to the stream's ecosystem and the fry were starving to death.  So they quit cleaning up dead salmon and now ask fishermen to dump the offal from cleaning their catch into the streams.  Problem solved.

There are a lot of con artists, both intentional and unintentional, who get into the "environmental" game to make money and have no intention of helping the ecology.  They are counting on a gullible public buying their schpiel.  A direct-sales company selling soap told their sales force to tell people that the product is biodegradable.  It is, but all soap products sold in America since 1972 have been biodegradable.  Their product is no different from anybody else's.  Their advertising is a green wash - deliberately misleading.

And so it goes.  We need to break out of this trap - and soon.

Doug

[tortugabob]

A new word has entered the English lexicon.  Climitard .... A person who think they can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by paying a tax to the government.

 

 

[MonkeyLove]

The gist is that renewable energy isn't green and has low returns.

[tmcom]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:39 AM, tortugabob said:

A new word has entered the English lexicon.  Climitard .... A person who think they can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by paying a tax to the government.

But l read today that the faithful are pushing the Green New Deal now, instead of in 30 years time, or 100% renewables, and 300 billion extra dept, to restructure industry. Never mind Victoria having record cold days and such, and the planet freezing!

Quite ironically we actually need stable, cheap ways to create more power, to get industry back in our state, so if anything Hazelwood should get a multimillion dollar upgrade so it can reopen asap.

Edited May 18, 2020 by tmcom
100% renewables = 100% f....up state!

[Myles]

On 5/7/2020 at 6:10 PM, micahc said:

the problem is climate, and environmental debates have been taken over by right wing kooks, and left wing kooks.  The truth is, we should be moving away from fossil fuels because its smart.  pretend all you want, but they pollute and they are finite.  One day we will run out.  climate change is just a rallying cry for the kooks on both sides.  I think the earth is warming, and I am sure it will one day start cooling. Not sure humans will survive the warming cycle this time. based on the ice record this is the first warming trends humans will experience.  it seems to be accelerated this time based on CO2 levels.  As far as the planet is concerned, the best thing that could happen is our extinction.  we are not the planet. As George Carlin once said, the planet will be fine. we are going away.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but not the bolded.   How would we know what the planet wants?  Perhaps all animals and vegetation is like an infestation on the planet.  Now if you are saying that the best thing for most plants and animals is human extinction, that may be correct.   Probably is correct.  

[tmcom]

Playing a melting board game will fix it?

Children can be aware of impending doom, and drowning, sounds like a sound concept!

[Doug1029]

On 5/16/2020 at 6:39 PM, tortugabob said:

A new word has entered the English lexicon.  Climitard .... A person who think they can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by paying a tax to the government.

 

 

You have a point.  Taxes don't accomplish much.  They are half-a-solution.

A better idea is a carbon fee system.  A fee is charged on carbon at the well-head, mine-mouth or port-of-entry.  Thus, it is passed on in the price of products made from carbon.  That fee is then divided among all citizens on a per capita basis.  This biases product price against carbon and gives all people equal weight in influencing product production.  The fee starts small to give markets and consumers time to adjust, perhaps $100 per person the first year, rising gradually thereafter until zero net carbon increase in the atmosphere is achieved.  It would have to be applied over most of the world.

Food products could be exempted because they remove as much carbon from the air as they take up.  Better farming practices would also need to be applied.  Wood products could also be exempted for the same reason, plus, they sequester carbon in the form of building materials.

Another problem with taxes is that they are frequently diverted to other uses than environmental cleanup.  Also, government makes money by creating a law, then selling exceptions.  This undermines the law.  We can't have that this time.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 5/17/2020 at 12:51 AM, MonkeyLove said:

The gist is that renewable energy isn't green and has low returns.

Renewable energy requires the use of non-renewable energy sources while it is becoming established.  In the US we are long past that point, now producing about a quarter of our power from wind and water.  That's easily enough to power the rest of the conversion process.  Wind is currently the cheapest source of electricity, being slightly cheaper than gas-fired turbines.  Solar, in the form of perovskites, is rapidly catching up and may already be competitive with wind and gas - I'd have to look that up to be sure.

Doug

[Myles]

13 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Renewable energy requires the use of non-renewable energy sources while it is becoming established.  In the US we are long past that point, now producing about a quarter of our power from wind and water.  That's easily enough to power the rest of the conversion process.  Wind is currently the cheapest source of electricity, being slightly cheaper than gas-fired turbines.  Solar, in the form of perovskites, is rapidly catching up and may already be competitive with wind and gas - I'd have to look that up to be sure.

Doug

Bought my first solar panel.   It's only 100W, but I have it wired into a marine battery and then to a 1100W inverter.   We use it to power a few lights, but mostly it'll be for power outages at this point.   I can add to it and probably will soon.     

[MonkeyLove]

On 6/27/2020 at 1:09 AM, Doug1029 said:

Renewable energy requires the use of non-renewable energy sources while it is becoming established.  In the US we are long past that point, now producing about a quarter of our power from wind and water.  That's easily enough to power the rest of the conversion process.  Wind is currently the cheapest source of electricity, being slightly cheaper than gas-fired turbines.  Solar, in the form of perovskites, is rapidly catching up and may already be competitive with wind and gas - I'd have to look that up to be sure.

Doug

Low energy returns overall.

http://theoildrum.com/node/3786

 

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, MonkeyLove said:

Low energy returns overall.

http://theoildrum.com/node/3786

 

I didn't see anything in that article that would contradict the numbers for WWS.  Yes.  Oil is supplying about 40% of current energy needs.

Could you please explain your "low energy returns" statement?

Doug

[MonkeyLove]

On 7/31/2020 at 8:57 PM, Doug1029 said:

I didn't see anything in that article that would contradict the numbers for WWS.  Yes.  Oil is supplying about 40% of current energy needs.

Could you please explain your "low energy returns" statement?

Doug

See the balloon graph in Part 1 (scroll down several times to see it). Various energy sources fall below the min. required for industrial civilization. None of them, especially photovoltaic and wind, are catching up in any way.

See also

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/

Solar has a return of around 6, but even that doesn't cover real-world situations. When those are factored in, the return goes even lower:

http://energyskeptic.com/2017/tilting-at-windmills-spains-disastrous-attempt-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-solar-pv-part-2/

According to Hall, we need a return of around 15 to maintain middle class conveniences:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth/

but that's for the current population, and likely doesn't factor in diminishing returns. And then there's lag time:

https://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

Of course, if countries work with each other, they can deal with that, but that's highly unlikely.

In terms of supply, we currently consume around 20 TW of energy:

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/

but that's for the current world population, where most people are poor:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/

In order to minimize poverty, we will need around 50 TW of energy, which one report says will, if we work together, we can get from all energy sources online, including renewables. But that population will continue to increase, and to meet that additional number of people, we'll need around 90 TW. And to adjust to diminishing returns plus minimize the effects of environmental damage plus climate change, 120 TW, or six times our current consumption.

Finally, if we look at net energy instead of energy return, then we may be facing something like exponential growth but in reverse:

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-12/the-real-energy-return-of-crude-oil-smaller-than-you-would-have-imagined/

See also

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/08/seneca-effect-origins-of-collapse.html

That is, we might think that we still have a lot of time for the transition, but probably not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, MonkeyLove said:

See the balloon graph in Part 1 (scroll down several times to see it). Various energy sources fall below the min. required for industrial civilization. None of them, especially photovoltaic and wind, are catching up in any way.

When I first moved to Oklahoma (2001), wind was supplying about 2% of the country's power.  It is now supplying about 14%.  The capacity is currently increasing at a little over 1% per year and that's only because the Trump administration has taken a hostile stance to wind.  Wind may soon be losing its status as the up-and-coming energy source.  Perovskites have been making leaps and bounds.  I don't know where the efficiency rating for them is right now, but they could replace wind or maybe supplement it.

 

This sounds like a good discussion, but I will be sent home in a covid closure beginning this afternoon.  We'll have to go into detail when I get back (probably December).

In the meantime, I have been named to head a group building an 800-year chronology for eastern red-cedar at a site near Lawton, OK.  So I'll be working off-and-on for the next several months, but out in the field where there isn't any covid.

Doug

 

 

[MonkeyLove]

On 8/8/2020 at 10:19 PM, Doug1029 said:

When I first moved to Oklahoma (2001), wind was supplying about 2% of the country's power.  It is now supplying about 14%.  The capacity is currently increasing at a little over 1% per year and that's only because the Trump administration has taken a hostile stance to wind.  Wind may soon be losing its status as the up-and-coming energy source.  Perovskites have been making leaps and bounds.  I don't know where the efficiency rating for them is right now, but they could replace wind or maybe supplement it.

 

This sounds like a good discussion, but I will be sent home in a covid closure beginning this afternoon.  We'll have to go into detail when I get back (probably December).

In the meantime, I have been named to head a group building an 800-year chronology for eastern red-cedar at a site near Lawton, OK.  So I'll be working off-and-on for the next several months, but out in the field where there isn't any covid.

Doug

 

 

Wind power has an ave. energy return of around 18, which is better than 6 for photovoltaics:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0036850419825936

But the world operates in light of net energy (what remains after energy is invested) rather than energy return on investment (the ratio of what's received in light of what is invested). That means we need an EROI of 50 or better:

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-12/the-real-energy-return-of-crude-oil-smaller-than-you-would-have-imagined/

But that's only part of the story: we also need high supply:

http://theoildrum.com/node/3786

And one study says that at best we can get 50 TW from all energy sources used, including renewables, and I think that can only take place if the world population works together, i.e., coordination and cooperation in contrast to a global competitive economy. But that's barely enough to meet the basic needs of the current world population. It also doesn't reverse diminishing returns or minimize environmental damage as described in the Planet of the Humans documentary.

In short, we need energy sources that can provide at least 120 TW of power plus provide an ave. energy return of at least 50 in order to meet the basic needs and wants of the global economy plus reverse environmental damage caused by increased economic activity.

 

 

 

 

 

[Knob Oddy]

On 6/27/2020 at 5:09 AM, Doug1029 said:

Renewable energy requires the use of non-renewable energy sources while it is becoming established.  In the US we are long past that point, now producing about a quarter of our power from wind and water.  That's easily enough to power the rest of the conversion process.  Wind is currently the cheapest source of electricity, being slightly cheaper than gas-fired turbines.  Solar, in the form of perovskites, is rapidly catching up and may already be competitive with wind and gas - I'd have to look that up to be sure.

Doug

Did you watch the documentary? From the above it seems that you didn't.

[acdrnx]

clean energy is a lower problem if the whole town press the toilet button and **** all in the ground. from this place come something in the houses. most important is to focus the room where you live and not a factory or something.

i mean that the sewerage is a more evil place that the most people think. the roundworm and other evil lifeforms come from this in the living rooms with silverfishes and the drinking water. to destroy this place in living rooms with cleaning is more important as to make the stack low in pollutants.

Edited August 11, 2020 by acdrnx

[Rlyeh]

54 minutes ago, acdrnx said:

clean energy is a lower problem if the whole town press the toilet button and **** all in the ground. from this place come something in the houses. most important is to focus the room where you live and not a factory or something.

i mean that the sewerage is a more evil place that the most people think. the roundworm and other evil lifeforms come from this in the living rooms with silverfishes and the drinking water. to destroy this place in living rooms with cleaning is more important as to make the stack low in pollutants.

You still rambling on about demons in the sewerage?

[acdrnx]

i have them in my small room i feel how they go on my leg if i walk barefoot there (11 years rats from the sewerage - alone i never found them - it was metal gear solid in my one room apartment). i clean my body then with wet wipes and shower gel on.

the demons know that this is meat what they can eat. with socks they dont react instant. they eat me on different body places. wounds come then. many inventory i cant hardly clean. for example under the heater. there the rats heat up a long time... i touched there for a few days as i throw food raged through the room because friend told me dont eat there. i bought food but cant enjoy it it rages me but i dont want sit on the parking bank.

the roundworm infected me there hardcore and i know it but i cant stop eating and to fidget there at night although i dont need it anymore.

Edited August 11, 2020 by acdrnx

[XenoFish]

20 minutes ago, acdrnx said:

i have them in my small room i feel how they go on my leg if i walk barefoot there (11 years rats from the sewerage - alone i never found them - it was metal gear solid in my one room apartment). i clean my body then with wet wipes and shower gel on.

the demons know that this is meat what they can eat. with socks they dont react instant. they eat me on different body places. wounds come then. many inventory i cant hardly clean. for example under the heater. there the rats heat up a long time... i touched there for a few days as i throw food raged through the room because friend told me dont eat there. i bought food but cant enjoy it it rages me but i dont want sit on the parking bank.

the roundworm infected me there hardcore and i know it but i cant stop eating and to fidget there at night although i dont need it anymore.

Have you thought about talking to a psychiatrist?

[acdrnx]

its a real problem

Edited August 11, 2020 by acdrnx

[Tatetopa]

Well, there might be another component to renewable energy that you might consider;: freedom.

If you want to live off the grid, right now renewable may be the easiest way to go.

If you want a little independence even hooked up to the grid, renewable can pay for itself in 5-6 years.  With a 12 year panel life, it is a pretty good investment, if you have the money. Sort of like futures, if the cost of power goes up, the value that you sell back goes up at the same rate.

If you are worried about future troubles and grid failures, it would take a lot of diesel or propane to last you through a couple of years, if you can get it.

 

[acdrnx]

On 8/11/2020 at 9:30 PM, XenoFish said:

Have you thought about talking to a psychiatrist?

judges tell psychatrist to put me away because i dont send books at ebay from my rat room together with my bills. its fake.

this online trading from poor rooms is an element, zalando with trying on too which is dangerous for the society. its not freedom its insanity. together with pimped pictures and easy photo editor.

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, acdrnx said:

judges tell psychatrist to put me away because i dont send books at ebay from my rat room together with my bills. its fake.

this online trading from poor rooms is an element, zalando with trying on too which is dangerous for the society. its not freedom its insanity. together with pimped pictures and easy photo editor.

Good job Bot, good job. 

[Horta]

There are some good points in this doco, and there are problems the green movement seemingly ignores. Some to do with the economic system itself and whether our planets resources will be able to sustain, in the long term, a projected 11-12 billion people living more of a 1st world lifestyle as populations in the developing world modernise. We're certainly well past "350" and green energy or not, will now have a lot of climate related problems in the approaching decades regardless.

What the doco does focus on re the green energy sector is very misleading though. Lots of old irrelevant data and bogus claims. Not sure what the "evil corporations" angle is supposed to portray. The change to renewable energy is never going to happen without getting the capitalist/corporate world behind it as much as possible. The below is a brief rebuttal to some of it, there are other better more detailed rebuttals. Then again, it seems some in this thread deny that global warming/climate change is a thing anyway so it's all a scam to them lol.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Horta