April 2025 Discussion/Obs

[eduggs]

Technically no energy source is completely renewable. Most of what we call renewable is directly or indirectly driven by the sun, which is very slowly exhausting its hydrogen fuel. Tidal energy is harnessed at the expense of a very minor deviation in the orbit of the moon. Eventually even these sources will be completely depleted.

Obviously for our purposes they are infinitely renewable. A combination of solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and wave/ocean energy is entirely sufficient to fuel our energy needs. The huge expense associated with fully transitioning is the remaining obstacle. Continued advances in battery storage technology and transmission lines from isolated sources is needed in improve the economic viability of new projects. But we have long passed the time where the technological viability of 100% renewable is already there.

Nuclear power can be a part of this solution/transition/process, but it's not needed. Fukushima Daiichi showed us once again that no technology is completely safe, and the consequences of a nuclear accident might be too severe to warrant the risk in some places or circumstances, particularly if other less dangerous energy sources are viable.

China is the leading emitter of CO2 currently, but not per capita. And if you look back at the cumulative history of CO2 emissions, the US is far and away responsible for the most CO2 emissions. India is a growing emitter, but still lower down on the list, particularly per capita. Sure it's more effective to get all countries to work together, but certainly the US has a big responsibility to lead on this issue.

The prudent thing to do is to implement everything at once - reduce GHG emissions, transition to renewable energy sources AND investigate strategies to reduce surface heating. The danger is that if we rely on unproven, futuristic technology to save us, that might lessen the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels. Venting a life-essential molecule out to space BTW is a terrible idea.

[Dark Star]

6 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Technically no energy source is completely renewable. Most of what we call renewable is directly or indirectly driven by the sun, which is very slowly exhausting its hydrogen fuel. Tidal energy is harnessed at the expense of a very minor deviation in the orbit of the moon. Eventually even these sources will be completely depleted.

Obviously for our purposes they are infinitely renewable. A combination of solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and wave/ocean energy is entirely sufficient to fuel our energy needs. The huge expense associated with fully transitioning is the remaining obstacle. Continued advances in battery storage technology and transmission lines from isolated sources is needed in improve the economic viability of new projects. But we have long passed the time where the technological viability of 100% renewable is already there.

Nuclear power can be a part of this solution/transition/process, but it's not needed. Fukushima Daiichi showed us once again that no technology is completely safe, and the consequences of a nuclear accident might be too severe to warrant the risk in some places or circumstances, particularly if other less dangerous energy sources are viable.

China is the leading emitter of CO2 currently, but not per capita. And if you look back at the cumulative history of CO2 emissions, the US is far and away responsible for the most CO2 emissions. India is a growing emitter, but still lower down on the list, particularly per capita. Sure it's more effective to get all countries to work together, but certainly the US has a big responsibility to lead on this issue.

The prudent thing to do is to implement everything at once - reduce GHG emissions, transition to renewable energy sources AND investigate strategies to reduce surface heating. The danger is that if we rely on unproven, futuristic technology to save us, that might lessen the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels. Venting a life-essential molecule out to space BTW is a terrible idea.

You hit on the key, global cooperation.  However, the key to any economy is the cost of energy.  Those who choose to invest and rely on alternative sources of energy will not only lose out economically, but could in fact create a huge disparity in military readiness.  That is where we stand.  If you can get China and Russia to buy in, then full speed ahead.  

[TJW014]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1914995234892546508

 

NEW - Experiments to "dim sunlight to fight global warming" will be given the green light by the British government within weeks.

https://t.co/ioBL0llDmR

[steve392]

Gorgeous day our.  Some thin cloud cover. Slight breeze. 75 degrees. 

[Sundog]

51 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Technically no energy source is completely renewable. Most of what we call renewable is directly or indirectly driven by the sun, which is very slowly exhausting its hydrogen fuel. Tidal energy is harnessed at the expense of a very minor deviation in the orbit of the moon. Eventually even these sources will be completely depleted.

Obviously for our purposes they are infinitely renewable. A combination of solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and wave/ocean energy is entirely sufficient to fuel our energy needs. The huge expense associated with fully transitioning is the remaining obstacle. Continued advances in battery storage technology and transmission lines from isolated sources is needed in improve the economic viability of new projects. But we have long passed the time where the technological viability of 100% renewable is already there.

Nuclear power can be a part of this solution/transition/process, but it's not needed. Fukushima Daiichi showed us once again that no technology is completely safe, and the consequences of a nuclear accident might be too severe to warrant the risk in some places or circumstances, particularly if other less dangerous energy sources are viable.

China is the leading emitter of CO2 currently, but not per capita. And if you look back at the cumulative history of CO2 emissions, the US is far and away responsible for the most CO2 emissions. India is a growing emitter, but still lower down on the list, particularly per capita. Sure it's more effective to get all countries to work together, but certainly the US has a big responsibility to lead on this issue.

The prudent thing to do is to implement everything at once - reduce GHG emissions, transition to renewable energy sources AND investigate strategies to reduce surface heating. The danger is that if we rely on unproven, futuristic technology to save us, that might lessen the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels. Venting a life-essential molecule out to space BTW is a terrible idea.

Nuclear power is the best solution for producing clean baseline power, and power that can be spun up quickly when there is an energy demand spike. You can't have full renewable when a lot of that is just not producing energy at a steady rate 24/7. Winds die down, the Sun goes down. 

I don't believe battery technology is close to where it needs to be to store solar/wind energy to the point where if those two aren't producing any energy, that batteries can pick up the slack. Again, it's the need for a steady, baseline level of energy and very quick spin up of additional energy in the event of an energy demand spike where nuclear comes into play.

Nuclear is very safe. Fukushima is not a good example. It was a 50 year old plant, next to the ocean, and in a major earthquake zone. Those are very specific environmental and geological conditions/dangers that are hard to replicate in many places around the world. For example, none of the factors that casued Fukishima to get damaged exist in large swaths of the USA. 

The Earth doesn't care who polluted and how much humans pollute per capita in different countries. All it knows is that its heating up and it's getting bad. This notion that countries should be given time to catch up in terms of pollution since they were slower to industrialize is completely insane and not a serious positition if someone truly cares about the Earth. The technology TODAY didn't exist when the USA was industrializing. There is no excuse for China to be building TODAY dozens of new coal power plants since now there are many other options that simply didn't exist in the past. 

I also disagree regarding the aerosols. One can say that solar is a type of futuristic technology. Certainly solar is a true deviation from the traditional "turn water into steam to turn a turbine" method of energy generation. If we didn't give it a chance then it would have never flourished into such an important energy source. 

Aerosol usage is better than hoping the world does the right thing one day. I don't see why it would discourage the reductiuon of fossil fuels. If anything it may actually give the world time to organically shift over to renewables all while keeping the Earth from burning up in the meantime. 

[SACRUS]

 

Just touched 70.  Allergies galore

 

 

[winterwarlock]

3 hours ago, Sundog said:

I am a supporter of aerosol injection into the stratosphere. It is suprisingly feasible and not outrageously expensive. 

I only support it because there is no way that we are not only stopping CO2 emissions, but even reduce them from the atmosphere. The USA is not the world. Most emissions come from China and India. 

I also want a ton of nuclear plants built. But for some reason environmentalists are against both nuclear and aersol injections. I consider myself a pragmatist. Obviously ideally the world somehow reduces the greenhouse gas levels back to 1880 levels. But that's not happening and we need to do SOMETHING. To me, sitting idle is not an option. And again, we are not the world. We can't solve this on our own, even if we get down to zero emissions in the USA. At the same time, I want do move to renewable as much as possible worldwide so that we don't need to mask the warming effects with annual aerosol injections forever. 

I am also aware that masking the effects of the warming doesn't make greenhouse gases neutral. They will still acidify the oceans for example. But that's happening anyway, we might as well try to kill the heating effects at least. 

This is insane to be trying to alter the weather

[winterwarlock]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1914995234892546508

 

NEW - Experiments to "dim sunlight to fight global warming" will be given the green light by the British government within weeks.

https://t.co/ioBL0llDmR

I can't hate this idea enough

[eduggs]

51 minutes ago, Sundog said:

Nuclear power is the best solution for producing clean baseline power, and power that can be spun up quickly when there is an energy demand spike. You can't have full renewable when a lot of that is just not producing energy at a steady rate 24/7. Winds die down, the Sun goes down. 

I don't believe battery technology is close to where it needs to be to store solar/wind energy to the point where if those two aren't producing any energy, that batteries can pick up the slack. Again, it's the need for a steady, baseline level of energy and very quick spin up of additional energy in the event of an energy demand spike where nuclear comes into play.

Nuclear is very safe. Fukushima is not a good example. It was a 50 year old plant, next to the ocean, and in a major earthquake zone. Those are very specific environmental and geological conditions/dangers that are hard to replicate in many places around the world. For example, none of the factors that casued Fukishima to get damaged exist in large swaths of the USA. 

The Earth doesn't care who polluted and how much humans pollute per capita in different countries. All it knows is that its heating up and it's getting bad. This notion that countries should be given time to catch up in terms of pollution since they were slower to industrialize is completely insane and not a serious positition if someone truly cares about the Earth. The technology TODAY didn't exist when the USA was industrializing. There is no excuse for China to be building TODAY dozens of new coal power plants since now there are many other options that simply didn't exist in the past. 

I also disagree regarding the aerosols. One can say that solar is a type of futuristic technology. Certainly solar is a true deviation from the traditional "turn water into steam to turn a turbine" method of energy generation. If we didn't give it a chance then it would have never flourished into such an important energy source. 

Aerosol usage is better than hoping the world does the right thing one day. I don't see why it would discourage the reductiuon of fossil fuels. If anything it may actually give the world time to organically shift over to renewables all while keeping the Earth from burning up in the meantime. 

It is not correct that renewables cannot provide sufficient baseload. That classic argument about winds not blowing or the sun not shining is outdated ignorance. Hydro, geothermal, and a variety of wind/solar with battery are completely viable alternatives technically. The issue comes down to economic viability. Nuclear can and does provide an excellent and relatively affordable supply of baseload power. The issue with nuclear comes down to society's appetite for risk. Fukushima Daiichi was considered much safer than most currently operating nuclear power plants in the US. We cannot anticipate and mitigate all sources of risk. Even if the likelihood of catastrophe is very low, if the consequences of such an event is that a large area is rendered essentially permanently uninhabitable, the overall risk assessment might force us to turn elsewhere. Society still doesn't have a permanent solution for spent nuclear fuel, which presents a significant risk for potential accident or terrorist act.

[eduggs]

53 minutes ago, Sundog said:

Aerosol usage is better than hoping the world does the right thing one day. I don't see why it would discourage the reductiuon of fossil fuels. If anything it may actually give the world time to organically shift over to renewables all while keeping the Earth from burning up in the meantime. 

Injecting aerosol into the atmosphere on a large scale would be extremely risky. We don't know exactly what the impact would be and at the level that would be required to have a meaningful impact, the potential consequences to water resources (irrigation, drinking water, drought), farming (food production), and general weather patterns could be quite severe. This would seemingly also require international large-scale cooperation to avoid regional or global conflict.

This type of technology might be worth investigating or attempting, but it is unlikely to be a magic fix... certainly not without major societal costs and unintended consequences.

[psv88]

72 and perfect 

[IrishRob17]

Just now, psv88 said:

72 and perfect 

Agreed, 73/44 under deep blue skies.

[winterwx21]

A top 10 day of the year. 

[Dark Star]

1 hour ago, Sundog said:

Nuclear power is the best solution for producing clean baseline power, and power that can be spun up quickly when there is an energy demand spike. You can't have full renewable when a lot of that is just not producing energy at a steady rate 24/7. Winds die down, the Sun goes down. 

I don't believe battery technology is close to where it needs to be to store solar/wind energy to the point where if those two aren't producing any energy, that batteries can pick up the slack. Again, it's the need for a steady, baseline level of energy and very quick spin up of additional energy in the event of an energy demand spike where nuclear comes into play.

Nuclear is very safe. Fukushima is not a good example. It was a 50 year old plant, next to the ocean, and in a major earthquake zone. Those are very specific environmental and geological conditions/dangers that are hard to replicate in many places around the world. For example, none of the factors that casued Fukishima to get damaged exist in large swaths of the USA. 

The Earth doesn't care who polluted and how much humans pollute per capita in different countries. All it knows is that its heating up and it's getting bad. This notion that countries should be given time to catch up in terms of pollution since they were slower to industrialize is completely insane and not a serious positition if someone truly cares about the Earth. The technology TODAY didn't exist when the USA was industrializing. There is no excuse for China to be building TODAY dozens of new coal power plants since now there are many other options that simply didn't exist in the past. 

I also disagree regarding the aerosols. One can say that solar is a type of futuristic technology. Certainly solar is a true deviation from the traditional "turn water into steam to turn a turbine" method of energy generation. If we didn't give it a chance then it would have never flourished into such an important energy source. 

Aerosol usage is better than hoping the world does the right thing one day. I don't see why it would discourage the reductiuon of fossil fuels. If anything it may actually give the world time to organically shift over to renewables all while keeping the Earth from burning up in the meantime. 

Perfectly thought out.  There is theory, then, there is reality.  I wouldn't say nuclear energy is totally safe.  Human nature insures that.  My biggest problem with nuclear energy is that we haven't solved the permanent storage of the waste.  Right now, it is stored at the production sites.  Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but one of the suspected reasons for the drone sightings was that they were looking for missing radioactive material.  

[Sundog]

1 hour ago, winterwarlock said:

This is insane to be trying to alter the weather

We are already running a global climate altering experiment. 

[Sundog]

27 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

A top 10 day of the year. 

Shave off 5 degrees and I'd say it was perfect. 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

21 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

Perfectly thought out.  There is theory, then, there is reality.  I wouldn't say nuclear energy is totally safe.  Human nature insures that.  My biggest problem with nuclear energy is that we haven't solved the permanent storage of the waste.  Right now, it is stored at the production sites.  Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but one of the suspected reasons for the drone sightings was that they were looking for missing radioactive material.  

That’s where fusion solves all problems. It’s the most renewable resource possible. If the USA were to devote the time, money and resources to fusion that we did to the Manhattan project or the Apollo missions we could have it in 20 years. It literally changes everything, unlimited clean power allows for unlimited desalination, geo carbon storage and the list goes on and on.

One hope is that with advances in AI and quantum computing fusion technology advances faster. 

[forkyfork]

14 minutes ago, Sundog said:

Shave off 5 degrees and I'd say it was perfect. 

i think you need to move

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, SACRUS said:

 

Just touched 70.  Allergies galore

 

 

Bad allergies earlier, now gone since the wind stopped.

[LibertyBell]

16 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

That’s where fusion solves all problems. It’s the most renewable resource possible. If the USA were to devote the time, money and resources to fusion that we did to the Manhattan project or the Apollo missions we could have it in 20 years. It literally changes everything, unlimited clean power allows for unlimited desalination, geo carbon storage and the list goes on and on.

One hope is that with advances in AI and quantum computing fusion technology advances faster. 

Yes we really need controllable fusion like yesterday.

I think we'll see it in our lifetime though, the EU has been making a lot of progress.

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes we really need controllable fusion like yesterday.

I think we'll see it in our lifetime though, the EU has been making a lot of progress.

I could see it happening by 2050, earlier if AI figures it out quicker. The greatest thing about fusion is one of its biggest inhibitors. The movie the Saint with my buddy Val did a good job explaining this all the way back in the 90s. Practically free, unlimited energy is inherently its own worst enemy in a capitalist society.

[Sundog]

21 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

i think you need to move

My favorite temps are 60s, dry, a light breeze and partly cloudy skies. 

[winterwarlock]

40 minutes ago, Sundog said:

We are already running a global climate altering experiment. 

Its insanity imo

[winterwarlock]

1 hour ago, winterwx21 said:

A top 10 day of the year. 

Not quite..breeze is a bit busy and I see chem trails ruining the sky

[LibertyBell]

16 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

I could see it happening by 2050, earlier if AI figures it out quicker. The greatest thing about fusion is one of its biggest inhibitors. The movie the Saint with my buddy Val did a good job explaining this all the way back in the 90s. Practically free, unlimited energy is inherently its own worst enemy in a capitalist society.

The Saint, isn't that based on a well known old TV series?

Val Kilmer was one of the very best. RIP, Val.

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, eduggs said:

Technically no energy source is completely renewable. Most of what we call renewable is directly or indirectly driven by the sun, which is very slowly exhausting its hydrogen fuel. Tidal energy is harnessed at the expense of a very minor deviation in the orbit of the moon. Eventually even these sources will be completely depleted.

Obviously for our purposes they are infinitely renewable. A combination of solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and wave/ocean energy is entirely sufficient to fuel our energy needs. The huge expense associated with fully transitioning is the remaining obstacle. Continued advances in battery storage technology and transmission lines from isolated sources is needed in improve the economic viability of new projects. But we have long passed the time where the technological viability of 100% renewable is already there.

Nuclear power can be a part of this solution/transition/process, but it's not needed. Fukushima Daiichi showed us once again that no technology is completely safe, and the consequences of a nuclear accident might be too severe to warrant the risk in some places or circumstances, particularly if other less dangerous energy sources are viable.

China is the leading emitter of CO2 currently, but not per capita. And if you look back at the cumulative history of CO2 emissions, the US is far and away responsible for the most CO2 emissions. India is a growing emitter, but still lower down on the list, particularly per capita. Sure it's more effective to get all countries to work together, but certainly the US has a big responsibility to lead on this issue.

The prudent thing to do is to implement everything at once - reduce GHG emissions, transition to renewable energy sources AND investigate strategies to reduce surface heating. The danger is that if we rely on unproven, futuristic technology to save us, that might lessen the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels. Venting a life-essential molecule out to space BTW is a terrible idea.

Keeping the amount of water vapor under control and in balance is vitally important.  It's a greenhouse gas too.

High quantities of water vapor can lead to breathing problems and poor air quality.  It's an air pollutant in high quantities.

I like the idea of converting some of it to drinking water better, we already have the ability to do that (and are doing it.)

[JonClaw]

Fantastic weather today, likely to be ruined by wildfire smoke tomorrow and Friday.