Why don't we ....

[Anonymous No.10763243]

.... setup a huge ass mega solar farm in the various deserts of the world, and then use the power to capture CO2 and synthesize it into hydrocarbon fuel and then mandate that only carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel can be used anywhere worldwide?

Let's do some rough calculations.
The price of solar is about 0.35€/W as of now. [1]
Current worldwide total energy consumption is 160 trillion kW h. [2]
Now because we already have storage as part of this proposed system we shouldn't be too concerned with peak power, but let's assume that peak power needed is 1/3 as much as the average. The average worldwide power needed is 18.25 TW, so 1/3 as much would be about 24.33 TW.
Now we need to take into account the energy conversion losses of power-to-gas. For methane the Electricity-Gas-Electricity conversion is about 30% to 38% efficient. [3]
So we need about 82 TW of online capacity at any point in time, generating fuel to be distributed worldwide.

That will cost, 28.7 trillion € or $32.69 trillion, in just nominal PV panels cost.
The GWP was around US$78.28 trillion in nominal terms and totaled approximately 107.5 trillion international dollars in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP).
5.6% of GWP annually was spent on fossil fuel subsidies in 2015. [5]
Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide are equivalent to about $7 trillion/year in international dollars.
If we just invested that money into carbon neutral synthesized fuel, it would take us 5 years to cover the costs of the necessary PVs.
10 years of such investment and we could be carbon neutral.

So why aren't we doing this?

1. https://www.pv-magazine.com/module-price-index/
2. https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&ug=2&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-TJ.A&vo=0&v=H&end=2016
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

[Anonymous No.10763250]

>>10763243
because capturing carbon from the air takes huge amounts of energy! JUST STOP EMITTING CO2. Also fuck carbon neutral fuel. Great so now we can solve global warming, but still have nasty air pollution! Air pollution kills humans! I mean I guess there's ammonia. That shit doesn't form nasty sharp particles of carbon and actually reacts with NOx.

[Anonymous No.10763273]

>>10763250
Basically this. Also the efficiency would be terrible. Let's do everything except the fuel bit and replace ICE vehicles with electric ones. Cut out the middle man

[Anonymous No.10763277]

>>10763243
Because co2 is not a problem.

[Anonymous No.10763281]

>>10763277
It is. This is the dumbest new lie

[Anonymous No.10763294]

>>10763243
Solar farms are being build, but for electric energy production. There is a simple reason, hydrocarbon production is very inefficient, you only get 30%. This means it's way more profitable to connect your solar farm to the power grid.

[Anonymous No.10763303]

>>10763243
>So why aren't we doing this?
Why aren't you..? Ask for funding, try to achieve your dream

[Anonymous No.10763306]

>>10763294
You get way less than that. If you're burning it in a car than you get 20% of what was stored in the fuel. So assuming the carbon capture to hydrocarbon efficiency is 30% you'd only be left with 6% of what the panels produced.

[Anonymous No.10763415]

>>10763281
Where is H2O on that graph?
Water vapor is a more potent ghg than CO2 but there is less of it so it has less of an impact.

[Anonymous No.10763423]

>>10763415
H20 does not drive warming, it exacerbates it through feedback loops. Atmospheric H20 has an average residency of a week and reaches equilibrium with the temperature of the Earth. Love the new denier angle BTW, I was getting tired of the same old shit.

[Anonymous No.10763428]

>>10763243
Because it would cost out the ass, not work well, and be squeezed out of the market by other options that make more sense.

[Anonymous No.10763431]

>>10763273
>Let's do everything except the fuel bit and replace ICE vehicles with electric ones.

Maybe, when the battery tech finishes getting to where it needs to be.

But note that using batteries and electricity at that scale is not free of negative externalities, either.

[Anonymous No.10763432]

>>10763243
Because it makes more sense to just use the energy and burn less coal or gas. Only once we burn no fossil fuels it becomes worthwhile to do this.

[Anonymous No.10763434]

>>10763431
It's orders of magnitude better than 6% efficiency

[Anonymous No.10763442]

>>10763431
A tesla is already a better car for 99% of use cases than virtually any ICE, they're just expensive. Electric semis are going to dominate the market soon. CC might make sense to offset airtravel but hydrogen fuels seem like the more economical option at this point.

[Anonymous No.10763445]

>>10763243
Absolutely stupid. First forget solar, build like 100-200 new nuclear power plants then with all that power just split water into oxygen and hydrogen, use hydrogen as fuel, also stop deforestation and start planting new trees NOW to capture carbon and clean the air but of course liberal green policies is to bring more shitskins, feminist rights, lgbtdjdjdcidjdj+*+**+ rights, socialism and zero policies regarding climate change.
Mind you conservatives are shit too. All of them part of ruling class.

[Anonymous No.10763449]

>>10763445
nuclear power is significantly more expensive than solar and takes decades to go from the planning phase to actually getting built.

[Anonymous No.10763454]

I think the best solution is actually massive federal subsidies/grants for consumers who purchase an EV with the requirement that it support Vehicle to grid. This would almost entirely solve renewable intermittency issues and auto emissions.

[Anonymous No.10763457]

>>10763423
I wasn't denying anything.
I just wanted to see where water vapor was in comparison to the other gasses listed.

[Anonymous No.10763491]

>>10763449
Because the actual industry and the companies have to go through a ton of red tape, the actual build time is not that long and also cost is initially high but if the scaled up the costs will go down and the speed of construction will also increase. Also given how usa spent trillions on foreign wars for israel and saudi arabia, they could have used that money to develop and build nuclear and be completely energy independant and energy exporter today

[Anonymous No.10763523]

>>10763491
Neat, come up with a plan to have them divert those plans toward nuclear then. We'll hold our breath.

[Anonymous No.10763524]

>>10763491
Unfortunately you can't just waive off the red tape. Ensuring compliance with regulations is a whole lot cheaper than a nuclear accident. For example the cost of the Fukushima cleanup exceeds the value of all nuclear power ever generated by Japan. Security isn't cheap, transportation of nuclear fuel and waste isn't cheap. Reactors will always have huge upfront costs. It just doesn't make sense wasting all that money when you could get almost 4 times the power for the same price. Especially if you're using it to split hydrogen.

[Anonymous No.10763560]

>>10763454
Subsidies straight to vehicle manufacturer would go better route, but that's not gonna happen. China is going the manufacturer subsidies route.

[Anonymous No.10763843]

>>10763454
>>10763560
Transportation is such an over hyped part of the whole problem. It's only like 15% of total emissions (varies by country, but still).
Considering that mostly everyone is moving into big cities is it much more energy efficient to build public transport infrastructure and ban cars within inner city limits, than to push for EVs. EVs can still play a part but it's over hyped because it's a consumerist market.

[Anonymous No.10763845]

>>10763491
Red tape a.k.a regulations, are important. Don't be childish. I don't really see any reason to prefer nuclear over solar. Solar seems to be politically, economically and financially superior.

[Anonymous No.10763905]

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

[Anonymous No.10763914]

>>10763243
The biggest problem with solar is not its generational efficiency but the energy lost due to interruptions in power generation by the day/night cycle. Just build it at the north and south poles of the world and alternate every 6 months.

[Anonymous No.10763921]

>let's destroy desert ecosystem because fuck nature

[Anonymous No.10763926]

>>10763843
Yeah, we got buses that can fit 150 people now right? Improve upon those, ban cars in cities and start dealing with the absolute headache that is the meat industry

[Anonymous No.10763950]

>>10763449
France runs almost completely on nuclear, the cost is an arbitrary bureaucratic constraint in America.

[Anonymous No.10764003]

>>10763243
just go nuclear desu

[Anonymous No.10764011]

>>10763843
True.

Making cement and synthetic fertilisers produces enormous amounts of CO2 and are essential to the entire world. Stop sales of fertilisers and watch 2 billion starve to death.

[Anonymous No.10764034]

>>10764011
We've actually found a cement formula that actually requires CO2 injection to work(i.e. it's carbon negative), and it's stronger than other formulas. It doesn't have widespread implementation yet, but it takes time. Fertilizers are trickier, though.

[Anonymous No.10764035]

50% of the calories made via crops is use to feed livestock. And livestock are responsible for a good chunk of emissions. We don't need even half of that meat, in the west anyways, and it's a very inefficient food source

[Anonymous No.10764040]

>>10763950
Nuclear works in France because it's an entirely state controlled grid. Despite this the percentage of power from nuclear is falling in France not rising.

[Anonymous No.10764162]

capitalism

[Anonymous No.10764173]

>>10763243
Niggers would tear it apart for scrap metal within a week, or the local warlord would claim it and demand gibs to let maintenance staff in.

[Anonymous No.10764183]

>>10763491
What's the worst thing you can imagine if a shoddily built solar farm breaks down? Now compare that to a nuclear power plant. Red tape exists for a reason.

[Anonymous No.10764225]

>>10764011
>Making cement and synthetic fertilisers produces enormous amounts of CO2
Not really- both combined produce less than 10% of greenhouse emissions.
Getting transportation off of 30% efficiency internal memebustion engines is what will solve all this.

>>10763950
France gets 60-70% of its electricity from nuclear, not total power consumption.
Electricity is somewhere around 20-30% of the total energy in more developed countries (and going into the sub-10% in shitholes). Even if it became an ideal high-efficiency 100% electrified eco paradise, France would still need to build 3-4 times more reactors to cover its total energy consumption.

[Anonymous No.10764376]

>>10763457
It's several times more potent than any other greenhouse gas, but it has the lowest residency of them all so it's not considered a "harmful" greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.10764387]

>>10763523
It's simple. We tax carbon.
>inb4 da joos

[Anonymous No.10764394]

>>10763843
Excuse me. Transportation is nearly 30% of emissions. It's the biggest piece of the pie, larger even than current electricity use.

[Anonymous No.10764423]

>problem caused by government actions
>plan on having government actions fix it
??????????????????????????????????

[Anonymous No.10764441]

>>10764423
How is fossil fuel use caused by government actions?

[Anonymous No.10764459]

>>10764441
Military action to secure more fossil fuels in foreign countries.
Forcing industry to move from developed countries to undeveloped countries, thereby facilitating new carbon-spewing countries, in addition to the carbon emitted from transporting goods overseas.
Using violence to suppress people who attempt to defend their property from pollution.

[Anonymous No.10764508]

>>10764459
>Military action to secure more fossil fuels in foreign countries.
fossil fuel use would have continued anyway, it just would have been more expensive
>Forcing industry to move from developed countries to undeveloped countries, thereby facilitating new carbon-spewing countries, in addition to the carbon emitted from transporting goods overseas.
The government doesn't do this. Market dynamics do. I suppose the government does do that indirectly by taxing corporations and requiring minimum standards for wages and benefits for workers, but the people actually voted for that stuff.
>Using violence to suppress people who attempt to defend their property from pollution.
Examples? This is hardly a widespread thing.

[Anonymous No.10764515]

>>10764508
>it just would have been more expensive
Still counts.
>the government does do that indirectly
Still counts.
>Examples? This is hardly a widespread thing.
You get arrested if you try to destroy coal power plants.

[Anonymous No.10764520]

>>10764515
>still counts
not really
>still counts
that's a broad definition of "government action"
>you get arrested if you try to sabotage buildings and equipment
gee

More importantly, the problem needs to be addressed. The "market" won't do anything about it until it's too late, so that leaves government action, or do nothing and everything goes to shit anyway.

[Anonymous No.10764523]

>>10763905
Paradox really dumbed down its UI this time around

[Anonymous No.10764524]

Massive solar farms have obviously been suggested before. The problem is how to store the energy and also how to get it where it's needed after it's stored.

But it's absolutely necessary for the western world to get off of fossil fuels because we can't keep giving money to fucking Arabs.

Also fuck Yanks and their petrodollar America should have been nuked.

[Anonymous No.10764525]

>>10764520
Fucking up is still fucking up regardless of intent.
> The "market" won't do anything about it until it's too late
Destroying all fossil fuel power plants in self defense would solve the problem much faster than any government action.

[Anonymous No.10764639]

>>10764183

>modern nuclear plants are shoddy
>laughs in Linear No Threshold

Nuclear had killed 46 people in 60 years.

A dam burst and killed tens of thousands.

Nuclear remains the safest method of electricity production because of its red tape due to the rules being written when we thought radiation was magic.

[Anonymous No.10764948]

>>10764639
The cost of the Fukushima cleanup exceeds the value of all nuclear power ever generated by japan.

[Anonymous No.10764952]

>>10764524
HVDC transmission lines 3% loss per 1000Km

[Anonymous No.10765069]

Why would be just go dig up some of those active volcanoes and install a massive geothermal plant there?
Isn't that basically unlimited free energy?

[Anonymous No.10765083]

And people ride horses in the meantime? What about the appreciation of some materials needed to do all of this in a short time period of five years, leading it to be more expensive? What about qualified labor to pull this off?

Cute post but it doesn't work like that

[Anonymous No.10765086]

>>10765069
It's not free since you have to build the plants

[Anonymous No.10765089]

>>10764952
A meme too costly to implement.

[Anonymous No.10765097]

>>10765086
Yes of course, but the same could be said of fusion, and yet fusion is lauded as this potential source of free energy.

[Anonymous No.10765099]

>>10765083
>What about qualified labor to pull this off?
That's why everyone says climate action would be a huge jobs boom.

[Anonymous No.10765106]

>>10765086
besides the point that there is no such thing as light only mental illness is real and you forgot to talk about rainbows pakistan neckbeard

[Anonymous No.10765428]

>>10765069
>Why would be just go dig up some of those active volcanoes and install a massive geothermal plant there?

OK seriously, why aren't we doing this? Why the fuck are we investing billions in fusion when we have a source of concentrated free energy to siphon off for basically eternity?

[Anonymous No.10765643]

>>10763243
Sounds like a bad solution to a non-problem. I suggest we remove the worst greenhouse chemical from the atmosphere...H2O. If we remove H2O from the atmosphere run away greenhouse effects will be halted instantly.

[Anonymous No.10765653]

>>10763905
>not a single hydro plant on ocean or coastline
>shit like this actually went into testing phase
>no one questioned it until after it was built

Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.10765673]

>>10764183
>>10763491
>>10764639
>small nation builds solar power plant
>the solar power company starts selling waste solar power modules to the local solar power activist group
>solar power activist group begins to refine the solar power waste
>solar power activist group now has refined solarable fuel to make a light bomb
>solar power activist group sets off light bomb in the middle of a crowded city during New Years celebration when no one is wearing sun screen
>millions suffer 2nd and 3rd degree UV burns on exposed skin & thousands are blinded
>that same month there's a critical failure at the solar power plant
>the resulting solar power plant disaster leaks UV radiation into the surrounding environment
>millions of the local population receive the equivalent of 2 hours of direct sunlight in only 30 seconds
>lightly tanned estimates 200 miles from the disaster measure in the 100s of millions.
>sunscreen stocks skyrocket
>solar power stocks plummet
>hard regulation is implemented for solar power plants and refined solar power waste and its products

This is the world we live in, gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.10765792]

>>10763905
I love this shit. For some reason grand planning gets me hard. Nothing quite showcases our power as a species if not shit like this.

[Anonymous No.10765796]

>>10765653
Wave power was such a joke, lol. Should have called it Limp Dick power.

[Anonymous No.10765812]

>>10765796
There's more unused wave power on the planet than there is solar energy striking the entire planet.

[Anonymous No.10765846]

>>10765812
I know but did they actually get it to work?

[Anonymous No.10765858]

>>10765846
Funding problems,
>The farm first generated electricity in July 2008 but was taken offline in November 2008 at the same time as Babcock & Brown encountered financial difficulties.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agu%C3%A7adoura_Wave_Farm

[Anonymous No.10766073]

>>10763243
>That will cost, 28.7 trillion € or $32.69 trillion, in just nominal PV panels cost.

Why are you ignoring the carbon capture and refinery costs?

>t. accountant

[Anonymous No.10766381]

>>10763243
>The price of solar is about 0.35€/W as of now.
This is all well and good OP, but you ignore another crucial thing- solar produces only ~20% (around ~30% in deserts) of its nameplate capacity on an yearly basis. This means you actually need well over 270 TW nameplate capacity to get the wildly inefficient air capture meme. By your calculations, you need ~520 trillion kWh. You can get roughly 80-90 kWh per m^2 per year in desert conditions (see big farms in Cali and Utah). This means your whole contraption would take up 6.1 million km^2. This is roughly 80% of the contiguous US. Even if you scrap the air capture meme, you still need 2 million km^2 to generate all the energy of humanity. Something 2 million km^2 would be a lovecraftian nightmare to build and maintain.

All this doesn't even take into account the air capture infrastructure as >>10766073 mentioned.

[Anonymous No.10766630]

>>10766381
How is solar a meme?
It works and it's relatively cheap and you can deploy it incrementally starting with basically zero initial investment.
Good luck doing it with non-meme infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.10766643]

>>10764639
>Nuclear remains the safest method of electricity production because of its red tape.
You are exactly right.

[Anonymous No.10766678]

>>10763523
>>10763524
>>10763845
>>10764183
>>10765673

Never said that safety should be ignored but with all that money even going through red tape would be much faster.
Also image what such investment in nuclear would do to the industry, the jobs, the people, new scientists, engineers, construction, it would boost the average usa iq by several points, instead just give trillions to arabs for dead plant and animal matter and then give some more

[Anonymous No.10766682]

>>10763243
>only carbon neutral hydrocarbon
Because consumers don't like infinite costs (infinite entropy).

You can't "subsidize" away basic physics. There will always be energy requirements for doing any sort of work. Money is not an actual resource. Going by the oil analogy, money is just another form of battery.

[Anonymous No.10766686]

>>10766630
>How is solar a meme?
Where did I say it was?
I said air capture is a meme. OP's plan is also impossible from a practical perspective.

[Anonymous No.10766711]

>>10763250
Not capturing carbon would keep present carbon levels for hundreds of years to come, and possibly still increase them since there are non-antropogenic CO2 emissions which will carry one happening like forrest fires which won't become less frequent unless we reverse carbon trends.

Stopping CO2 emissions worldwide in any timeframe short enough to keep global warming under manageable levels would reduce living standards to such an extent that the politicians and industrialists responsible for those green policies would be popularly overthrown and replaced by non-green politicians and industrialists.

[Anonymous No.10766723]

>>10763457
The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is pretty much fixed. More heat puts more water into the atmosphere, which increases cloud covering in the atmosphere, which prevents heat from putting more water into the atmosphere - it's a closed, stable loop.

If it ever reaches a high enough concentration to become a factor, a tipping point so-to-say, we'll start cooking too fast to do anything about it because the runaway greenhouse effect would cause the remaining surface water to evaporate which would cause more heating which would cause more evaporation which would cause more heating which would cause more evaporation and so on until the oceans boiled away - we'd have melted before then, since eukaryotic life can't bear temps higher than 60º.

[Anonymous No.10766734]

>>10765643
>letting wood to rot in low oxygen environment
>anaerobic microbes eat it up and poop out methane
>the methane released adds 30x more to the greenhouse effect than CO2
Good job, anon, you've killed all of our grandchildren.

[Anonymous No.10766738]

>Stopping CO2 emissions worldwide in any timeframe short enough to keep global warming under manageable levels would reduce living standards to such an extent that the politicians and industrialists responsible for those green policies would be popularly overthrown

I call bullshit. We could most definitely retain all important aspects of current life while reducing emissions massively. It's all about reorganizing society to be way more energy efficient.
For example take personal transportation. Huge chunk of emissions and super energy inefficient. Most of it happens in cities. Cities could ban cars and build decent public transport. It would not decrease but increase the living standards in those cities (no pollution and you'd probably get from A to B faster too when you account for not traffic). That's just one example.

[Anonymous No.10766749]

>>10766678
>it would boost the average usa iq by several points
???

[Anonymous No.10766750]

>>10766734
Just keep it away from the vents that provide heat and it will be cold enough to not matter. Perhaps all that frozen tundra marsh gas in the norther areas, that is thawing out now was an ancient civilization's former CO2 logging dump?

[Anonymous No.10766755]

>>10766749
Not him, but it'd happen at the very least as brain drain from other countries.

[Anonymous No.10766762]

>>10766738
You forget that America is a country run by coal and oil barons and as much as suggesting that the government should spend money on services like public transportation and infrastructure will get you labeled a communist.

[Anonymous No.10766766]

>>10766762
The corporate oligarchs have indoctrinated the public well.

[Anonymous No.10766774]

>>10766750
You can't bring down sea bottom temp so low that psychrophiles cannot live in it - the bottom of the Mariana trench is still a few C above freezing and animals grow and reproduce there, albeit at slow rates, so we can expect bacteria will do well enough there too.

[Anonymous No.10766787]

>>10766774
Which is why there's no life except around vents...

[Anonymous No.10766808]

>>10766738
Great, you've decreased the energy needs for a share of transportation, which as a sector makes up less than a third of the economy responsible for greenhouse gas, in the places (cities) where the cost of transportation per capita is lowest (because most public transp is already there).

The most polluted cities are in poorer countries which cannot afford to spend as much on infra-structure renewal or expansion.

[Anonymous No.10766838]

>>10766787
Again, you can't bring the temperature down from what it is already. How do you cool the bottom of the Marianna trench? Are you going to move the continental rifts so that there are no vents heating the trench?

[Anonymous No.10766854]

>>10766766
>The corporate oligarchs have indoctrinated the public well.

This is an ironic statement, you think all the alternative energy companies push aggresive marketing campaigns because they have the well being of our planet and us in mind?

[Anonymous No.10766857]

>>10766854
nutjob

[Anonymous No.10766869]

>>10766857
lol

[Anonymous No.10766997]

>>10764952

And how will you store the energy without bankrupting yourself?

[Anonymous No.10767019]

>>10766997
If you have a smart reactive grid over a huge expanse of land you don't need much storage cause you always have power demand and supply somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10768176]

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526

[Anonymous No.10768254]

>>10766838
>being this stupid

Wow, just fucking wow. lol

[Anonymous No.10769465]

>>10766750
>Just keep it away from the vents that provide heat and it will be cold enough to not matter.
And how cold do you really think it is?
>Perhaps all that frozen tundra marsh gas in the norther areas, that is thawing out now was an ancient civilization's former CO2 logging dump?
I hope you are joking but I cannot tell.

[Anonymous No.10769511]

>>10763243

>>10763445

THIS

Problem is that most people don't wan't to decrease their consumption. Also there is plenty of people in those who are worried about climate change who believe that Elon Musk like figure is going to save the day just like some kind of superhero.

[Anonymous No.10769586]

>>10765089
China's doing it just fine

[Anonymous No.10769644]

>>10765792
I know, remember seeing plans 120 years ago of putting a dam in at the strait of Gibraltar and draining a large part of the Mediterranean.

[Anonymous No.10769653]

>>10763243
Why don't you just plant some trees

[Anonymous No.10769684]

Because the amount of strip mining for the metals needed to make the batteries would drive current practices into overdrive and produce even more dead, raked landscapes and toxic waste which, unlike CO2, in actually harmful.

Wind and solar are memes (solar for now, it might work in the future, wind forever). Take wind. To handle just new global energy demand would require one to fill an area the size of Canada or Russia in wind turbines within a couple of decades. And that's not accounting for existing energy demands. Supplying Manhattan with wind energy would necessitate the building of 200 Manhattans worth of wind turbine fields. The number of dead birds and bats would be enormous. And the tech won't even improve, the ability of a turbine to convert kinetic wind energy into mechanical turbine energy is limited by physical laws. The maximum amount theoretically extractable is 59% but that's assuming a fan that has infinite blades.

In any case, solar panels require more maintenance than typical infrastructure as they need to be kept clean or they lose efficiency.

Earth has been much warmer in the past, with CO2 being both high and low, without a runaway effect. The only question is whether the speed of temperature change is unnatural and whether that will be harmful. Well, ice cores don't tell you the temperature on October 17th 74 million BC. Their resolution quickly breaks down. So if the massive error bars on a graph of historic temperature go up or down 0.1C over 500 years, that does not mean the temperature changed that slowly. It could have swung up and down all over the place and you'd have no way of knowing. To say otherwise means making unscientific statements. Hell, the entire alarmist industrial complex is unscientific. What experiments can you run or comparisons can you make when there's no control Earth? It's just driven by money. Tens of billions vs millions. "Deniers" are being outspent by a factor of thousands to one.

[Anonymous No.10769706]

>>10769684

It should have been obvious to you years ago. Every meme is basically a fraud. The 97% stat comes from the Doran survey. A Master's thesis in the form of a questionnaire sent to over 10,000 scientists. 2/3 didn't even bother answering. Exactly what you'd expect for such an important issue, right? Well, the answers from the remaining ~3,000 weren't what they were looking for, so they whittled them down, over and over, until they were left with the responses of just 79 people.

And the questions they asked? "1) Has the Earth warmed since the 1880's." This is a simple statement of fact that says nothing. Yes, according to our best estimates (which, before a few decades ago, relied on shoddy measurements in barely a handful of places in the world, mostly in the northern hemisphere in Europe and America) it has warmed slightly. And "2) Were human emissions a significant contributor to this warming." But there was no definition of the word significant. If you're of the opinion that our emissions, which make up 5% of current CO2 (the rest being natural), are a a bit of a drop in a bucket, then maybe 5% is significant to you. Who knows? They didn't bother asking.

But it's okay because the science is "settled", right? IPCC reports state CO2 is responsible for somewhere between 33% and 66% of warming, a huge fucking 33 point window. But it's settled. How much is it doing? Not a fucking clue. But it's settled.

The absolute STATE of kool-aid drinkers. jfc

All this does is distract from actual pollution, which is massive and extremely dangerous. Land is being stripped bare, the oceans are being filled with an armada of plastic, Indian people have no plumbing and the heat map of fecal matter in the water around their country looks like a christmas tree, but yeah, putting some plant food in the air is an issue on a planet where all life will die if CO2 goes below 150ppm.

Sure.

[Anonymous No.10769711]

>>10763243
If you're going to mandate carbon neutral fuel then you don't need a giant solar powered carbon scrubber, just plant some trees.

[Anonymous No.10769718]

>>10769706
How does that distract from pollution at all? The solution to climate change is also the solution to pollution. Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10769754]

>>10763449
lmao

[Anonymous No.10769762]

>>10769754
>Subsidies for an emerging technology in one financial year
Amazing, I learned so much from your post

[Anonymous No.10769776]

>>10766854
That isn't irony. It's not indoctrination in that case. Renewables companies don't have the sway that fossil fuel companies and countries do yet, and more importantly, believing the truth isn't dogmatism.
>aggressive marketing campaigns
Where? I haven't seen any of them in America. I have seen Exxon-Mobil ads claiming to care about climate change and renewables, though. It's a bit like "Dawn saves wildlife" or "Johnson and Johnson takes care of you." That is, it's a joke and a lie for saps to believe. It's astroturfing in response to legitimate criticisms leveled against them for environmental impacts of their products, or conflating your purchases with their caring about you or environmental issues. All I see are the offenders paying lip service to the problems without seriously addressing them, because that would harm their bottom line.

[Anonymous No.10769778]

>>10769762
It's going to be an emerging technology forever, as cost slightly go down when the government finds more and more ingenious ways of discretely pumping money into that failed project.

[Anonymous No.10769780]

>>10769778
Cool argument, not helped at all by the non evidence you posted.

[Anonymous No.10769782]

>>10769762
What do you think determines the costs of something? All of that money is inevitably spent on things that cause carbon emissions, so the more expensive something is, the bigger its carbon footprint is.

If it was viable, even in the long run, it wouldn't require subsides.

[Anonymous No.10769783]

>>10769778
You know what else is a failed project? The fossil fuel economy. If you want to keep your technology without raping the environment to death and plunging humanity into the darkest period of its entire existence, renewables are your best bet.

[Anonymous No.10769786]

>>10769780
I don't have to, the ballooning electricity costs in every region that attempts these little pet projects speak for themselves. These retards in Ontario hopefully learned their lesson.

[Anonymous No.10769788]

>>10769783
Look m8 im not interested in your death cult. Nuclear based grids have a proven track record.

[Anonymous No.10769794]

>>10769786
I bet you think recycling is a bad idea too because it costs more money. You are too dumb to understand the issue here.

[Anonymous No.10769799]

>>10769788
I'm equally uninterested in your hyperbolic mischaracterizations of facts you don't like. Climate change is a dire threat to all of humanity. You think it will be fine, until people start starving, dying, migrating because of basic needs of food and water, and nukes start flying. Calling it a doomsday cult or death cult is a way to dismiss serious threats without addressing them. Sometimes, very awful things do end up happening to humans because facts are ignored, if you ever bothered to open a history book.

[Anonymous No.10769804]

>>10769794
>money is this abstract thing disemboweled from the real constraints set by resources/energy invested vs return
There's a reason why 50%+ renewable grids (excluding hydro/geothermal) don't work out too well.

[Anonymous No.10769805]

>>10769782
Then why do fossil fuel and nuclear industries require subsidies?

[Anonymous No.10769807]

>>10769799
Yes nuclear reactors are a big threat to the world's climate, sure thing faggot.

[Anonymous No.10769808]

>>10769805
>>10769754

[Anonymous No.10769810]

>>10769804
It's not about producing a return. How do you not understand this?

[Anonymous No.10769814]

>>10769808
>2013
Nice, show me what government subsidies were for coal when that was an emerging technology

[Anonymous No.10769818]

>>10769807
Changing the topic to avoid confronting why your dismissiveness of a threat is idiotic is on you.

[Anonymous No.10769832]

>>10769810
>It's not about producing a return
What the fuck is your problem? What the hell do you think those powerplants are for anyways? Decoration? It's absolutely about producing a fucking return. Especially when you consider your return limits how many of those same powerplants you can build in the future, considering that they're aren't conjured out of thin air.
>>10769814
>emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology emerging technology
Well I guess we should take the opportunity those people didn't have back then and just stick to other forms of electricity that actually works, right now, for cheap.
Also don't take me for a fool, you're saying this with the hope that such old data would be difficult to find. Fortunately that data is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10769838]

>>10769818
How the fuck am I changing the topic? I never said anything favorable of fossil fuel. You brought up climate change. I said nuclear power has a negligible impact on climate change. Moron.

[Anonymous No.10769841]

>>10769754
Comparing my graph to yours makes it apparent those subsidies actually did something unlike the votgle disaster.

[Anonymous No.10769843]

>>10763243
Because there's no economic incentive to be carbon neutral.

[Anonymous No.10769846]

>>10769841
Well the fact that in the real world, renewable have never been a viable majority substitute in an electric grid works in favor of what I am saying.

[Anonymous No.10769849]

>>10769832
Except they don't work now, we need something new, you spastic.

[Anonymous No.10769850]

>>10769846
Again, other than hydro or geo.

[Anonymous No.10769851]

>>10769838
You responded to my post with "something something death cult" and then pretend that's not what you said and you were talking about nuclear power, when I never once mentioned nuclear power. Your post >>10769778 wasn't talking about nuclear either, it was declaring renewables useless in hyperbolic fashion again. Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10769854]

>>10769843
There would be if the US government didn't pillage the middle east for oil and put heavy restrictions on the one form of clean energy that has been proven viable.

[Anonymous No.10769858]

>>10769832
It's not about producing a return, it's about producing less CO2.

[Anonymous No.10769871]

>>10763243
> just fuckin make everyone use hydrocarbon fuel
Yeah great fuckin idea m8 just pull worldwide legislation out of your ass, kill off billions in jobs across the globe and enforce it with levels of authoritarianism that shouldn't even exist

[Anonymous No.10769876]

>>10769851
I absolutely said death cult, what the problem with that? I never said I was talking about global warming, I was talking about your intent to have a painful regression backwards economically and technological so that you can consider the ensuing deaths sacrifices to the altar of your ego. You're not the only with that attitude, hence why it's a cult. pic related. Variant of the methodology but same intent.
My entire discussion has been to argue that nuclear is a better alternative to renewable. This has been crystal clear from the beginning and perfectly explain the intent behind all my posts.
You're not just sociopathic, you're also imbecilic. Strange combination.

[Anonymous No.10769880]

>>10769858
You still don't fucking understand, you're hopelessly stupid. If you don't care about returns you don't need powerplants in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10769886]

>>10769880
Exactly

[Anonymous No.10769903]

>>10769886
Well sentient humans like electricity very much so I am afraid that's not happening.

[Anonymous No.10769904]

>>10769876
I wasn't talking about nuclear, ever, but here goes. Nuclear and renewables are both a part of the solution. Nuclear's life-cycle emissions profile is still much greater than those of renewables, and it's not negligible. Nuclear only is unnecessary and less effective than a mixed grid. Your position is bizarre and idiotic. You are dismissive of renewables for poor reasons and hyperbolic declarations about how "bad" they are.

[Anonymous No.10769905]

>>10763445
Also reduce world population from 8 billion down to 4 billion to increase living space and quality of life. Share out the population amongst the 5 continents.

Finally create underground cryo-mechanical power stations in Antarctica that can utilize liquid nitrogen and argon from the atmosphere which are excellent in terms of storing efficiency.

[Anonymous No.10769916]

>>10769903
They won't be sentient when they're dead

[Anonymous No.10769926]

>>10769916
Ah, so you're also part of the deathcult, I see.
>>10769904
Well I was and you decided to engage in my discussion. Your decision to act like a moron is your own.

[Anonymous No.10769930]

>>10769926
Wrong, faggot. Your dismissiveness of renewables is a joke that you still haven't managed to justify. You've only declared it to be true and posted the subsidies bogeyman as if it meant anything.

[Anonymous No.10769934]

>>10769926
>Blah blah death cult
You need to stop being so emotional

[Anonymous No.10769938]

>>10769465
>And how cold do you really think it is?
34F to 39F

>I hope you are joking but I cannot tell.
Are you autistic? LOL

[Anonymous No.10770868]

>>10768254
>>10769938
Do you not understand that is warm is enough for types of methanogens to live and thrive?

There are methanogen bacteria living in Antartic lakes at 28ºF.

[Anonymous No.10770889]

We lose a ton of energy simply transporting it through the wires. I think you can only effectively "ship" power a couple hundred miles at most before you lose most of it. So energy generation has to be relatively local to your area. You can't just build one big solar plant that will power the entire world

[Anonymous No.10771001]

Build and develop nuclear power
Nuke Africa
Earth saved.

[Anonymous No.10771092]

>>10763243
Don't rely on the government.
If you're german, lookup Lition Energie and get your electricity from a carbon neutral plant only.

[Anonymous No.10772740]

>>10769841
Vogtle, despite the cost overruns, is still cheaper than solar.

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/nuclear-is-cheaper-than-solar-thermal

[Anonymous No.10772762]

>why don't we grow corn
we do.

[Anonymous No.10772774]

>>10772740
>solar thermal SOLAR THERMAL
LMAO

[Anonymous No.10772832]

>>10770889
yes you can

[Anonymous No.10772834]

>>10772740
Numbers are already outdated, Vogtle got 7BN in federal loans and total cost is projected to be over 25Bn It's even worse when you consider Crescent dunes has been operational for 4 years now and vogtle STILL isn't operational.

[Anonymous No.10772840]

>>10772740
>And though Grunwald anticipates “dramatic reductions in ‘soft costs’ like permitting, marketing and installation,” those are unlikely to come without long-term, sustained subsidies to scale the industry up. Unlike price declines in solar manufacturing, economies of scale for solar soft costs, as we pointed out a year ago, don't spill over from one economy to another. Germany's $100 billion in solar subsidies over the last decade have helped drive down the cost of modules for everyone. But Germany's solar installation costs have offered little benefit here. To achieve similar reductions in the installed cost of solar panels will likely require a similar scale of subsidies in the United States.
Wow this blog post really hasn't aged well.

[Anonymous No.10773142]

>>10769905
I don't know why but that picture makes me feel sad

[Anonymous No.10774177]

>>10772840
Turns out when you have state and people willing to hop onto solar (or any energy source really) you can make it work well.

[Anonymous No.10774194]

>>10770868
You don't know that sinking logs in cold water is what governments like Japan do to keep them for decades for when times are lean?

[Anonymous No.10775136]

>>10763428
>be squeezed out of the market by other options that make more sense
Such as?

[Anonymous No.10775143]

>setup a huge ass mega solar farm in the various deserts of the world, and then use the power to capture CO2 and synthesize it into hydrocarbon

It seems like 90% of the people who think we should do carbon sequestration have no idea how it's done. They're like you, they think you use some sort of filter to pull just the CO2 from the air.

Cook algae at 200C and you get methane.