If you like having your blood pressure raised...

[Techno-phile]

I know that de-platforming has become fashionable, but its use is still very controversial.
Although the cartoons deemed to have been inappropriate used the image of a very public advocate for action on climate change, I think that they both made pertinent points:

One, that if we need more EVs we are going to need huge quantities of batteries which require the miners who are hand digging the cobalt ore to work faster.
Of course Tesla is reducing the quantity of Cobalt and may even be able to eliminate it, but all the other manufacturers are a long way behind.

Two, that children being brought up in Poverty might actually prefer the lifestyle the activist says has/will be stolen from her.
The Third world is entitled to the same standard of living as us, which is going to require the generation of huge amounts of Energy.

I think we all agree on what has to be done, but some of us put CO2 emissions lower in the list than others.
And I don’t that that naïve appeals to emotion by this particular activist, help rational discussion on what money to give to each of the solutions.

I didn’t “like” the cartoons, partly because of the point our Moderator has made, and partly out of cowardice.

 

[meloccom]

De-platforming is a permanent ban, and that has not happened in this case.
Temporary bans are more like the naughty mat.
The posters of the inappropriate content could choose to explain the virtues of their point of view without resorting to cartoons that make a cheap shot.
You can argue that cobalt mining includes child labour in some instances and I can argue that cobalt is also used in phone batteries and in removing sulphur from petrol and the issue is one of supply auditing regardless of the end use and many manufacturers including Tesla state that they audit where the cobalt comes from.
You can also make the point that in asking us to follow the science and decarbonise our economies as Miss Thunberg urges us to do is not inconsistent with raising other children out of poverty as renewable energy is often the cheapest and easiest to deploy In undeveloped areas.
Both sides of the argument need to put in the work to make their case or else we descend into misleading smart arse pictures that do not develop anyone’s understanding of the subject being discussed.

 

[paulp]

Its fascinating that the climate issue seems to polarise people like no other topic.

 

[Shock-On-T]

OK, Vostok. What Practical solution do you propose? Go back to the Stone Age? Every single green proposal still produces emissions in its execution including our cars. You have provided heaps of references, so I guess you have pulled together the information gleaned from them.
I assume No agriculture, no transportation , no manufacturing of anything, no mining, no cooking, simply subsistence existing since I would not call that life style “living”. May as well give up now and start pushing up daisy’s. Oh wait, who is going to bury us as we cant have cremations either. cant manufacture the spades, since there is no mining tree harvesting or metal smelting. Also no way to transport the spades to the undertakers. Hmm.
You do, of course realize that for any figures you produce there will be a contra set of figures. Just depends which set you choose to believe. Take a recognized climate scientist like Tim Flannery. His predictions presumably based on REAL knowledge have really come to pass, not. Just one tiny example of what I am getting at. I don’t have the time to troll the internet to pull up figures. You clearly do and good luck to you. I refuse to be caught up in the hysteria. My choice. I am not asking you or anyone else to join me. I have NOT denied the climate is changing. It is. But it is a damn sight more complex than human emissions. Just how much was poured into the atmosphere due to our fuel overload/drought based bushfires this season? Californias? Amazonia? The drought was the Indian Ocean dipole and in other times the El Niño La Niña effect, neither of which is materially affected by co2 in the air. Anyone who claims to be able to measure that accurately is just whistling in the wind and relying on PhD behind their name. Ditto with volcanic emission. A single volcano shut down much of Europe for months based in Iceland. That could be accurately measured? You gotta be kidding! Vehicles is a bit different. You can stick measuring instruments up tail pipes.
I am not, I repeat, trying to convince you or anyone else. You know what we used to say at uni? A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing!
Unfortunately common sense is not common any longer.

But if you're not a climate scientist how do you know you're right? Just a gut feeling? Bit of internet research? Youtube? Discussions with like-minded folks over a beer?

 

[paulp]

But if you're not a climate scientist how do you know you're right? Just a gut feeling? Bit of internet research? Youtube? Discussions with like-minded folks over a beer?

This will just go around in a never ending loop. People claim science is right. It often is. It also has a long history of being wrong at times. Debate on scientist correctness is pointless due to historical outcomes.
All tesla owners are contributing to reducing their environmental footprint. Compared to the audi I used to own my tesla is cheaper to run (same capital cost), so double bonus. Curiously my solar panels are saving me cash, as are my LED lights. Even my makita battery lawnmower is cheaper to run than my old fossil version. No harm in doing more. You’ll help the planet and save cash. (If you arent into the planet just take the cash savings. The planet still gets the help as a consequence).
Scientists can argue amongst themselves.

 

[Vostok]

This will just go around in a never ending loop. People claim science is right. It often is. It also has a long history of being wrong at times. Debate on scientist correctness is pointless due to historical outcomes.

Not really, see my previous post in response to this. The problem with that position is that the contrarian scientists or climate change sceptics/deniers seemingly cannot provide a plausible scientific explanation backed up with evidence as to why (a) CO2 levels today are 35% higher now than at any point over the past 800,000 years and (b) why CO2 levels today are increasing at a rate 50 times faster per annum now than at any point over the past 800,000 years.

So on one hand we have a very large body of evidence from diverse sources which under scientific analysis and scrutiny add up a very credible causative explanation. On the other hand we seem to have few or no credible theories as to why this is happening if the burning of fossil fuels is excluded as a causative factor.

It’s not about deplatforming but about having some semblance of responsibility and accountability in public debate. Otherwise it’s like saying we should give equal airtime or credibility to those who argue smoking does not cause lung cancer or asbestos fibres are not dangerous to inhale. Few would consider that a responsible position to take in a public debate based on the known evidence. The same should apply here, because the evidence is just as strong if not stronger.

Of course I understand there is a chance that the majority body of science on this topic is wrong, and that’s where the risk matrix comes in. Not only do we need to consider what happens if theory “X” is correct or incorrect (and how likely those two things are) but what the possible consequences are, depending on what we do in response.

If theory “X” turns out to be correct, but we took no action given the possibility “X” is wrong, the potential consequences are beyond dire. We need to compare that scenario with the counterfactual that “X” turns out to be incorrect, but we still took action, on the possibility “X” was right. Which outcome, do you think, would be worse? In this case, the appropriate risk management response is to treat “X” as correct and respond accordingly.

The contrarians/sceptics/deniers have no answer to that one, you see, because they rarely if ever countenance the possibility they might be wrong. There’s a clear red flag if you need one.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

Not really, see my previous post in response to this. The problem with that position is that the contrarian scientists or climate change sceptics/deniers seemingly cannot provide a plausible scientific explanation backed up with evidence as to why (a) CO2 levels today are 35% higher now than at any point over the past 800,000 years and (b) why CO2 levels today are increasing at a rate 50 times faster per annum now than at any point over the past 800,000 years.

So on one hand we have a very large body of evidence from diverse sources which under scientific analysis and scrutiny add up a very credible causative explanation. On the other hand we seem to have few or no credible theories as to why this is happening if the burning of fossil fuels is excluded as a causative factor.

It’s not about deplatforming but about having some semblance of responsibility and accountability in public debate. Otherwise it’s like saying we should give equal airtime or credibility to those who argue smoking does not cause lung cancer or asbestos fibres are not dangerous to inhale. Few would consider that a responsible position to take in a public debate based on the known evidence. The same should apply here, because the evidence is just as strong if not stronger.

Of course I understand there is a chance that the majority body of science on this topic is wrong, and that’s where the risk matrix comes in. Not only do we need to consider what happens if theory “X” is correct or incorrect (and how likely those two things are) but what the possible consequences are, depending on what we do in response.

If theory “X” turns out to be correct, but we took no action given the possibility “X” is wrong, the potential consequences are beyond dire. We need to compare that scenario with the counterfactual that “X” turns out to be incorrect, but we still took action, on the possibility “X” was right. Which outcome, do you think, would be worse? In this case, the appropriate risk management response is to treat “X” as correct and respond accordingly.

The contrarians/sceptics/deniers have no answer to that one, you see, because they rarely if ever countenance the possibility they might be wrong. There’s a clear red flag if you need one.

Again, spot on....

 

[paulp]

Not really, see my previous post in response to this. The problem with that position is that the contrarian scientists or climate change sceptics/deniers seemingly cannot provide a plausible scientific explanation backed up with evidence as to why (a) CO2 levels today are 35% higher now than at any point over the past 800,000 years and (b) why CO2 levels today are increasing at a rate 50 times faster per annum now than at any point over the past 800,000 years.

So on one hand we have a very large body of evidence from diverse sources which under scientific analysis and scrutiny add up a very credible causative explanation. On the other hand we seem to have few or no credible theories as to why this is happening if the burning of fossil fuels is excluded as a causative factor.

It’s not about deplatforming but about having some semblance of responsibility and accountability in public debate. Otherwise it’s like saying we should give equal airtime or credibility to those who argue smoking does not cause lung cancer or asbestos fibres are not dangerous to inhale. Few would consider that a responsible position to take in a public debate based on the known evidence. The same should apply here, because the evidence is just as strong if not stronger.

Of course I understand there is a chance that the majority body of science on this topic is wrong, and that’s where the risk matrix comes in. Not only do we need to consider what happens if theory “X” is correct or incorrect (and how likely those two things are) but what the possible consequences are, depending on what we do in response.

If theory “X” turns out to be correct, but we took no action given the possibility “X” is wrong, the potential consequences are beyond dire. We need to compare that scenario with the counterfactual that “X” turns out to be incorrect, but we still took action, on the possibility “X” was right. Which outcome, do you think, would be worse? In this case, the appropriate risk management response is to treat “X” as correct and respond accordingly.

The contrarians/sceptics/deniers have no answer to that one, you see, because they rarely if ever countenance the possibility they might be wrong. There’s a clear red flag if you need one.

Stop selling science and start selling economic benefits. Its more tangible to most. Its easy for anyone to claim the science is wrong. Not so easy to deny that my tesla costs be nothing in power or petrol.
Selling financial gains is a much happier method that doesn’t cause heated discussion and ineffective outcomes.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

Stop selling science and start selling economic benefits. Its more tangible to most. Its easy for anyone to claim the science is wrong. Not so easy to deny that my tesla costs be nothing in power or petrol.
Selling financial gains is a much happier method that doesn’t cause heated discussion and ineffective outcomes.

Not sure sure, for years we tried to push the cost savings of VoIP however moved to selling the features of VoIP and now moving systems left right and centre....

 

[paulp]

Not sure sure, for years we tried to push the cost savings of VoIP however moved to selling the features of VoIP and now moving systems left right and centre....

Yes but the features of VoIP are tangible and simple to see. Those features arent based on someones opinion based on someones opinion. To be fair early VoIP was rubbish. Its not now.
As an architect I tried for years trying unsuccessfully to get people to accept my ideas for helping the environment. It showed a fairly average attitude toward the planet on behalf of a significant number. I changed my approach to showing some simple cost saving modelling. Things like “doing this will save 85% of your power costs”. I kept explanations simple enough that they could understand the savings, and short, as most people forget the 1st paragraph once they’ve read the 3rd paragraph. Worked every time. They got their savings, I got the help I wanted for the planet.

 

[paulp]

Just to be clear. Many of you understand the science - you embrace it as such is in your mental capability, and thats cool. Others are not so equipped, and quoting science at them will actually never help because they just don’t understand it. That difference isnt a negative, its just being a human. Equally a subset will understand cost savings whilst others consider that simplistic when science is available. I don’t care. Just use what works to create a better planet.
Consider it like dealing with a government department. If the answer is NO, its your fault for not asking the question correctly.

 

[Techno-phile]

The big difference between Religion and Science is that the former asserts Truth and latter merely claims a theory works, or has not yet been Falsified. Science is, or should be, always open to a new theory which better explains the evidence.
Therefore I do worry about those who claim the Science is settled, since their zeal for the particular theory has the hallmarks of Religion.

Having said that I accept the anthropogenic CO2 warming theory is the best theory so far to explain why the climate has warmed.
Of course there are many other gases such as CH4, N2O, H2S, F-gases, particulates some of which have a bigger warming effect than CO2 and some a cooling effect.

The real question for me is what to do about it, and it is on this point there are the biggest disagreements.

There are those who say we should close all synchronous generators in the grid and just rely on Renewables, which will undoubtedly reduce emissions. Some even claim that Renewables are cheaper, which is true whilst they are operating without load blips or variations. In practice, of course, for Renewables to take over from Synchronous generators, they also have to stabilise the grid (fast frequency response) and store energy for the times when they do not generate, and it is these additional requirements which are very expensive.
There are many articles on these issues, yet many people overlook these costs when advocating Renewables everywhere.

Energy security 'critical' as renewables surge

Solar investors take huge hit as grid struggles

Downer takes hit on solar project, points to connection risk | RenewEconomy

Major solar, wind projects stumble in front of new grid hurdles

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-solar-farms-face-tough-new-connection-hurdles-66874/amp/


We all know the that Tesla Neon battery at Hornsdale has managed to provide grid stability in South Australia and beyond despite that he fact that its storage capacity is tiny. All new Renewable projects now have to provide both stabilisation and storage in order to connect to the grid, which is making many of them uneconomic.

Snowy Hydro 1 is operating at full capacity most evenings in summer to allow workers returning home to air-condition their houses as the sun goes down. It will be a long time before Snow Hydro 2 can help in this regard, so in the meantime batteries are one of the best options. The problem is that there is a world wide shortage of them - auto manufacturers cannot satisfy the demand because they cannot buy sufficient batteries, despite facing huge fines in Europe if they don't sell more EVs.

https://insideevs.com/news/394521/mercedes-future-ev-halved-battery-shortage/

https://electrek.co/2020/02/21/repo...tomakers-not-expected-to-meet-eu-co2-targets/

Fortunately Tesla saw all this coming and positioned themselves well, but even they cannot deliver the CyberTruck pre-orders within four years of production, similarly with the Semi. Their mission for sustainable Energy and Transport is going to take many more years, and we all support it, but need to be realistic.

Therefore we should be promoting other solutions like the ones I mentioned previously (human population control and vegetarianism). We cannot just rely on Renewables, which in any case are only number 2 and number 8 on the list below.

https://www.greenamerica.org/climate-change-100-reasons-hope/top-10-solutions-reverse-climate-change

Finally I was pleased to see the recent article on Elon's long term mission and acknowledging his debt to Asimov's Foundation series (as I mentioned previously).
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/21/elo...fiction-book-series-that-inspired-spacex.html

 

[Shock-On-T]

Stop selling science and start selling economic benefits. Its more tangible to most. Its easy for anyone to claim the science is wrong. Not so easy to deny that my tesla costs be nothing in power or petrol.
Selling financial gains is a much happier method that doesn’t cause heated discussion and ineffective outcomes.

Agree people respond to economic incentives rather than long-term risk avoidance.
That's why we need to make the risk cost money, aka a carbon tax.
People won't reduce air travel because of the risk of climate change, but they will reduce air travel if it's more expensive.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Yes but the features of VoIP are tangible and simple to see. Those features arent based on someones opinion based on someones opinion. To be fair early VoIP was rubbish. Its not now.
As an architect I tried for years trying unsuccessfully to get people to accept my ideas for helping the environment. It showed a fairly average attitude toward the planet on behalf of a significant number. I changed my approach to showing some simple cost saving modelling. Things like “doing this will save 85% of your power costs”. I kept explanations simple enough that they could understand the savings, and short, as most people forget the 1st paragraph once they’ve read the 3rd paragraph. Worked every time. They got their savings, I got the help I wanted for the planet.

Your job would have been a lot easier if carbon had the climate change risk priced into it. A carbon tax would incentivise all forms of efficiency, and enable millions more people to be like you and make efficiency are saleable product.

 

[Shock-On-T]

The big difference between Religion and Science is that the former asserts Truth and latter merely claims a theory works, or has not yet been Falsified. Science is, or should be, always open to a new theory which better explains the evidence.
Therefore I do worry about those who claim the Science is settled, since their zeal for the particular theory has the hallmarks of Religion.

Having said that I accept the anthropogenic CO2 warming theory is the best theory so far to explain why the climate has warmed.
Of course there are many other gases such as CH4, N2O, H2S, F-gases, particulates some of which have a bigger warming effect than CO2 and some a cooling effect.

The real question for me is what to do about it, and it is on this point there are the biggest disagreements.

There are those who say we should close all synchronous generators in the grid and just rely on Renewables, which will undoubtedly reduce emissions. Some even claim that Renewables are cheaper, which is true whilst they are operating without load blips or variations. In practice, of course, for Renewables to take over from Synchronous generators, they also have to stabilise the grid (fast frequency response) and store energy for the times when they do not generate, and it is these additional requirements which are very expensive.
There are many articles on these issues, yet many people overlook these costs when advocating Renewables everywhere.

Energy security 'critical' as renewables surge

Solar investors take huge hit as grid struggles

Downer takes hit on solar project, points to connection risk | RenewEconomy

Major solar, wind projects stumble in front of new grid hurdles

Wind and solar farms face tough new connection hurdles


We all know the that Tesla Neon battery at Hornsdale has managed to provide grid stability in South Australia and beyond despite that he fact that its storage capacity is tiny. All new Renewable projects now have to provide both stabilisation and storage in order to connect to the grid, which is making many of them uneconomic.

Snowy Hydro 1 is operating at full capacity most evenings in summer to allow workers returning home to air-condition their houses as the sun goes down. It will be a long time before Snow Hydro 2 can help in this regard, so in the meantime batteries are one of the best options. The problem is that there is a world wide shortage of them - auto manufacturers cannot satisfy the demand because they cannot buy sufficient batteries, despite facing huge fines in Europe if they don't sell more EVs.

Update: Mercedes Cuts EQC EV Production Plans In Half Due To Battery Shortage

Report: At current rate of EV deployment, automakers not expected to meet EU CO2 targets - Electrek

Fortunately Tesla saw all this coming and positioned themselves well, but even they cannot deliver the CyberTruck pre-orders within four years of production, similarly with the Semi. Their mission for sustainable Energy and Transport is going to take many more years, and we all support it, but need to be realistic.

Therefore we should be promoting other solutions like the ones I mentioned previously (human population control and vegetarianism). We cannot just rely on Renewables, which in any case are only number 2 and number 8 on the list below.

Top 10 Solutions to Fight Climate Change

Finally I was pleased to see the recent article on Elon's long term mission and acknowledging his debt to Asimov's Foundation series (as I mentioned previously).
Elon Musk shares the science fiction book series that inspired him to start SpaceX

Step 1: Agree there's a problem to solve
Step 2: Work out the best way to solve it

I just wish we were all on Step 2.

 

[Techno-phile]

Step 1: Agree there's a problem to solve
Step 2: Work out the best way to solve it

I just wish we were all on Step 2.

I doubt there is anybody who doesn't think there is a Climate Change problem.

The issue is how important it is as against other problems, and so how to allocate the available monies round all the problems.
Even worse it is not clear which is the best way to tackle the Climate Change problem (as described in the GreenAmerica document and many others).
But some people who only see one solution, demonise others who see many different solutions, so it becomes impossible to raise the alternatives. So real discussion on Step 2 never happens.

Personally I wish Governments were spending far more money on technological solutions.

Fortunately we are all supporting one of the few companies who are not only tackling sustainable energy in what I think is the best way (battery technology), but also will have the ability to deploy Solar Shades at the Lagrangian point, and finally has the mission of preserving human knowledge on another planet.

 

[paulp]

Your job would have been a lot easier if carbon had the climate change risk priced into it. A carbon tax would incentivise all forms of efficiency, and enable millions more people to be like you and make efficiency are saleable product.

I question whether thats true about a carbon tax. I can already give you a commercial office building that is way more efficient and cheaper to build than an old school one that ignores environment considerations. I can demonstrate through actual proven buildings that these buildings are cheaper to build, lease or rent for a lot more, are more desirable to tenants, and sell for substantially more. There is hard tangible evidence, and yet developers still dont take it. A stupidity tax would do more than a carbon tax.
Same with cars. You can buy a merc/bmw/audi fossil car for the same price as a tesla.....although I guess markets are slowly but surely working out which one is cheaper to run and has other benefits.

 

[paulp]

Step 1: Agree there's a problem to solve
Step 2: Work out the best way to solve it

I just wish we were all on Step 2.

I think you need to define whats before step 1, because we arent as an international society even at step 1 yet

 

[Shock-On-T]

I question whether thats true about a carbon tax. I can already give you a commercial office building that is way more efficient and cheaper to build than an old school one that ignores environment considerations. I can demonstrate through actual proven buildings that these buildings are cheaper to build, lease or rent for a lot more, are more desirable to tenants, and sell for substantially more. There is hard tangible evidence, and yet developers still dont take it. A stupidity tax would do more than a carbon tax.
Same with cars. You can buy a merc/bmw/audi fossil car for the same price as a tesla.....although I guess markets are slowly but surely working out which one is cheaper to run and has other benefits.

A carbon tax would take your statement and find/replace the word “cheaper” with “much cheaper”, and it would change millions of other entrepreneurs’ statements from “not yet economically viable” to “cheaper”.
Allowing emissions to stay zero cost is like allowing fly tipping as part of someone’s business model. It makes them unfairly competitive against a rival with a cleaner solution.

 

[Shock-On-T]

I doubt there is anybody who doesn't think there is a Climate Change problem.

The issue is how important it is as against other problems, and so how to allocate the available monies round all the problems.
Even worse it is not clear which is the best way to tackle the Climate Change problem (as described in the GreenAmerica document and many others).
But some people who only see one solution, demonise others who see many different solutions, so it becomes impossible to raise the alternatives. So real discussion on Step 2 never happens.

Personally I wish Governments were spending far more money on technological solutions.

Fortunately we are all supporting one of the few companies who are not only tackling sustainable energy in what I think is the best way (battery technology), but also will have the ability to deploy Solar Shades at the Lagrangian point, and finally has the mission of preserving human knowledge on another planet.

There are people who say that the planet isn’t warming (pre step 1), that it’s warming as part of a natural cycle (pre step 1), our impact is negligible (pre step 1).
Hell, we share this planet with people who truly believe it is flat, and that every image of a round world is part of a giant conspiracy. I’m not saying that they are the same people as the AGW deniers.