How to respond to climate change

[ZNP]

Folks i have an M.S. in earth science & it is unfortunate that this issue has been exploited by cash cows & lawmakers not for the purpose of cleaning up air or water but for convincing people to participate in a carbon market.

It doesn't matter. Some people agree with you, some don't, but no one is going to tell Exxon, Con Ed, and McDonalds' that they can no longer do business. No one has that authority. So talking about it as though it is an option is simply a waste of time and distracting from what could be significant solutions. Fusion would be a far better investment for the US government than a carbon tax.

But whether the fires in Australia, and the hurricanes in Puerto Rico, Houston, etc., etc. are due to climate change or some kind of twisted left wing plot from a B movie, what we need is cities that can ride out the fires and floods.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Someone here brought up the loss of trees 1/3 of them as prophesied in the book of Revelation.
It strikes me that AOC has a socialistic plan to take over privately owed homes and demand they be replaced with homes which will not (in her estimation) add to the climate change problem...so claimed problem. One such picture of her proposal is to switch to lumber homes. Hence my reference to Revelation and the loss of trees (which is actually figurative for the degradation of the earth over time.) So, AOC may be inadvertently helping to usher in that aspect of end times!)

 

[Kalevalatar]

Here in Arctic Finland, heating accounts for 75% of the built environment's annual carbon footprint. By ditching fossil fuels we have been able to cut 25% of that in a decade. Over half of new single-family homes choose geothermal heating. Multistorey buildings, factories and shopping malls, schools, libraries, public buildings, airports are following suit. Going geothermal not only saves energy and saves the world, it saves lots of money too, which is why houses with geothermal heat pumps sell whereas houses without are seen as old and outdated and harder to sell.

Another example: 24-hour mini-cruises are hugely popular. M/S Viking Grace is the world's first passanger ferry powered by LNG and a rotor sail windpower and instantly the most popular cruise ship because it's "guilt free". M/S Viking Glory will be even 10% more energy efficient thanks to a new heat power system which will convert waste heat from the motors to electricity to power fridges, lights etc. The Finnish State Railways has ditched diesel for renewables, hydroelectric, biofuels -- and by doing so have made rail travel popular again. Because consumers want and prefer fossil fuel free, i.e. guilt free. The largest Finnish petrol company and the world's largest producer of renewable diesel posted record profits in January, entirely thanks to ditching fossil fuels for renewable future fuels that cut carbon footprint by 90%

It makes a huge difference and that's the future. Sorry, but countries that still drag their feet and cling to the very short term profits of fossil fuels have no future. Looking at the list of major fossil fuel producers, that's not a bad thing that most of those countries and their terror governments go bust.

 

[ZNP]

Here in Arctic Finland, heating accounts for 75% of the built environment's annual carbon footprint. By ditching fossil fuels we have been able to cut 25% of that in a decade. Over half of new single-family homes choose geothermal heating. Multistorey buildings, factories and shopping malls, schools, libraries, public buildings, airports are following suit. Going geothermal not only saves energy and saves the world, it saves lots of money too, which is why houses with geothermal heat pumps sell whereas houses without are seen as old and outdated and harder to sell.

Another example: 24-hour mini-cruises are hugely popular. M/S Viking Grace is the world's first passanger ferry powered by LNG and a rotor sail windpower and instantly the most popular cruise ship because it's "guilt free". M/S Viking Glory will be even 10% more energy efficient thanks to a new heat power system which will convert waste heat from the motors to electricity to power fridges, lights etc. The Finnish State Railways has ditched diesel for renewables, hydroelectric, biofuels -- and by doing so have made rail travel popular again. Because consumers want and prefer fossil fuel free, i.e. guilt free. The largest Finnish petrol company and the world's largest producer of renewable diesel posted record profits in January, entirely thanks to ditching fossil fuels for renewable future fuels that cut carbon footprint by 90%

It makes a huge difference and that's the future. Sorry, but countries that still drag their feet and cling to the very short term profits of fossil fuels have no future. Looking at the list of major fossil fuel producers, that's not a bad thing that most of those countries and their terror governments go bust.

If you had cities enclosed in a large dome, similar to the Eden project you would be able to get virtually perfect insulation for about $10 per square foot covered. That perfect insulation would allow contractors and builders to eliminate the use of insulation, and it would allow you to eliminate the use of burning fossil fuel for heating (cooking would be sufficient to keep the city warm).

 

[Kalevalatar]

If you had cities enclosed in a large dome, similar to the Eden project you would be able to get virtually perfect insulation for about $10 per square foot covered. That perfect insulation would allow contractors and builders to eliminate the use of insulation, and it would allow you to eliminate the use of burning fossil fuel for heating (cooking would be sufficient to keep the city warm).

That's what modern subterranean cities are designed for, Montreal's, for example. No need to snowplow, de-ice and sand/chemicals and/or install energy consuming snowsmelt systems and pay for injuries. It saves money.

But why build domes when we can dig heat wells that double as heat sinks in the summer and are practically zero carbon solutions, except for those rare -22 F days?

As for a dome, whereas Anchorage 61°N and Fairbanks 64°N have population densities of 171/sq mi and 992/sq mi, Rovaniemi 66°N and Inari 68°N have 21/sq mi and 1/sq mi... Hence wells, not domes.

 

[ZNP]

That's what modern subterranean cities are designed for, Montreal's, for example. No need to snowplow, de-ice and sand/chemicals and/or install energy consuming snowsmelt systems and pay for injuries. It saves money.

But why build domes when we can dig heat wells that double as heat sinks in the summer and are practically zero carbon solutions, except for those rare -22 F days?

As for a dome, whereas Anchorage 61°N and Fairbanks 64°N have population densities of 171/sq mi and 992/sq mi, Rovaniemi 66°N and Inari 68°N have 21/sq mi and 1/sq mi... Hence wells, not domes.

The vast majority of the world's population lives in cities, enclosing a city in a dome is a way to help that city make it through climate change. The dome is aerodynamic and will withstand a hurricane. A dome can reduce loss of water due to evaporation in arid climates, it would protect against flooding in the event of major rainstorm, insulation can help against extreme heat as well as cold.

 

[Kalevalatar]

The vast majority of the world's population lives in cities, enclosing a city in a dome is a way to help that city make it through climate change. The dome is aerodynamic and will withstand a hurricane. A dome can reduce loss of water due to evaporation in arid climates, it would protect against flooding in the event of major rainstorm, insulation can help against extreme heat as well as cold.

I still believe we must change our consumerist lifestyle of excess and our race to eternal maximum profits, first and foremost, and innovate better ways and alternatives to stop the advance of climate change, rather than invest in projects like the dome which would be more like Band-Aid than cure.

 

[ZNP]

I still believe we must change our consumerist lifestyle of excess and our race to eternal maximum profits, first and foremost, and innovate better ways and alternatives to stop the advance of climate change, rather than invest in projects like the dome which would be more like Band-Aid than cure.

Living in a dome would facilitate that. If you live in a dome you have to use electric vehicles so there is no exhaust. That in turn makes it much easier to put the roads underground (in the basement of the buildings). That eliminates the space that roads and parking and gas stations and parking lots take up, allowing the city to become much more compact together. Then, with self driving vehicles and being able to order these vehicles by smart phone it allows people to no longer need to own their own vehicle greatly reducing the number of vehicles on the road, and greatly reducing consumerism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Folks i have an M.S. in earth science & it is unfortunate that this issue has been exploited by cash cows & lawmakers not for the purpose of cleaning up air or water but for convincing people to participate in a carbon market. Climate changes period. But it is the Sun that drives our climate, not some molecular compound. The govt would like to have everyone give up their car & their oil furnace but I haven't seen anyone step up to the plate as a volunteer. Of course lawmakers & Hollywood are not going to give up their jets. The status of the planet is such that petroleum & coal reserves are at their peak & get one more bang for their buck. Personally everyone should be allowed to market on the grid not so that we can sing kumbaya but just so we can take the strain off the grid should there be some kind of world crisis. There is no crisis. The wildfires in Australia were set deliberately. In California, some of the fires get triggered by errors made in campfires, arson, utility comp. error, & the strong katabatic Santa Ana winds. They also don't practice good silviculture there. Many people get unnerved anytime some epa announcement screams how much co2 they measured over the year. But CO2 only occupies 0.038% of the atmosphere. Why does that remain so constant? Well if everyone took their earth science quartet, they would see that we have 3 large repositories: oceans, vegetation, limestone. We also have clouds here & there. So the Earth cannot obtain a Venus situation. The Earth ain't going nowhere for a long time. In general, energy sources work most efficiently when the supply is good & proximal to the consumer & when the distribution source is the same. Solar & wind are not continual but can certanly supplement. The challenge for solar is that you have to get the very costly battery to plug back in at night & right now it's not economical. That being said, solar certainly works well in Florida & Arizona where they only occasionally need access to heat. A good target would be for renewables to attain 30% of the grid. This takes the strain off & hopefully we will never again be dependent on Mid-East oil. Cleaning up urban heat islands is another matter. Cities are clogged with people, utilties, asphalt, concrete, congestion, & rail. Everything tends to entropy. Tall buildings inhibit convection from sweeping out stale air. My thought was to station a windmill grid nearby. MIT is on the brink of conquering nuclear fusion. So the best I see is a more balanced grid, but no extremes.

Wow! So much wrong in one post. Where would you like to start?

If you do not think that carbon is a driving force in climate then your claim of a MS in Earth science becomes highly dubious. Perhaps we should start there. Do you accept the fact of the Greenhouse Effect? The physics necessary to understand that is not all that difficult to understand.

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps it wouldn't be a problem if the oceans and forests were left alone to do their jobs. But it is easier to look for profitable bandaids than removing the cause which is always money related also. News agencies were reporting a couple days ago how atmospherec pollution was all but gone thanks to the lock downs. imagine that and all it took was 2-3 weeks. Perhaps the clearing air will help with the virus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps it wouldn't be a problem if the oceans and forests were left alone to do their jobs. But it is easier to look for profitable bandaids than removing the cause which is always money related also. News agencies were reporting a couple days ago how atmospherec pollution was all but gone thanks to the lock downs. imagine that and all it took was 2-3 weeks. Perhaps the clearing air will help with the virus.

It can be shown that the forests and oceans do not have the ability to remove the additional CO2 that man has put into the atmosphere. Like it or not we need to find a way to cut down. The good news is that we may have better vehicles due to this. Electric cars are in their infancy and yet they already have amazing performance capabilities.

 

[timothyu]

It can be shown that the forests and oceans do not have the ability to remove the additional CO2 that man has put into the atmosphere.

Considering the decimation they have endured, I don't doubt it.

Electric cars are in their infancy and yet they already have amazing performance capabilities.

Yes gotta keep the coal burning to make the power to run them. Good plan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Considering the decimation they have endured, I don't doubt it.



Yes gotta keep the coal burning to make the power to run them. Good plan.

Electric cars run just fine off of electricity from solar, hydro and wind power as well.

 

[timothyu]

Electric cars run just fine off of electricity from solar, hydro and wind power as well.

True enough but not as many.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True enough but not as many.

It depends on where one lives. And we need a replacement for vehicles that burn fossil fuels. The electric cars need to be there before fossil fuel use is ended. You cannot abruptly end the use of fossil fuels and tell people 'You figure it out'. Where I live an electric car is going to be powered mostly by hydro power. A bit by wind, and a bit by natural gas. There might even be a coal powered plant here and there. The change to green fuels must be gradual. The sooner the better, but it is not going to be over night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more point about electric cars. They are far more efficient than internal combustion vehicles. So much so that even if they rely on coal driven plants they may be "greener" than gasoline powered vehicles.

I just looked it up. A pure coal driven plant (one of the least efficient) is still 37% efficient in changing heat energy into energy. Electric cars are about 77% efficient. That is a rough net efficiency of about 28% Now that may sound bad, but the average gas powered car is far less efficient. In other words even if powered by electricity from coal electric cars appear to be an improvement.

All-Electric Vehicles

 

[timothyu]

The electric cars need to be there before fossil fuel use is ended.

Or .. electric cars won't be used en masse until fossil fuels run out. Keep an eye on how the current price war over who controls the oil dollar goes for an indication of how soon that may be.

In the meantime, why not make electric cars like trains where a small super efficient engine can run a generator to drive the electric engine?

 

[timothyu]

The change to green fuels must be gradual. The sooner the better, but it is not going to be over night.

Wonder if the climate will hold off on it's plans to retaliate until then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or .. electric cars won't be used en masse until fossil fuels run out. Keep an eye on how the current price war over who controls the oil dollar goes for an indication of how soon that may be.

In the meantime, why not make electric cars like trains where a small super efficient engine can run a generator to drive the electric engine?

What? I don't understand your question about engines.

Electric cars may be used more and more simply because they are better vehicles than gas vehicles. Quicker, more efficient, no gas tax which means a new taxation system will be needed to be devised. The growth is small right now, but exponential.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wonder if the climate will hold off on it's plans to retaliate until then.

It is more of a question of how much more damage will we do to it. Even if we miraculously quit using fossil fuels right now the Earth will continue to warm for quite some time. It takes years for temperature equilibrium to be reached.