Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Stop burning stuff.
Plant trees. Stop eating meat.


Lentil vs meat. For starters, maybe replace meat with lentil for 2 meals a week.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV and mspohr

A new study by Stanford University says that it might not be as difficult as we think to move toward renewable energy sources. After examining 145 countries, the researchers have stated that switching to clean energy and electrifying all energy sectors won't lead to blackouts or an increase in prices. In fact, according to the study, prices would immediately drop, and all of the up front costs for switching to 100% renewable energy would be paid back in just six years.
The study was headed by Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program.
According to him, “We do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap, and reliable energy everywhere.”
 

Today Uruguay has almost phased out fossil fuels in electricity production. Depending on the weather, anything between 90% and 95% of its power comes from renewables. In some years, that number has crept as high as 98%.
 

A new study by Stanford University says that it might not be as difficult as we think to move toward renewable energy sources. After examining 145 countries, the researchers have stated that switching to clean energy and electrifying all energy sectors won't lead to blackouts or an increase in prices. In fact, according to the study, prices would immediately drop, and all of the up front costs for switching to 100% renewable energy would be paid back in just six years.
The study was headed by Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program.
According to him, “We do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap, and reliable energy everywhere.”
6 year ROI and cheaper electricity!
Plus, total energy use will drop 57% by eliminating wasteful fossil fuel extraction, transport, refining and combustion.
 

HUGE INCREASE URBAN EXTREME HEAT
World economy sending us to a global heating hellish climate. Certain: Increasing surface heat->increasing worse heat waves Fight fossil fuels. They must be ended fast for Survival.
Peter D Carter is Director of the Climate Emergency Institute, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Expert Reviewer, Co-author Unprecedented Crime, published on Climate Change, sustainable development, biodiversity.
 
This was a decent bit of extra context about those models and the people doing them. There are assumptions baked that need to be checked very carefully. Not a rebuttal per se, more like people who really understand grid operations need to be ones doing the models.

Jacobson is a respected researcher at Stanford who has a department which has been doing these types of studies for years.
He always gets attacked by fossil fuel interests.
As far as the grid goes, people who run the grid have experience but also a certain myopia about the grid.
Others such as Tony Seba's group have conclusions similar to Jacobson.
 

To escape the trap, Vázquez needed rapid solutions. He turned to an unlikely source: Ramón Méndez Galain, a physicist who would transform the country’s energy grid into one of the cleanest in the world. Today, the country has almost phased out fossil fuels in electricity production. Depending on the weather, anything between 90% and 95% of its power comes from renewables. In some years, that number has crept as high as 98%.

The more Galain researched the issue, the more he became convinced that nuclear power was not the answer for Uruguay. Instead, he argued, it was renewables. He published his findings in a paper that laid out his belief that the country should go all in on wind power. Soon after, he received a phone call inviting him to become Uruguay’s energy secretary and to implement his plan. “Imagine my surprise,” Galain says. “This was crazy. But I did something even more crazy: I accepted.”

However, economically it is a South American success story. Its GDP per capita was £16,420 in 2022, according to the World Bank, the highest on the continent; only a tiny fraction of its population lives in extreme poverty. The country has a burgeoning middle class – accounting for about 60% of the population – and there are high expectations for lifestyle and opportunities.

The biggest challenge, however, was to change the “narrative” about renewables. Back then, sustainable energies were still surrounded by many misconceptions, says Galain: they were too expensive, too intermittent or would raise unemployment – and changing these stories proved vital to getting buy-in from all levels of society.

I’d say by the end of the next decade, there’s certainly [scope] for a country such as the UK to have a highly decarbonised grid at a very cost-competitive rate.” Uruguay, meanwhile, has moved on to what is becoming known as the second stage of its transition. It is gradually moving its buses and public vehicles over to electric, and incentivising taxi and minicab drivers to switch. How well this works could provide a global roadmap for how other countries can decarbonise their economies.
 
Meanwhile, in the UK


No new plans for onshore wind have been accepted in England since the government claimed it had “lifted” the de facto ban, new analysis reveals. Renewable energy organisations warned at the time that this was likely. Despite the levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, having changed planning rules introduced in 2015 by the then prime minister, David Cameron, to stop onshore wind projects being blocked by a single objection, they still face higher barriers than every other form of infrastructure, including waste incinerators.

At the time, the National Infrastructure Commission advised the government to go further and restore onshore wind to the government’s Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects process, which would encourage more applications.

Greenpeace UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said: “As predicted, the government’s futile planning tweaks amounted to absolutely nothing and the de facto ban is still well and truly in place. Why would a developer risk putting their cash behind a project that remains beholden to woolly guidelines and the unworkable decisions made by some local councils?

Onshore wind is the cheapest, quickest and greenest way to produce energy. Ramping up production would lower energy bills, slash emissions and bolster the UK’s energy security. We should be building them everywhere it makes sense to generate. But as things stand, you’ve got more chance of spotting a flying pig than a new onshore windfarm in the UK.”
 
Jacobson is a respected researcher at Stanford who has a department which has been doing these types of studies for years.
He always gets attacked by fossil fuel interests.
As far as the grid goes, people who run the grid have experience but also a certain myopia about the grid.
Others such as Tony Seba's group have conclusions similar to Jacobson.

Oh yeah fossil fuel FUD is a given. The risk is tuning out legitimate critique as just another piece of FUD when it might have a valid point. So, I was trying to carefully differentiate my commentary from the FUD, as it's just as dangerous to have rose colored glasses that miss a subtle but showstopper level issue with a model / analysis / grid transition plan.

I find Jacobson, Seba / Dohr, even Tesla Master Plan 3 a hint on the optimistic side about the time, minerals / materials, and storage diversity aspects of the decarbonization plans. Of course there are idiotic it can never work "reports" on the other end. The truth is somewhere in between, and is going to need a very thorough, unbiased, open peer review process to make sure important things don't get missed in the transition plan.

I am 100% pro decarbonizing, in whatever way can be done securely carefully and safely. However, the consequences of decarbonizing at the wrong speed, in the wrong manner, or towards the wrong technology mix (cough hydrogen cough cough) are not to be taken lightly!
 

Large quantities of carbon dioxide & other greenhouse gases emitted by certain processes cause our planet to overheat by capturing heat from the sun. Food production releases these gases. The video shows the relative impact of various types of food.

Meat reared-beef produces more than twice the emissions than any other food.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mspohr