The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by neverfail » Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:51 pm

Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:44 am
Solar is definitely part of the equation but I can't see how it can meet all our energy needs, we need nuclear power for a green future that gives us enough energy to progress.
We certainly need a reliable "back-up" to solar as that alone (even in a country like mine flooded with solar heat and light) for the obvious reason of nighttime non-charge. The capital and maintenance costs of batteries, once these become big and powerful enough to release a regular supply of electricity into the nighttime grid, will of course add to the costs of solar.

neverfail
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by neverfail » Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:05 pm

Doc wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:28 am


Mirrors in orbit reflecting light to earth will increase the global temperature....

The Original idea that was considered was solar panels in space using microwave transmission to get the energy back to earth. The issue with that is preventing aircraft from flying through the microwave beam. Birds as well.

Seems this will have to wait until there is a space elevator

Which currently we have no material strong enough with which to build one:
Good point doc.

With due respects to your previous point made in another post: there is already plenty here on Earth to increase the global temperature. Our planet relies on its nighttime "shadow" to radiate heat back into outer space accumulated in the atmosphere during the day from solar warming. According to advocates of the greenhouse gas explanation the rise of the level of carbon-based gases is retaining a lot of that solar heat in the atmosphere by night - therefore giving the earth, its atmosphere, land and seas no chance to recover.

I am not even saying that I support that hypotheses - only that I remain open to suggestions. Whatever the cause the current shrinkage of the earth's ice sheets means that 2 or 3 very potent "mirrors" to deflect excess heat in the atmosphere back into space are growing smaller.

The last thing we need is orbiting mirrors to exacerbate the trend to global warming.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4526
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by Doc » Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:24 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:05 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:28 am


Mirrors in orbit reflecting light to earth will increase the global temperature....

The Original idea that was considered was solar panels in space using microwave transmission to get the energy back to earth. The issue with that is preventing aircraft from flying through the microwave beam. Birds as well.

Seems this will have to wait until there is a space elevator

Which currently we have no material strong enough with which to build one:
Good point doc.

With due respects to your previous point made in another post: there is already plenty here on Earth to increase the global temperature. Our planet relies on its nighttime "shadow" to radiate heat back into outer space accumulated in the atmosphere during the day from solar warming. According to advocates of the greenhouse gas explanation the rise of the level of carbon-based gases is retaining a lot of that solar heat in the atmosphere by night - therefore giving the earth, its atmosphere, land and seas no chance to recover.

I am not even saying that I support that hypotheses - only that I remain open to suggestions. Whatever the cause the current shrinkage of the earth's ice sheets means that 2 or 3 very potent "mirrors" to deflect excess heat in the atmosphere back into space are growing smaller.

The last thing we need is orbiting mirrors to exacerbate the trend to global warming.
I am not in favor of managing the climate one way or another until we know more about it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE


J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

Abstract.In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI Abstract.In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC reportAR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.1.Introduction The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific literature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there area lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the climate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCCAR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the comment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.2.Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature The basic task is to divide the observed global temperature anomaly into two parts: the natural component and the part due to the green house gases. In order to study the response we have to re-present Figure TS.12 from Technical Summary of IPCC AR5 report (1). This figure is Figure 1. Here we highlight the sub figure“Land and ocean surface” in Figure 1. Only the black curve is an observed temperature anomaly in that figure. The red and blue envelopes are computed using climate models. We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other.

In Figure 2 we see the observed global temperature anomaly (red) and global low cloud cover changes (blue). These experimental observations indicate that1 % increase of the low cloud cover fraction decreases the temperature by 0.11°C.This number is in very good agreement with the theory given in the papers [3,2, 4]. Using this result we are able to present the natural temperature anomaly by multiplying the changes of the low cloud cover by−0.11°C/%. This natural contribution (blue) is shown in Figure 3 superimposed on the observed temperature anomaly (red). As we can see there is no room for the contribution of greenhouse gases i.e. anthropogenic forcing within this experimental accuracy. Even though the monthly temperature anomaly is very noisy it is easy to notice a couple of decreasing periods in the increasing trend of the temperature. This behavior cannot be explained

The climate is a complex dynamical system
IE it is not at all easy to figure out what is going on:

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by Milo » Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:51 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:44 am
Solar is definitely part of the equation but I can't see how it can meet all our energy needs, we need nuclear power for a green future that gives us enough energy to progress.
We certainly need a reliable "back-up" to solar as that alone (even in a country like mine flooded with solar heat and light) for the obvious reason of nighttime non-charge. The capital and maintenance costs of batteries, once these become big and powerful enough to release a regular supply of electricity into the nighttime grid, will of course add to the costs of solar.
I do not see how the Canadian climate, or any in these latitudes, can produce enough solar energy. One cannot shovel solar panels very easily and their effectiveness is considerably reduced by snow.

I am known for my boosting of LFTR reactions and I just hope that research gets a fraction of the funding that solar gets.

It could give us all the energy we could ever want, forever, and it's likely greener than any other way of doing it.


neverfail
Posts: 5788
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by neverfail » Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:46 am

Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 am


I do not see how the Canadian climate, or any in these latitudes, can produce enough solar energy. One cannot shovel solar panels very easily and their effectiveness is considerably reduced by snow.

Poor Canada! Blessed in its geology but cursed by its geography.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4526
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by Doc » Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:18 am

Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:51 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:44 am
Solar is definitely part of the equation but I can't see how it can meet all our energy needs, we need nuclear power for a green future that gives us enough energy to progress.
We certainly need a reliable "back-up" to solar as that alone (even in a country like mine flooded with solar heat and light) for the obvious reason of nighttime non-charge. The capital and maintenance costs of batteries, once these become big and powerful enough to release a regular supply of electricity into the nighttime grid, will of course add to the costs of solar.
I do not see how the Canadian climate, or any in these latitudes, can produce enough solar energy. One cannot shovel solar panels very easily and their effectiveness is considerably reduced by snow.

I am known for my boosting of LFTR reactions and I just hope that research gets a fraction of the funding that solar gets.

It could give us all the energy we could ever want, forever, and it's likely greener than any other way of doing it.

Most of Europe is at the same latitudes as Canada. Canada should just buy Russian Natural gas like they do.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by Milo » Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:57 am

Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:18 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:51 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:44 am
Solar is definitely part of the equation but I can't see how it can meet all our energy needs, we need nuclear power for a green future that gives us enough energy to progress.
We certainly need a reliable "back-up" to solar as that alone (even in a country like mine flooded with solar heat and light) for the obvious reason of nighttime non-charge. The capital and maintenance costs of batteries, once these become big and powerful enough to release a regular supply of electricity into the nighttime grid, will of course add to the costs of solar.
I do not see how the Canadian climate, or any in these latitudes, can produce enough solar energy. One cannot shovel solar panels very easily and their effectiveness is considerably reduced by snow.

I am known for my boosting of LFTR reactions and I just hope that research gets a fraction of the funding that solar gets.

It could give us all the energy we could ever want, forever, and it's likely greener than any other way of doing it.

Most of Europe is at the same latitudes as Canada. Canada should just buy Russian Natural gas like they do.
We have huge natural gas reserves, wanna buy some?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4526
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by Doc » Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 pm

Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:57 am
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:18 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:51 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:44 am
Solar is definitely part of the equation but I can't see how it can meet all our energy needs, we need nuclear power for a green future that gives us enough energy to progress.
We certainly need a reliable "back-up" to solar as that alone (even in a country like mine flooded with solar heat and light) for the obvious reason of nighttime non-charge. The capital and maintenance costs of batteries, once these become big and powerful enough to release a regular supply of electricity into the nighttime grid, will of course add to the costs of solar.
I do not see how the Canadian climate, or any in these latitudes, can produce enough solar energy. One cannot shovel solar panels very easily and their effectiveness is considerably reduced by snow.

I am known for my boosting of LFTR reactions and I just hope that research gets a fraction of the funding that solar gets.

It could give us all the energy we could ever want, forever, and it's likely greener than any other way of doing it.

Most of Europe is at the same latitudes as Canada. Canada should just buy Russian Natural gas like they do.
We have huge natural gas reserves, wanna buy some?
So does much of Europe. Apparently Russian gas is better.

BTW I still haven't seen a good reason not to develop thorium reactors.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2758
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Most Successful Oil Economy That’s Moving Away From Oil

Post by Milo » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:28 pm

Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:57 am
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:18 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:51 pm
Milo wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:44 am
Solar is definitely part of the equation but I can't see how it can meet all our energy needs, we need nuclear power for a green future that gives us enough energy to progress.
We certainly need a reliable "back-up" to solar as that alone (even in a country like mine flooded with solar heat and light) for the obvious reason of nighttime non-charge. The capital and maintenance costs of batteries, once these become big and powerful enough to release a regular supply of electricity into the nighttime grid, will of course add to the costs of solar.
I do not see how the Canadian climate, or any in these latitudes, can produce enough solar energy. One cannot shovel solar panels very easily and their effectiveness is considerably reduced by snow.

I am known for my boosting of LFTR reactions and I just hope that research gets a fraction of the funding that solar gets.

It could give us all the energy we could ever want, forever, and it's likely greener than any other way of doing it.

Most of Europe is at the same latitudes as Canada. Canada should just buy Russian Natural gas like they do.
We have huge natural gas reserves, wanna buy some?
So does much of Europe. Apparently Russian gas is better.

BTW I still haven't seen a good reason not to develop thorium reactors.
Nor I.

Post Reply