Renewable Energy

[Tom_Mazanec]

Minnesota grows business, jobs as it greens the local economy
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-grows-business-jobs-as-it-greens-the-local-economy/560288062/

Renewables now account for 25% of total Minnesota power production. Policymakers and utilities are talking about doubling that by 2030.

[Sciguy]

Egypt's first utility-scale solar farm is nearing completion.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/egypts-massive-18gw-benban-solar-park-nears-completion

Amid the sand dunes of the western Sahara, workers are putting the finishing touches on one of the world’s largest solar installations. There, as many as 7.2 million photovoltaic panels will make up Benban Solar Park—a renewable energy project so massive, it will be visible from space. 
The 1.8-gigawatt installation is the first utility-scale PV plant in Egypt, a nation blessed with some of the best solar resources on the planet. The ambitious project is part of Egypt’s efforts to increase its generation capacity and incorporate more renewable sources into the mix. 

Egypt’s government has set a goal for 20 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2022, and 42 percent by 2035. The country’s potential may be even greater: A 2018 report by the International Renewable Energy Agency concluded that Egypt could “realistically draw 53 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030.” In 2016, about 9 percent of Egypt’s electricity [PDF] came from renewable sources, and mostly from dams along the Nile River. 

Orabi says the Benban project has already played three important roles in helping solar to claim a greater share of Egypt’s electricity supply. First, the project drove down the cost of PV systems in Egypt. Second, it proved that solar could be a viable source of energy there, after several high-profile flops of concentrated solar projects. And lastly, Orabi says, it granted valuable experience in installing PV systems to more than 3,000 Egyptians who worked at the site.

[Tom_Mazanec]

When fighting climate change snags the catch of the day along the Jersey Shore
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-wind-power-fishing-20190916-zu26bqplnvfmpce3ek3pb7cauy-story.html

Fishermen insisted Monday to a congressional subcommittee looking at offshore wind energy that they be consulted when crucial decisions are being made on the development of such projects, including where they are located and the level of access to the waters near them.

Fishermen should have been brought into the planning process from the start, Peter Hughes, of Atlantic Cape Fisheries, told U.S. House members from New Jersey and California who were holding a hearing at the Jersey Shore.

[Sciguy]

There the pipeline of pending solar projects in the US has a total capacity of 37.9 GW, which is the most ever.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/18/us-utility-scale-solar-pipeline-tops-37-9-gigawatts/

The United States solar industry now boasts the largest pipeline of utility-scale solar projects in history with a record 37.9 gigawatts (GW) of contracted solar, according to the latest figures from Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Wood Mackenzie and the SEIA published the latest US Solar Market Insight Report on Tuesday, which revealed the record-breaking figures. The contracted pipeline of utility-scale solar follows a record-high procurement of 15 GW in 2018 with more than 6 GW of solar capacity added to the five-year forecast since last quarter.

Utility-scale solar project announcements hit 11.2 GW in the first half of 2019 with 6.2 GW being announced in the second quarter alone, and the utility solar pipeline growth was paired with a rebounding residential solar industry.

Looking forward, Wood Mackenzie is now forecasting a 17% year-over-year growth in 2019 in the United States with 12.6 GW of installations expected to be completed by year’s end.

[rboyd]

There the pipeline of pending solar projects in the US has a total capacity of 37.9 GW, which is the most ever.

That graph shows an end to the exponential growth in the amount of new PV capacity installed in 2016, followed by much lower levels for three years, then a move above the 2016 level in 2020 followed by a plateau for four years.

The amount of new capacity added in 2024 will only be a bit higher than in 2016. That may be realistic but extremely troubling from the point of view of significantly reducing fossil fuel usage in the US electricitiy sector.

[Sciguy]

There the pipeline of pending solar projects in the US has a total capacity of 37.9 GW, which is the most ever.

That graph shows an end to the exponential growth in the amount of new PV capacity installed in 2016, followed by much lower levels for three years, then a move above the 2016 level in 2020 followed by a plateau for four years.

The amount of new capacity added in 2024 will only be a bit higher than in 2016. That may be realistic but extremely troubling from the point of view of significantly reducing fossil fuel usage in the US electricitiy sector.

The report is co-authored by a solar energy advocacy group and notes that the Federal Investment Tax credit is due to expire in 2021.  The forecast reflects that.  It's a subtle way of "educating" Congress about the importance of the tax credit.

Since Congress has never seen a tax credit that they didn't like, expect it to be renewed.  When you see spikes of growth followed by dips in the growth rate for solar and wind capacity in the US, they're almost always related to when a tax credit is due to expire as projects are rushed to completion before the expiration date.  The last time the tax credit was set to expire was in 2016.

(2018 was an exception to that rule.  The dip was due to Trump's tariffs).

[TerryM]

I wonder if Dante were alive, would he reserve a special level for those who put tariffs and sanctions on clean energy devices?
Terry

[rboyd]

Terry, I imagine a special chamber in hell directly under Dante's backside.

It's one of the real reasons why a second Trump term would be an absolute disaster - continued aggression toward climate friendly actions. Unfortunately the Democrats (excepting Bernie and OCAS etc.) were/are very fossil fuel friendly (Obama boasting about his role helping the fracking industry!) and will not do nearly enough.

That PV installations curve needs to be exponential (as does the wind curve and the energy efficiency curve), aided by carbon taxes, massive government grid investments, and an explicit green industrial policy. If we get Creepy Old Joe or Pocahontas Warren (or "lock up em up if they are poor" Harris) there is no way that that will happen.

[Sigmetnow]

Now, it gets easier.

The Span Panel Makes Adding Solar & Storage A Plug & Play Affair

A modern solar plus storage installation in the home includes a significant amount of additional hardware that must be added to the customer home as part of the installation including a communication gateway, an automatic transfer switch to disconnect from the grid if it goes down, a sub panel to connect the solar system to the existing electrical system for the home, and an autotransformer. All of these are consolidated into the Span Panel itself as well as the main electrical panel, adding new functionality to the home energy system at the same time. That lets homeowners install solar without having to add so many new boxes to the side of the home, streamlining the functionality at the same time.

Importantly, it does not include one of the key components in all solar, storage, and electric vehicle charging systems — an inverter. Inverters are very specific to the task at hand and that optimization is best taken on by the EV charging, solar, and energy storage companies themselves much like Solar Edge has done with its integrated Solar + EV charging system.   

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/19/the-span-panel-makes-adding-solar-storage-a-plug-play-affair/

[gerontocrat]

Attached is the data as supplied to the IEA on USA electricity production Jan 2016 to June 2019.

Way to go, a long way to go.

Note: The IEA only started to analyse renewables by the various types from Jan 2016.

[TerryM]

Terry, I imagine a special chamber in hell directly under Dante's backside.

It's one of the real reasons why a second Trump term would be an absolute disaster - continued aggression toward climate friendly actions. Unfortunately the Democrats (excepting Bernie and OCAS etc.) were/are very fossil fuel friendly (Obama boasting about his role helping the fracking industry!) and will not do nearly enough.

That PV installations curve needs to be exponential (as does the wind curve and the energy efficiency curve), aided by carbon taxes, massive government grid investments, and an explicit green industrial policy. If we get Creepy Old Joe or Pocahontas Warren (or "lock up em up if they are poor" Harris) there is no way that that will happen.

Aye, there's the rub.
We not only need to make Trump walk the plank, we need to make sure that none of the DNC's favorites take over the helm.


(FSM adherents should use pirate slang during the month of Sept.)
Avast Matey
Terry

[wili]

rboyd, please avoid using Trump's racist rhetoric here. Thank you.

[rboyd]

rboyd, please avoid using Trumps racist rhetoric here. Thank you.

Elizabeth Warren repeatedly claimed to be a native American when in fact she had no basis for that, proven by her own publicized DNA test. I can understand the issue with the usage of the name Pocahontas, a native woman kidnapped and raped by a white man (not the fairy story peddled by Disney and others). I will use "Fake Indigenous" in the future.

And I had to wake up to finding out that my fake progressive (fake climate change activist, fake indigenous rights, fake electoral system reformer ...) Prime Minister enjoyed applying black and brown face multiple times in his adult life. I knew that was wrong in my youth in the 1970s and 1980s so there is no excuse.

[TerryM]

Gerontocrat
Yet more of your charts that would have us believe that what we've been doing simply isn't enough to even make a blip on Keeling's Curve.
You'd have us believe that the only energy segment that has tanked under Trump's Presidency has been coal?
Everything else seems within the range a statistical error, or within seasonal variability.


If we were to believe our eyes, and your charts, we'd be forced to admit that we've been a damn poor example to the rest of the world. 


Yet we know that this is simply not possible. America was, is, and always will be a guiding light for the word to steer by, a beacon beaming brightly through the miasma that now envelopes Eurasia, beaming a warming welcome to the more polar regions, and cool comfort to the equatorial masses.


That light isn't powered with coal oil, fuel oil, or any fossil fuelish energy source. America glows with the intensity of her intentions, the courage of her convictions and the stability that her steadfast strengths and stout sinew offer to all that will follow her dictates. Hubris alone lights our path ahead.


Bathed in shrouds of self aggrandizement America, and America alone, will blaze the trail that others less able will yet be able to follow. Whether we are capable of abiding by our own edicts matters not. Whether others see through our hypocracracy matters little.
We will lead. They will follow. Together we will march in lockstep into the maw that awaits.


The way forward is obviously to do more of what we have been doing, but find other metrics to measure our progress with.
You've shown us that using percentages is even worse. With those charts our "progress" looks astonishingly like 'regression".


Not reporting facts that make our efforts seem foolish simply hasn't worked isn't working.
Removal of such facts would lighten our government's burden.
Terry

[wili]

r worte: " I can understand the issue with the usage of the name Pocahontas, a native woman kidnapped and raped by a white man (not the fairy story peddled by Disney and others). I will use "Fake Indigenous" in the future"

Thanks, but please note that she does, in fact, have some indigenous dna: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/the-facts-on-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/

"Prime Minister enjoyed applying black and brown face multiple times in his adult life. I knew that was wrong in my youth in the 1970s and 1980s so there is no excuse."

That was exactly my reaction to this news. WTF. It's one thing for whites in the deep US South to be totally clueless about how offensive this was. But by the '70s, pretty much everyone else had figured this out.

(OK, enough OT for now. Thanks, again)

[Sciguy]

Please take the political chatter to the appropriate forum sections.  I think they're located in the section entitled, "The Rest".

Thanks.

[TerryM]

Please take the political chatter to the appropriate forum sections.  I think they're located in the section entitled, "The Rest".

Thanks.

Any discussion about renewable energy that omitted the political considerations would make a thin broth indeed.
 
Thanks, but no thanks.
Terry

[Tom_Mazanec]

Ikea has invested in enough clean energy to power all of its operations (plus extra)
https://www.fastcompany.com/90405756/ikea-now-generates-more-renewable-electricity-than-it-uses

Over the last decade, Ikea’s parent company has invested around $2.7 billion in renewable energy. Today, the company announced that its latest investments—in two large solar plants in the U.S. and a wind farm in Romania—will tip it over a milestone that it originally aimed to achieve a year from now: The company will be able to produce more renewable electricity than it uses in all of its own buildings, including its hundreds of retail stores.

Google just made the largest ever corporate purchase of renewable energy
https://www.fastcompany.com/90405931/google-just-made-the-largest-ever-corporate-purchase-of-renewable-energy

Two years ago, Google became the first company of its size to buy as much renewable electricity as the electricity it used. But as the company grows, so does its demand for power. To stay ahead of that demand, Google just made the largest corporate renewable energy purchase in history, with 18 new energy deals around the world that will help build infrastructure worth more than $2 billion.

[Sciguy]

Please take the political chatter to the appropriate forum sections.  I think they're located in the section entitled, "The Rest".

Thanks.

Any discussion about renewable energy that omitted the political considerations would make a thin broth indeed.
 
Thanks, but no thanks.
Terry

I was referring to the discussion of the current US President's nicknames for his potential opponent in the 2020 elections.  Discussions related to energy policy would be appropriate for this folder.

[Sciguy]

The IEA is forecasting that 190 GW of renewables will be installed in 2019.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/09/23/international-energy-agency-forecasts-115-gw-of-new-solar-this-year/

After stagnating last year, renewable energy has hit back with a vengeance in 2019 with the International Energy Agency (IEA) expecting almost 200 GW of new clean energy generation capacity will have been added by year-end.
The lion’s share of the new capacity will come from solar – 115 GW of it despite a small decline in China – as PV and wind offer very much the mainstream options.

[Sciguy]

The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report has some interesting facts about renewables.

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2019-lr.pdf

Renewables Continue to Thrive

A record 165 GW of renewables were added to the world’s power grids in 2018, up from 157 GW added the previous year. The nuclear operating capacity increased by 9 GW6 to reach 370 GW (excluding 25 GW in LTO), a new historic maximum, slightly exceeding the previous peak of 368 GW in 2006.

Globally, wind power output grew by 29% in 2018, solar by 13%, nuclear by 2.4%. Compared to a decade ago, non-hydro renewables generate over 1,900 TWh more power, exceeding coal and natural gas, while nuclear produces less.

Over the past decade, levelized cost estimates for utility-scale solar dropped by 88%, wind by 69%, while nuclear increased by 23%. Renewables now come in below the cost of coal and natural gas.

Non-Nuclear Options Save More Carbon Per Dollar. In many nuclear countries, new renewables can now compete economically with existing nuclear power plants. The closure of uneconomic reactors will not directly save CO2 emissions but can indirectly save more CO2 than closing a coal-fired plant, if the nuclear plant’s larger saved operating costs are reinvested in efficiency or cheap modern renewables that in turn displace more fossil-fueled generation.

Non-Nuclear Options Save More Carbon Per Year. While current nuclear programs are particularly slow, current renewables programs are particularly fast. New nuclear plants take 5–17 years longer to build than utility-scale solar or onshore wind power, so existing fossil-fueled plants emit far more CO2 while awaiting substitution by the nuclear option. Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Annova LNG plans to get all of its power from renewables
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Annova-LNG-plans-to-get-all-of-its-power-from-14461106.php

Houston liquefied natural gas company Annova LNG plans to get all of the power for its proposed export terminal at the Port of Brownsville from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

More than four years after starting the process, Annova is still waiting on a permit decision from federal regulators, but the company has signed a facilities agreement to buy 405 megawatts of power from the Victoria-based South Texas Electric Cooperative and Pharr-based Magic Valley Electric Cooperative.

[gerontocrat]

The USA EIA updated its energy data - up to June 2019.

Here is a graph that shows monthly energy consumption from 2010 - when wind+solar started to get consumed in measurable quantities..

You can see coal reducing as well.

[etienne]

The USA EIA updated its energy data - up to June 2019.

Here is a graph that shows monthly energy consumption from 2010 - when wind+solar started to get consumed in measurable quantities..

You can see coal reducing as well.

The sad thing is that solar+ wind growth in value is more or less the same than total growth of energy consumption.

[rboyd]

The USA EIA updated its energy data - up to June 2019.

Here is a graph that shows monthly energy consumption from 2010 - when wind+solar started to get consumed in measurable quantities..

You can see coal reducing as well.

The sad thing is that solar+ wind growth in value is more or less the same than total growth of energy consumption.

And thats in the slow growing US. At the global level the yearly growth in energy usage is greater than the yearly addition of renewables energy production - i.e. fossil fuel usage keeps going up. Slightly hidden by the focus on CO2 emissions when methane emissions are going up significantly (due to the increased natural gas usage).

Without much greater government action (very high carbon taxes, subsidies for renewables, buyouts and enforced closures of fossil fuel plants, enforced phase out dates for fossil fuel processes and products) this reality will continue right into the next UN FCCC meeting in 2022 and beyond. The solar and wind energy industry body forecasts for the next 5 years underline this reality.

[TerryM]

<snipped>
The sad thing is that solar+ wind growth in value is more or less the same than total growth of energy consumption.

As rboyd & etienne noted, the problem is that globally we've been increasing our total energy use much faster than we've added "Green" energy to the mix, resulting in ever increasing amounts of fossil fuel usage.


We don't need more "Green" energy, we need less "Dirty" energy.


The easiest ways to get there may involve better insulation, lower speed limits, restricted air travel, fewer highways, more HSR.
Combined they won't be enough, but they might at least show us the direction.
Terry

[philopek]

<snipped>
The sad thing is that solar+ wind growth in value is more or less the same than total growth of energy consumption.

As rboyd & etienne noted, the problem is that globally we've been increasing our total energy use much faster than we've added "Green" energy to the mix, resulting in ever increasing amounts of fossil fuel usage.

We don't need more "Green" energy, we need less "Dirty" energy.


The easiest ways to get there may involve better insulation, lower speed limits, restricted air travel, fewer highways, more HSR.
Combined they won't be enough, but they might at least show us the direction.
Terry

Yes and in addition calculate the number of cars worldwide, divide their total weight in half, apply the energy consumption, not matter whether electro or fossil fuel or any other per TON per 100km and then calculate the total savings in energy per year globally if the size and thus the weight of vehicles would be cut in half.

That would dwarf any other kind of savings or complicated calculations how to save energy globally and then since a smaller and lighter vehicle can transport exactly as many people like the average vehicle is transporting today, there would not even have to be a loss in benefits for the individual to achieve that goal.

Of course the wealthy could, if they insist to drive larger cars, pay twice the current price tag to have them built with lighter materials like carbon etc to get them lighter as well but then that would even count a fraction and/or increase the costs for a car to a leve that would have an impact on usage.

Add a bit of a hefty carbon tax for fossil fuels or overweight cars and we could achieve within the average live time of a vehicle that is around +/-10 years, a way greater saving than most proposed measures i've heard of recently.

Even if the above idea is not perfect or perfectly conveyed, the angel of attack is a very promising one as such IMO.

Last but not least the less energy needed the easier it will be to reach that level with renewables, hence to replace fossil fuels.

[Sigmetnow]

Australia
Plans to generate hydrogen via hydrolysis using renewable energy.
Note that hydrogen is difficult to store and transport, so that is often accomplished in the form of ammonia, NH₃.
Also: the article describes projects that propose to generate hydrogen from coal (“It’s clean!”), but that isn’t fooling anyone.

Tipping Point: Renewable Hydrogen In The Heart Of Coal Country

As with the Moura project, the proposal involves deploying renewable energy to generate hydrogen from water, with the aim of replacing natural gas as a feedstock.

Australia Eyeballs A Renewable Hydrogen Future

Australia is a global coal-exporting giant but apparently it sees the writing on the wall. Through ARENA, the country has prioritized renewable hydrogen for industrial operations, with the aim of “future proofing our energy system and economy and helping to further unlock the vast renewable resources Australia has on offer.”

ARENA points out that ammonia production currently accounts for fully half of all global hydrogen consumption. Since natural gas is the primary source of hydrogen today, that leaves a huge, gaping opportunity for renewable energy to step in and replace natural gas.

In other words, Australia could become a major exporter of renewable hydrogen. ...

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/01/renewable-hydrogen-in-the-heart-of-coal-country/

[rboyd]

The Industry Forecasts For Renewables Are Horrendous

As part of my research I am rechecking the industry forecasts (GWEC for wind, Solar Power Europe for solar) and they are absolutely awful.

GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council): net new wind capacity will increase by on 2.7% per annum between now and 2023.

Solar Power Europe: yearly new new solar capacity growth crashes from 25% in 2019 (a big rebound from the single digit growth in 2018) to 12% in 2020, 10% in 2021, 7% in 2022 and 6% in 2023.

The result of these forecasts, barring a global recession, will be increases in fossil fuel use and GHG emissions between now and 2023.

https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-Wind-Report-2018.pdf

http://www.solarpowereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SolarPower-Europe_Global-Market-Outlook-2019-2023.pdf

[gerontocrat]

The Industry Forecasts For Renewables Are Horrendous

As part of my research I am rechecking the industry forecasts (GWEC for wind, Solar Power Europe for solar) and they are absolutely awful.

GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council): net new wind capacity will increase by on 2.7% per annum between now and 2023.

Solar Power Europe: yearly new new solar capacity growth crashes from 25% in 2019 (a big rebound from the single digit growth in 2018) to 12% in 2020, 10% in 2021, 7% in 2022 and 6% in 2023.

The result of these forecasts, barring a global recession, will be increases in fossil fuel use and GHG emissions between now and 2023.

Just to cheer you up, the data I have (which is the official data) says the CO2 sinks are not as high as 56% as generally quoted in the literature. So the increase in CO2 ppm will not be 44% of those increased CO2 emissions but more probably somewhat above 50%.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2715.msg231483.html#msg231483

ps: Latest guesstimate for 2019 CO2 emissions = 2018 + 1.6%

[rboyd]

Thanks for the ray of light gerontocrat! Oh, its an oncoming train.....

[Sciguy]

Good news about renewables in the report, "Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2019" published by the UNEP in September.  Here's the link to the report.

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/29752/GTR2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Here are some excerpts:

- Investment in renewables capacity in 2018 was about three times global investment in coal and gas-fired generation capacity combined. This came despite further reductions last year in the average capital cost per MW of solar and wind projects.

- The world added a record 167GW of new capacity of renewables excluding large hydro in 2018, with solar additions hitting their own record of 108GW. This helped renewables excluding large hydro to raise its share of global electricity generation, from 11.6% in 2017 to 12.9% in 2018, helping the world to avoid an estimated 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions

[nanning]

In my (unpopular) opinion: This thread and the cars, the spaceX and the Tesla threads are for highly addicted people that are in 'the bubble', desperately clinging to the modernist futuristic SF dreams. Not wanting to let go of destructive technology, high energy use, lazyness and egoism (i.e. it's only for the rich and the rest can F* off, "I don't wanna think about it, the losers").

I think social and infrastructure collapse will happen in the coming 10 years. So in my view there's no time for all the proposed multi-decadal tech solutions. After collapse, the technological progress and supplylines stop and you have only the machines you own until they break down and you have nothing. Even repairing will be hardly possible; you won't be able to buy new parts. That goes for all 'renewable' energy tech.

Dead and silent useless technology everywhere. Stranded cars. A landscape that constantly reminds of the insane 'dreamy' past.
Good luck with your rich people's dreams of electric cars and affluence in 'renewable' energy. It is gone, never to return.


In stead of switching your high energy lifestyles to a renewable green variant, the best is to use less energy. To minimise your energy use, to only use a minimal amount of technology. To forgo of all the shiny buttons and start using your body. OK it goes completely against consumerism so will not happen. It's the addiction. Even for most well-informed people on this forum.

Optimal change is to use far far less energy and less automated electrical technology. I dare you to prove me wrong (i.e. that you ABLE to drastically change your life).

P.S. part of this post is off-topic and I didn't write this here to start a long discussion. Of course you'll disagree.
Sorry for my inconvenient sane views. They need to be given.

[Sigmetnow]

nanning,

Switching from a 90% energy-wasting, GHG-emitting ICE car... to a 90% energy-using, sustainably-powered EV, fulfills most of your criteria except hatred of certain tech.  You want to go back to living in a cave and using a horse and candles, please do.  Be sure to recycle the tech you are using right now posting on the Forum. 

[nanning]

nanning,

Switching from a 90% energy-wasting, GHG-emitting ICE car... to a 90% energy-using, sustainably-powered EV, fulfills most of your criteria
<snip>

No, it doesn't. Multiply it by 8 billion please.

[Sigmetnow]

nanning,

Switching from a 90% energy-wasting, GHG-emitting ICE car... to a 90% energy-using, sustainably-powered EV, fulfills most of your criteria
<snip>

No, it doesn't. Multiply it by 8 billion please.

You start.

[blumenkraft]

He did!

[oren]

In my (unpopular) opinion: This thread and the cars, the spaceX and the Tesla threads are for highly addicted people that are in 'the bubble', desperately clinging to the modernist futuristic SF dreams. Not wanting to let go of destructive technology, high energy use, lazyness and egoism (i.e. it's only for the rich and the rest can F* off, "I don't wanna think about it, the losers").

I think social and infrastructure collapse will happen in the coming 10 years. So in my view there's no time for all the proposed multi-decadal tech solutions. After collapse, the technological progress and supplylines stop and you have only the machines you own until they break down and you have nothing. Even repairing will be hardly possible; you won't be able to buy new parts. That goes for all 'renewable' energy tech.
...
In stead of switching your high energy lifestyles to a renewable green variant, the best is to use less energy. To minimise your energy use, to only use a minimal amount of technology. To forgo of all the shiny buttons and start using your body. OK it goes completely against consumerism so will not happen. It's the addiction. Even for most well-informed people on this forum.

I estimate collapse in 30 years, not 10. Makes a big difference as to whether partial solutions that can't scale to 8 or 10 billion people are still better than doing nothing. If collapse comes in 10 years we can all just lay down and die, but I think your timeline is not realistic.
On a wider note, why do you assume that people who follow such "Green BAU" trends necessarily do it to maintain their filthy rich lifestyle? Have you considered that humanity is not just you (the moral one living a relatively sustainable lifestyle) and me and others on this forum (striving to be better but nowhere near where we should be) but multitudes of others who care nothing about doing better, whether because they are busy surviving, or they don't believe the science, or they just don't care. And these multitudes buy 100 million new cars per year, use gazillions of joules of energy, and consume the planet to oblivion.
Anything that causes these multitudes to consume less, use less energy and pollute less is something I would cheer. I am specifically interested in solutions that cause non-environmentalists and non-minded people to consume less and use less energy, because that's where you get the most improvement in absolute terms, even if in percentage terms it's rather little and certainly not enough.
I support and cheer this "partial solution" even if it maintains BAU. Because BAU is happening whether you like it or not, and a thousand or ten thousand like you won't prevent BAU from happening. And over 30 years the effect will be positive, and the world we leave to our descendants will be a little bit less harsh.
Of course I would prefer a complete solution, and I advocate for it when I can, but I am a realist so I estimate that it will not happen. I see that you share the same sentiment.

[Sciguy]

In my (unpopular) opinion: This thread and the cars, the spaceX and the Tesla threads are for highly addicted people that are in 'the bubble', desperately clinging to the modernist futuristic SF dreams. Not wanting to let go of destructive technology, high energy use, lazyness and egoism (i.e. it's only for the rich and the rest can F* off, "I don't wanna think about it, the losers").

I think social and infrastructure collapse will happen in the coming 10 years. So in my view there's no time for all the proposed multi-decadal tech solutions. After collapse, the technological progress and supplylines stop and you have only the machines you own until they break down and you have nothing. Even repairing will be hardly possible; you won't be able to buy new parts. That goes for all 'renewable' energy tech.
...
In stead of switching your high energy lifestyles to a renewable green variant, the best is to use less energy. To minimise your energy use, to only use a minimal amount of technology. To forgo of all the shiny buttons and start using your body. OK it goes completely against consumerism so will not happen. It's the addiction. Even for most well-informed people on this forum.

I estimate collapse in 30 years, not 10. Makes a big difference as to whether partial solutions that can't scale to 8 or 10 billion people are still better than doing nothing. If collapse comes in 10 years we can all just lay down and die, but I think your timeline is not realistic.
On a wider note, why do you assume that people who follow such "Green BAU" trends necessarily do it to maintain their filthy rich lifestyle? Have you considered that humanity is not just you (the moral one living a relatively sustainable lifestyle) and me and others on this forum (striving to be better but nowhere near where we should be) but multitudes of others who care nothing about doing better, whether because they are busy surviving, or they don't believe the science, or they just don't care. And these multitudes buy 100 million new cars per year, use gazillions of joules of energy, and consume the planet to oblivion.
Anything that causes these multitudes to consume less, use less energy and pollute less is something I would cheer. I am specifically interested in solutions that cause non-environmentalists and non-minded people to consume less and use less energy, because that's where you get the most improvement in absolute terms, even if in percentage terms it's rather little and certainly not enough.
I support and cheer this "partial solution" even if it maintains BAU. Because BAU is happening whether you like it or not, and a thousand or ten thousand like you won't prevent BAU from happening. And over 30 years the effect will be positive, and the world we leave to our descendants will be a little bit less harsh.
Of course I would prefer a complete solution, and I advocate for it when I can, but I am a realist so I estimate that it will not happen. I see that you share the same sentiment.

It would certainly be easier to reduce the impacts of climate change if people adopted lifestyles that were easier on the environment, but short of a collapse, that isn't going to happen.  Instead, we see people in less developed countries wanting to attain the lifestyles of the wealthier nations and people in the wealthier countries wanting to maintain or even improve their standards of living.

The science doesn't support collapse at 1.5 C or 2 C of increased temperatures, which we can achieve if we get off of fossil fuels by 2050.  Delaying that means that wealthier countries will have to spend some money on carbon removal infrastructure later this century.  We may overshoot the desired target by a tenth or two-tenths of degree, but that doesn't trigger a catastrophic tipping point.  You may want to actually read the IPCC 2018 report on the differences between 1.5C and 2.0C.

Fortunately, the transition to carbon free electricity and transportation isn't science fiction.  It's well underway.  Wind and solar are currently cheaper than fossil fuels and electric vehicles will soon be cheaper than gas/diesel vehicles.  And more attention is being paid to restoring soils through and restoring soils to act as a carbon sink and reduce methane emissions through better agricultural practices.

[Tor Bejnar]

The science doesn't support collapse at 1.5 C or 2 C of increased temperatures, which we can achieve if we get off of fossil fuels by 2050.

AbruptSLR recently posted (just a day or 3 ago) a report suggesting societal collapse by about 2050 with BAU.  I think Abrupt speculated it could happen as early as 2040.

Yes, I keep meaning to buy that cast iron hand water pump to replace the electric one my neighbors and I currently use.  (I used one for a few months in 1988 - and it was 1/2 km from the house I was building.  But I installed solar for a 1KwH/day usage, including water pump.)

Who needs a 401K (retirement portfolio), anyway?

[TerryM]

The science doesn't support collapse at 1.5 C or 2 C of increased temperatures, which we can achieve if we get off of fossil fuels by 2050.

AbruptSLR recently posted (just a day or 3 ago) a report suggesting societal collapse by about 2050 with BAU.  I think Abrupt speculated it could happen as early as 2040.

Yes, I keep meaning to buy that cast iron hand water pump to replace the electric one my neighbors and I currently use.  (I used one for a few months in 1988 - and it was 1/2 km from the house I was building.  But I installed solar for a 1KwH/day usage, including water pump.)

Who needs a 401K (retirement portfolio), anyway?

Will you be retiring before the SHTF or later?
Terry

[nanning]

<snip>
I estimate collapse in 30 years, not 10. Makes a big difference as to whether partial solutions that can't scale to 8 or 10 billion people are still better than doing nothing.

Thanks for responding oren, I'm sure you mean well. Me too .

First: I don't think I have ever used words like "filthy" in connection with rich. I don't think like that. Do you think like that?

Please don't see me as the enemy. I'm just trying to wake people up and have made large sacrifices myself.

Have you considered that the large majority of humanity is poor? Conveniently out of sight, out of mind. Have you considered that humanity is not the only impacted lifeform on Earth?

Have you considered that it is the minority of rich humans with their high energy and high consumption that is driving AGW and the mass extinction? And that most forummembers belong in that category, trying to 'green' that same high consumption, their car and high energy use. Everything BUT radical personal change!

I am addressing people on this forum because you all are aware of the reality of the gigantic existential chaotic situation we're in. If YOU won't stop and drastically change, then there really is no chance in hell that the rest will change.
The dire warnings from the U.N. are not aimed at the poor people of this world.
What do you think "systems change" means?
What do you think "existential threat" means?

Following the Precautionary Principle means you could be wrong with your comforting far-away 30 years, and you really have to  work with worst-case scenarios because of the unimaginable consequences of collapse and extinction. It is possible for collapse to happen in as few as 5 years in my view. I expect it WITHIN 10 years, not after 10 years.

Just following ASLR's posts should give you the shivers.

We know multiple collapse-threats: war (nuclear), pandemic (microbial resistence & diseases that are unstoppable), food & potable water stresses, massive unrest, extinction rebellion revolution, extreme severe weather increases (how fast? wanna bet the future of mankind on it?), massive fires that'll kill off most trees, essential ecosystem collapse (growing stuff doesn't 'work' anymore), complete financial collapse, far-right extremism, loss of Amazon etc., completely changed NH weathersystems after BOE's, the next super El-Niño, mass starvation in countries that make your products, the end of commercial aviation.
The great killing is not far off. As long as it's far away eh?

Wanna bet the whole of life on Earth on your idea that "we still have 30 years left"?
(btw your 'we' doesn't include all the poor human victims and especially it doesn't include all other dying life on Earth)


I set a good example but it seems I am much more alone than I originally thought. I had expectations of influencing this special forumgroup of concerned people.
Together setting good examples. Learning from each other.

Musk's temptations and dreams are evidently much stronger than my influence and scientists' influence. Am I a loser?

Because BAU is happening whether you like it or not, and a thousand or ten thousand like you won't prevent BAU from happening. And over 30 years the effect will be positive, and the world we leave to our descendants will be a little bit less harsh.

I can hardly believe you wrote that. I'm a bit disappointed, sorry.

[oren]

Nanning - you set a high example, and you are certainly no loser. I do not see you as the enemy - on the contrary. But the issue at hand is not personal - it's global. There are nearly 8 billion humans, roaring on 10 within a few decades.
30 years is not far away, nor comforting. In fact it's frighteningly close. I will probably still be around, not to mention my teen-aged children. But even if not - I do not hold to "Après nous, le déluge", and I think it is everybody's moral duty to take care of future generations and of the whole planet.

Yes, I have considered and am aware of all your points.
No, I do not believe humanity as a whole will make a radical change in time. But if you believe collapse is coming in 5 years, no radical change will prevent it anyway - the system's inertia is simply too large. Might as well "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". 30 years - while a blink of an eye - means large-scale action could still make a difference, though not enough to prevent the disaster IMHO.

But large scale action requires the participation of tens of millions of people at least, better yet hundreds of millions, and they need to be those that are causing most of the problem in the first place - the high consumption high energy people. What will cause such large numbers of people to change their ways, reducing consumption by 10%, 20%, 30%? Or do you think such numbers will convert to your current lifestyle, reducing consumption by 90% or more? I don't expect this to happen. But will they reduce by 10%-30%? Maybe. Depends on many factors, but one of them is the availability of alternative solutions that reduce the impact on their current lifestyle. Yes, the affluent lifestyle is addictive, and most people in it would not let go of it willingly, and most other people strive to reach it. That's human nature for you. The environmental movement has been active for 50 years, and has not managed to sway most people to give up this lifestyle or the aspiration to it, although it has managed to cause many to temper their consumption.
If half the global affluent population reduced their consumption by 20%, this would make a much bigger difference than if thousands of people reduced theirs by 99.9%. So I cheer chances of such massive but partial reduction. For example, I prefer that billions consume themselves to oblivion using solar energy, rather than coal energy. Of course I prefer even better that they don't consume, but I recognize the benefit of even partial reductions and I don't toss it to the wind just because I don't like it.
Yes, my personal actions could help sway some others, and yes I strive towards doing better. Had I been living alone and childless, I would have made much bigger changes already. But even if this whole forum went to a monastery tomorrow, the global outcome would still be more or less the same. So again, I take the global view and I try to think what will change this global view. This is not instead of changing my own lifestyle. It's an orthogonal problem.

Other points you might not be fully considering: Despite your personal preference to the contrary, a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries. These countries are still massively building new coal plants of all things, regardless of your or my ramblings on this forum. So anything that potentially idles these coal plants gets my cheers.
What the currently poor people are contributing to our mess is a high birth rate (not always correlated for each subgroup, but overall yes it is) of babies who will potentially consume quite a lot as they get older. 10 billion people is a massive number, even if they all lived your lifestyle I am not sure if they could live sustainably on this Earth and in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, in fact I strongly doubt it.

I hope the above helps clarify my take on things, it is not structured properly and somewhat repetitive. My apologies to all, I will refrain from further hijacking of this thread.

[Sigmetnow]

Oren wrote:

If half the global affluent population reduced their consumption by 20%, this would make a much bigger difference than if thousands of people reduced theirs by 99.9%.

+1   And the former is much more likely to take place (voluntarily) than the latter.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I know it has nothing to do with reality, but if, before I was born, God had told me that Industrial Civilization would collapse, I would ask to be born such that I would die in the collapse in my great old age.
I was born March 5, 1958.

[oren]

One time when I talked to my daughter about AGW and my expectations of trouble down the road, her own very logical conclusion was with the rethoric question "why couldn't you bring me to the world sooner?!"

[rboyd]

I know it has nothing to do with reality, but if, before I was born, God had told me that Industrial Civilization would collapse, I would ask to be born such that I would die in the collapse in my great old age. I was born March 5, 1958.

I was born September 5, 1963, so we may both experience social collapse in our old age (hopefully not before our great old age).

[nanning]

Thanks oren for the elaborate response and clarification. I have been away today because a 79yo good griend of mine bought me a woolen carpet for my living room and sleeping room. Because I have no money, for the past 11 months I have been living on a concrete floor covered with hard yellow ridges of glue). He took me to dinner as well. What a gesture, what a friend .

I think this subject is important enough to validate a response by me tomorrow (I'm almost finished with it) and not 'derail' the 'green BAU' thread. Sorry for this info-post but I thought that perhaps some are following this and waiting for a reaction by me and I am late.

[nanning]

I thought it is best to separately respond to some things from your post from yesterday. Sorry about this format oren.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg231734.html#msg231734
--

Nanning - you set a high example, and you are certainly no loser. I do not see you as the enemy - on the contrary.

Thanks for your nice words and the respect for me oren .

the system's inertia is simply too large

if all rich people would forgo of their wealth and live like poor people, the whole economy would collapse. The economic system is essentially dependent on rich people's behaviour for economic growth. Economic system change, a collapse of the current system is absolutely necessary. Otherwise there will never be a new system. And when starting a new system it is optimal, it is best if everybody is poor like poor people are today (regarding accumulation and consumption). Limited, constrained, no affluence, a high level of equality and an unimaginably lower energy need. A good start.
If people stop buying things they don't really 'need' and use their body in stead of using technology for every task, we are potentially diverting our ways to a much more utopian society with renewed respect for living nature by losing our supremacy madness and old dogma's. When the consumerist dream is gone and people finally wake up. That also goes for most poor people today who are also in the consumerist dream and are wanting. They need to lose the dream as well. Forgo of the wants.
For this to happen the policy can be to return to publicly owned TV channels. To revolutionise mass media by removing commerce and advertising, to remove the lies, temptations, passive entertainment insanity, manipulation, lust, accumulation status, celebrities etc. To make sane again.

Yes, the affluent lifestyle is addictive, and most people in it would not let go of it willingly, and most other people strive to reach it. That's human nature for you.

I disagree. The dream has been succesfully created through very effective and abundant advertising temptation of all sorts, branding and thus conditioning. Brains have been changed, that's what marketing and P.R. does. It is basically lying and manipulating.

But will they reduce by 10%-30%? Maybe.

There's no time. Incremental changes are insufficient. 20% (per decade?) is not remotely enough. Haven't you heard Greta saying that according to science we have only 8.5 years left for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5C. Not so nice future if you're 16. Fear! And rightfully so. Don't you have enough empathy to do your outmost to minimize the negative effects of your current lifestyle for their future? To drastically change as I have done? I couldn't live with the idea that I was contributing to this, that my actions damage and ruin their future and the future of all our children's children and the future of all other life on Earth.
Do you think the effects of 1.5C will be a 'little bit worse' than today? It is really a pity (understatement) that you don't see the need for extreme fast action and change. The U.N. and many science-based articles state that we have very little time left.
I have been observing many trends for years, and almost (not all; e.g. #MeToo is positive for women) all trends are accelerating towards catastrophy in my observations, there ARE bottom lines. Global severe weather and biocollapse effects are among the trends I follow. What a life to see the world collapse around you. My future is gone as well. I'm now just trying to communicate understanding and morality, show leadership and be kind to others. If I start to struggle to survive i will stop eating.

I think if enough set an example it can effectuate real change, fast change. Extinction rebellion for example migth pick up on our asif's example. Greta might show interest in our solutions for the transition-to-poor . Forummembers are an intelligent bunch I think. The intelligent and just should lead. Not the shouters and liars.

Ask yourself with everything you do "Why am I doing this? Is this really really necessary? Can I change?". Try to educate the young humans that consumerism and all that stuff is wrong with their future in mind.

a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries.

This means an explosion in consumption and an explosion of the consequences thereof. More strong reason to really hurry, to PANIC. NOW. Where is the survival instinct?

a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries. These countries are still massively building new coal plants of all things, regardless of your or my ramblings on this forum. So anything that potentially idles these coal plants gets my cheers.

Do you mean that you like to stop those poor people from becoming consumerists like you? From becoming more affluent? From having your lifestyle?

What the currently poor people are contributing to our mess is a high birth rate

I am not responding to this because I probably would use some words that I don't want to use.
Of course you are right about the effect of more humans on Earth. If that's all you read in that sentence you don't understand me.

even if they all lived your lifestyle I am not sure if they could live sustainably on this Earth and in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, in fact I strongly doubt it.

Are you saying that there's no room for so many people on Earth? Even if they lived frugal like me?
That would mean that probably billions of people will have to die. But of course that doesn't mean you, because you are better shielded from the causes of the coming 'Big Killing'. No, it's the 'others' that will have to die, the 'others' will have to be sacrificed for sake of the shielded ones, for the sake of the minority of high consuming richer people. For you, the 'better' people (the rich who are driving AGW and are the metaphorical 'inertia') to have a viable future, to be safe.
Different words to describe this behaviour come to mind.

[oren]

Nanning, I have some comments on your comments but I am afraid i will stop this conversation here. It seems you do not respect me as I respect you. Some of your comments were very hurtful and totally without reason.

In essence, what you are doing is throwing out the good because it's not good enough. But the perfect you are describing (and I agree with you) will not happen, certainly not in time, on a global perspective.

But what you are also doing is attacking the messenger, in a not nice way.

Yes, the affluent lifestyle is addictive, and most people in it would not let go of it willingly, and most other people strive to reach it. That's human nature for you.

I disagree. The dream has been succesfully created through very effective and abundant advertising temptation of all sorts, branding and thus conditioning. Brains have been changed, that's what marketing and P.R. does. It is basically lying and manipulating.

Children are attracted to sugar not because it's good for them, and not because they've seen an ad and PR. But because evolution made human nature, and "grab all you can eat" has been a good survival strategy. "Grab all you screw" has also been a good one, in terms of passing on the genes. Etc.

But will they reduce by 10%-30%? Maybe.

There's no time. Incremental changes are insufficient.

I certainly agree, they are vastly insufficient.

I think if enough set an example it can effectuate real change, fast change.

I think not. I guess I am less of an optimist than you.

a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries.

This means an explosion in consumption and an explosion of the consequences thereof. More strong reason to really hurry, to PANIC. NOW. Where is the survival instinct?

a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries. These countries are still massively building new coal plants of all things, regardless of your or my ramblings on this forum. So anything that potentially idles these coal plants gets my cheers.

Do you mean that you like to stop those poor people from becoming consumerists like you? From becoming more affluent? From having your lifestyle?

Of course I meant the first (explosion of consumption) but not the second. This was a really insulting comment, and uncalled for. I would like all to have a good but frugal life. But I am giving you facts, what WILL happen, not what I want to happen. And you attack me personally for absolutely no reason.

What the currently poor people are contributing to our mess is a high birth rate

I am not responding to this because I probably would use some words that I don't want to use.
Of course you are right about the effect of more humans on Earth. If that's all you read in that sentence you don't understand me.

Here the insinuation is implied, but no less hurtful. Yes, I mean more humans on Earth. All the rest is in your head, not mine.

even if they all lived your lifestyle I am not sure if they could live sustainably on this Earth and in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, in fact I strongly doubt it.

Are you saying that there's no room for so many people on Earth? Even if they lived frugal like me?
That would mean that probably billions of people will have to die. But of course that doesn't mean you, because you are better shielded from the causes of the coming 'Big Killing'. No, it's the 'others' that will have to die, the 'others' will have to be sacrificed for sake of the shielded ones, for the sake of the minority of high consuming richer people. For you, the 'better' people (the rich who are driving AGW and are the metaphorical 'inertia') to have a viable future, to be safe.
Different words to describe this behaviour come to mind.

Yes, I mean there's no room for so many people on Earth, not sustainably and for the long term. It's called Carrying Capacity.
Yes, it means billions of people will die. Probably most people, maybe 90% over a decade or two once the real collapse begins. No one will be shielded, and those remaining will lead  a very poor life by necessity, not by choice. Technological civilization will be gone.
So you understood me perfectly so it seemed, but then you wrote something really ugly. That you are poor and I am not (by your definitions) does not mean you can assume all sort of untrue things. I do not think like that and do not converse like that.
How on Earth did you get to that conclusion? What makes you write this hateful sentence? Everything I wrote was not personal, but on a global perspective.

I will not stop respecting you and your lifestyle choices. But I will stop this conversation here.