Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KiwiGriff

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: October 18, 2020, 04:01:47 PM »
Car magazines and newspaper car sections are beholden to the incumbents and their advertising budgets.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 17, 2020, 08:24:47 AM »
I think Tesla prices are mostly algorithmic. They have an algorithm that takes into account things like projected demand and production capacity and adjusts the price accordingly.

Surely humans have some input over their prices, but I don't think one should read too much into it except as an efficiency improvement.

If Tesla slows down to let others catch up, then the mission slows down.

If the competition want to keep up they better roll up theirs sleeves. This advantage is something that $$ can't fix, only hard work, determination and time.

The politics / Re: The Alt Right
« on: October 11, 2020, 09:40:16 PM »
... worth the read of the entire piece ...

Our Consensus Reality Has Shattered: A Whirlwind of Uncertainty Is Stirring Up Extremism

... When no clear, authoritative source of truth exists, when uncertainty rages, human nature will lead many people to seek a more stable reality by wrapping themselves in an ever-tighter cloak of political, religious, or racial identities. The more uncertainty rises, the more alluring that siren call becomes. And some Americans are responding by seeking out exclusive, all-encompassing identities that are toxic and fragile—and hold the seed of violent extremism.

... “Knowledge resides in consensus, rather than in any transcendent or objective relationship between a knower and that which is to be known,” ... The more people who agree on a fact, the more we understand it to be real.

Objective reality is presumed to exist, and it may enforce its strictures tangibly—for instance, through COVID-19 death tolls and hospitalizations. But objective reality is apprehended through consensus. We do not set out, individually, to count the dead. We trust others to do it for us. When our enveloping social consensus agrees that 200,000 Americans have died, it becomes a fact. It becomes real.

Perhaps most importantly, the nature of the consensus depends on who you know. Even today, surrounding yourself with people who believe that the world is flat is eminently possible. The more people you know who believe it, the more likely you will believe it as well. But if you move, or make new friends, the consensus may again change around you.

The instability of the consensus has always presented a challenge, but in today’s globally networked world, realities collide around us every day, sometimes dramatically—even violently—opposed in their verdicts on values, opinions, and facts.

... How much engagement does it take to make an alternative fact credible? One hundred thousand retweets? Fifty thousand likes? Ten thousand shares? These numbers were within reach for virtually everyone, and even they are overkill. For some people, seeing 100, 50, or 20 is enough. In a small group—a chat room or a Telegram channel—affirmation from 10 people might be sufficient to tilt someone toward violence, because consensus is more powerful when it is found among others you trust. We listen most closely to chat members, friends, family, and colleagues. We value most dearly the opinions of people from the same neighborhood, or from the same religion, or from the same race.

... Some people are better at living with uncertainty than others and can navigate a landscape of contradictions more comfortably. But most of us will seek to reduce uncertainty by turning to the people we trust the most: people who are like us, people with whom we can identify, what social scientists refer to as an in-group.

The in-group is not a designation of power or popularity. It’s simply your group. Anyone who’s not in your group is part of an out-group. ... We identify with in-groups because we understand that they are filled with people like us—who hold similar opinions, listen to similar music, enjoy similar foods. Because they’re more like us, we relate to them more easily and agree with them more often than we do members of our out-groups.

A related effect is equally venerable, but less understood. People who associate with in-groups tend to develop negative attitudes about out-groups. We like our music and don’t like theirs. Our food is good; theirs is not as good. This often extends to the quality of the members: Our people are better than they are.

... in-groups don’t necessarily develop negative feelings about out-groups, even when the groups are competing for resources or status. As the social psychologist John T. Jost has demonstrated, people usually favor maintaining the status quo over changes that might benefit their in-group, an effect called “system justification.”

However, when the status quo is upended, as in a civil war, people experience massive uncertainty. When the status quo collapses, there is no system to justify. But even short of societal collapse, the system-justification impulse can fail. What happens when the status quo is not just beset by uncertainty, but is itself the source of uncertainty?

That’s when things get ugly.

... During times of great uncertainty, our need to make the world real and know what is true becomes much more urgent, and we can satisfy that need by immersing ourselves ever deeper in an in-group that offers a clear, authoritative consensus.

The social psychologist Michael A. Hogg found that feelings of uncertainty make people more likely to strongly identify with in-groups.

Michael A. Hogg,, Extremism and the Psychology of Uncertainty, Applied Social Psychology Series Book 9

But Hogg’s findings go further. People who are experiencing uncertainty tend to assign a higher value to the in-group’s most distinctive traits, such as skin color or religious practice. They are attracted to in-groups with rigidly defined rules and boundaries, and to in-groups that are internally homogenous—filled with people who look, think, and act in similar ways.

More destructively, people who are experiencing uncertainty tend to develop hostile attitudes toward out-groups, seeing them as threats, and entertaining dark fantasies of hostile actions toward the hated other. Some in-group members may go beyond fantasy, engaging in acts of violence, terrorism, even genocide. They gravitate toward social movements that are bigoted, hateful, and authoritarian.

They become extremists.

... Unemployment and poverty do not drive extremism directly. People can live with deprivation if they know what’s expected, where they fit into the picture, and how they will survive, if only barely. They can live with adversity if they can plan for it.

But when unemployment and poverty surge unexpectedly, overturning the status quo, when hopes and dreams and long-laid plans fly out the window, extremism becomes much more attractive. When uncertainty overtakes the system itself, when the system is the source of uncertainty, things can really fall apart, and it becomes difficult to know which way society will turn. ...

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 11, 2020, 05:06:22 AM »
Archimid, people don’t give a whit about what Musk thinks about coronavirus.  What’s making news is the President being hospitalized, being crazy on talk radio for two hours; holding illegal rallies at the White House; and infecting his entire staff. 
If Musk’s opinions were affecting Tesla, the board would stop him from tweeting about it!  His tweets may upset you, but mainstream media and the general public don’t care, and clearly the board sees no harm in it.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: October 03, 2020, 10:56:40 AM »
Almost anything we make should be circular. So design al products in a way that optimizes recycling.
Non bio degradable plastics should not be used for bags, straws etc.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: October 02, 2020, 11:18:06 AM »
I can only assume it's all fake news . The president surely could not come down with a hoax ! Has the Whitehouse run out of bleach ?

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 30, 2020, 04:29:25 AM »
So Tesla may be able to manufacture 10% of the worldwide demand. 90% of a market still seems like a worthwhile target for other battery makers.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: September 28, 2020, 06:19:27 PM »
”This hurricane season has been defined by storms forming in strange locations that rapidly intensify and produce unusually heavy rains — a hallmark of what science says are some of the most clearly defined impacts of a warming climate. If it was 2040, we might not think it was unusual for two tropical systems to simultaneously threaten mainland Europe, but in my entire career as a meteorologist, I’ve sure as hell never heard of anything like that happening before.”

The 2020 Hurricane Season Is a Turning Point in Human History
by Eric Holthaus

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 23, 2020, 03:26:40 PM »
Tesla Battery Day!  Speakers were on an outdoor stage, in front of a big screen… at the end of a parking lot filled with Teslas!
Attendees were each assigned a car, and the audio was broadcast over the radio — yes, Tesla Drive-in Theater!  (But the cars had PIN To Drive enabled, so no one could drive away. ;))  Attendees applauded and cheered by honking horns! ;D It was 95°, so the cars’ air conditioning was appreciated. 

My notes:
Goal: The world needs about 10 tWh/yr to transition to electric transportation and energy storage.  Today’s gigawatt-hr factories are too small.  The $/kWh curve has flattened.
Plan: Terawatt-hr battery production, on a smaller footprint than today’s gigawatt factories.  Make factory space more efficient. Cut the cost per kWh in half.
Tesla’s new cells are still cylindrical, but “4680” size.  [46mm diameter, 80mm length] Pilot plant now, expect about a year to ramp to 10 gWh, 100 gWh in 2022, 3 tWh/yr goal in 2030.
Improvements on Maxwell’s dry battery. New: powder onto film, eliminates massive chemical use and waste water.
Reduction of manufacturing line footprint by over 75% by this alone.
Lithium from clay. 10,000 acres in Nevada. “Remove a chunk of dirt, extract the Lithium (acid-free, saline extraction), replace the dirt.” 
“There’s enough lithium in North America to replace the entire U.S. fleet.”
Coming: Single-piece castings for entire front and rear of car (new aluminum alloy, strong without coating or heat treatment)
New batteries will form a part of the vehicle’s structure, without assembly into a pack.  Denser packing allows more distance between batteries and side of vehicle, lessening risk of rupture in a crash.

56% reduction in $/kWh
54% increase in Range
69% less investment per gWh
Will take 12-18 months to start realizing this improvement; ~3 years to fully realize.

Recycling - will increase as EV volume increases. Tesla expects to replace 20 million vehicles/yr.

$25,000 car in about 3 years! (They said this several times.)  “Will be fully autonomous.”

Cybertruck: over ~600,000 orders.  First version will be to U.S. specs, since U.S. is largest market.  Will eventually make a smaller version for other markets.

In other news: Model S Plaid opened for orders. $140,000 base price. Almost $100k cheaper than loaded Taycan Turbo S, and more than twice the range (520+ miles — slightly more than Lucid’s claimed 517).

Watch replay here:

Reflex Research:  Tesla’s new Fremont battery “pilot line” design capacity at 10 GWh is equal to >50% of the global Li-ion battery production in 2010.
I believe Tesla's single cell "pilot line" operating at Kato road Fremont would place in the top ten largest cell factories globally and contribute ~5% of 2019 global supply.…

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 22, 2020, 07:51:49 PM »
But why shoould we allow them to impose their dogma, especially when they fail so miserably to follow it themselves...

As the saying goes, their karma ran over their dogma :)

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:32:58 AM »
People who argue against abortion while at the same time arguing against contraceptives. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
I agree though, nothing good will come out of discussing such divisive and religiously-charged issues on the ASIF.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 21, 2020, 04:31:27 PM »
Complaints about the Solar City purchase being financially detrimental miss the point that Tesla’s core mission of accelerating the transition to sustainability is, by traditional measures, financially detrimental.  “We’re gonna do it anyway.”

There are no stockholder proposals concerning solar in tomorrow’s shareholder meeting.  Investors agree Tesla’s path is rocky but right.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 11, 2020, 05:50:02 AM »
Great post Wildcatter.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 11, 2020, 04:29:27 AM »
In electricity, wind is already multiples of natural gas in EROI. Nowadays, I would be shocked if solar wasn't ahead of every FF. The fun part is, we're not even close to their potential.

I understand it's difficult to really grasp what's going on in energy, but you have to realize public resources are terrible. You can spend much less time, and get a much better understanding, by just figuring out *what's actually going on* yourself. What's involved in a wind project, how it generally works, how we're iterating, industry expectations, etc. In solar, how are we manufacturing, how that's changed, general understanding of equipment, industry expectations, industry trends, iterative improvements, etc. Understand the processes, and how we're actually doing it. You'll be ahead of every resource you'll find on the internet if you just do that. Even studies are extremely myopic because they use precedent data by definition in a quickly changing industry. I first realized this a few years ago at an energy conference, with MIT talking about future of US grid and renewables, not once mentioning offshore wind when UK and Europe auctions were public knowledge, precisely because the only precedent in the US was some astronomical cost project. You can't really take anything from any study, unless it's general overviews of industry R&D, or just aggregated historical price trends as a reference. I don't even read them anymore. Definitely do not take financebros / bloggers' word, unless it's just a spreadsheet of data of precedent price trends or something, vast majority of them couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map.

An "EROI" estimate from 2012-2013 is definitely outdated, a lot has changed in regards to energy inputs relative to energy outputs. In energy projects, where most of the concentration is on the first 15-years of production, LCOE is really a direct piece of the reflection of the energy input:output ratio. Especially when it's a fixed asset with no variable fuel costs. I mean, that's it, the structures themselves and their output relative to cost is the LCOE, direct energy input definitely figures into that. A lot can change in manufacturing and production. Economies of scale, optimizing production processes, industry shifts, iteration, better output. With almost all PERC modules nowadays, the dominant form of solar PV today, they'll still be 85-88% efficient in 30 years, with energy investment payback in 1-4 years (depending on location). The industry shift in solar over the next 3-5 years, those modules will still be 90% efficient after 35 years, and energy investment payback will reduce even further. New wind projects can last 25-30 years, and their energy investment payback is 3-6 months, and their capabilities have improved a lot, with much, much more to come.

Let's take a look at industry roadmaps and general industry expectations which further boost EROI. I have never seen another human being on the internet mention these in aggregate.
1) Wind - do you know we actually don't really know anything about wind interactions in a wind farm or amidst the environment across a windfarm? Wind analytics on turbines is still in the Stone Age, and there's no farm-level optimization?
- DoE Exawind project - Atmosphere to Electron Initiative = porting physics and fluid dynamics of wind to run on exascale class machines. Will be influential in maximizing siting, wind interactions, optimization, controls, things like wake steering and windfarm/turbine designs. Europe will be doing similar things when they can and/or the modeling is simplified a bit. This is going to be a gift that keeps on giving for a long time, and probably at least a couple fascinating insights. All these capabilities + data from LiDAR, etc, are great resources for our general environmental understanding, as well.
- Imaging/Sensing like LiDAR - big auto is driving this, it'll be pretty standard with nacelles in 4-5 years, probably see some sooner. Dynamic wind analytics, adjustments/corrections, also can significantly lower load/fatigue on structure and components, ie less degradation, and more generation
- Better sensors and integration for components - "preventative maintenance", use less energy in O&M (operations and maintenance), less "big" breaking changes that usually arise from a smaller problem unnoticed that exacerbated, less degradation, more energy return over life with less energy invested, also cost reduction
- Further out - 3-D printed concrete foundations = GE + LaFargeHolcim + Cobold project, but everyone interested in this for obvious reasons. Wind resource at taller heights is better, more generation, biggest obstacle to taller towers is logistics (transportation). Also saves energy on both the concrete foundation construction, but also the energy used to transport foundations, foundations are huge. Cheaper 140m-160m towers (really the game changing height with rotor iteration across the world, especially with data + optimization adoption above), but also future 180m-200m towers. We'll see this get going before 2030, likely industry standard by then, and many forward thinkers believe in 15 years, we're going to be 3-D printing both the foundation and the blades (rotors) on-site. Likely the future of floating wind structures, as well. Maybe even fixed-bottom monopiles for offshore in shallower depths, could potentially do it on-ship, saving trips to shore. "Additive manufacturing" (3D printing) also opens up the doors to use... additives in the future for less material/energy input and/or access to more output.

This is without mentioning rotor re-designs, companies keep those pretty close to the vest, but are inevitable even by 2030. There's even more efficient methods in producing things like generator components, and implementation/construction like "self lift" reducing use of heavy cranes. It's a complete transformation in capabilities, sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, big reason you can't extrapolate wind capacity to the future, or even "storage" needs for that matter. EROI over 25 years is going to be enormous, but I have little doubt that better controls, data, sensors, less degradation, projects in the near future could hit 35 years. Probably replace them before then, just out of sheer marginal utility, just enforcing the point.

2) Solar - solar has changed quite a bit over the last 10 years, energy output, longevity, economies of scale lowering energy inputs per capita, in furnaces, processing and handling equipment throughput, transportation energy + costs per capita from higher power. It'll get another leg up on EROI over the next 5 years, and industry expectations + what we know and things on the roadmap could see another big leg up over the next 7-8 years. with the widely regarded future of solar low-temp, solution processed, massive efficiency increases, which would send EROI into the stratosphere.
- Current = most manufacturing is PERC, "p-type" silicon, type just refers to doping and some electron mechanics, whole industry shifted about 2 years ago to this because of high efficiencies and input efficient scaling + equipment
- 2023 industry roadmap - n-type HJT = more focus and transition on "n-type" as "p-type" PERC is running out of headroom, n-type is just generally considered "better quality for solar" than p-type, and is the base cell for HJT (heterojunction). Higher efficiencies, less degradation, generates more over 15 years given same power ratings. Also naturally bifacial properties, and this is around the time we expect bifacial modules to become more standard (more output). This actually uses less steps than PERC, and some processes can even be lower temperature. Less input, more output. Additionally, we know we can use about 30% less silicon, and even up to about 60% less, it's all in the handling equipment, which will start iterating more quickly as production starts to ramp up.
- Midterm potential = Tandems, silicon/perovskite. Theoretical efficiency 35-44%, i've seen a couple numbers here, I just generally say about 40%, point is a lot higher. The perovskite layer is also processed in solution at low temperatures, very little additional energy input. Oxford PV is aiming for a 100MW line up at end of this year or by mid next year or so with ~27% efficiency, most expectations are that we'll have about a GW of tandem manufacturing in 3-4 years, no one knows how quickly this will develop, but we do know one thing, the solar industry can transition very quickly. Especially when you realize the base silicon for tandems? HJT, the roadmap anyway.
- Future = i doubt there's anyone who doesn't think the future is low-temperature, solution processed perovskite. Perovskites are an extraordinary class of materials, they're actually considered one of the most promising classes of materials across a large swathe of industries, lasers, lighting, optoelectronics/optocommnication/optics in general, photonics, x-ray detectors (like low power, low radiation, high resolution), spectrometers, promising in photocatalysts for feedstocks, solar, etc. Potential lies in not only cheap production, but very lightweight and even flexible modules, very thin wraps, and layering (multi-junction) for very high efficiencies. Also, indoor ambient lighting generation for low-energy things. Energy input can be very low, like an order of magnitude lower, and sky is the limit really on future efficiency. Lighterweight and higher power also saves on transport, and material input+transport in things like trackers + rooftop racking. Much lower weight and high efficiencies, at lower production costs, will drop rooftop costs by multiples. It also allows you to make dual-axis trackers with cheaper/more efficient inputs, no one really uses dual-axis now it's all single-axis mostly, but dual-axis (as we get better data and more people actually using it) is thought to be a 10-15% boost in generation over trackers now. Perovskite modules can also be much easier to recycle, as well.

Organic solar is also a darkhorse, I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up being a viable candidate in some things. Anywho, perovskites, and/or quantum dots (another booming material class), are also going to be the basis for commercial solar glass, which we'll see pick up traction in 8-10 years (ROI $$). And if you kinda have a grasp on how economies handle energy industries, you see how relatively easy and cheap perovskite production can be, everyone is going to start building and sourcing domestically. Marginal utility of domestic economic benefits will far outweigh a fractional cost reduction. So, good chance total transportation energy usage in shipping declines in the long-term.

3) EVs = I'm on a roll so I might as well continue. We all know by now EVs are much more efficient than combustion engine vehicles. But, EVs still have a ton of headroom on efficiency. Not only in motor, drivetrain, inverter/converter, but also software. And here's one I don't see mentioned enough... weight. If you double the energy density of a Tesla Model 3 battery, you cut about 500-600lbs (225-270kg) off the weight of the vehicle. Also, point applicable to buses. That's more range per kWh. Not only that, but "lighterweight" materials is pretty well understood to see a sonic boom in the next 10 years, and in perpetuity. Aluminum, steel alloys, carbon fiber reinforced plastic, even magnesium is getting attention (cool research which would be transformational = carbon fiber from lignin). Who knows how this develops, point is it's expected to get a significant amount of attention and a lot of expenditures/research. In 15 years, an average of 300kg weight reduction, in a more efficient system overall (for instance I highly doubt we're still using silicon carbide inverters/converters), wouldn't be surprising at all.

You can also see this inflection point down the road, especially with better charging and energy densities, losing weight, better efficiency, especially all the charging at homes and various places, how much capacity will they actually need? Batteries will keep getting denser while capacity needs lower, leading to additional weight savings, but also battery material costs/inputs. And what exactly is going to stop us from putting 1-2kW of solar on an EV, 10kW+ on buses, in say 15 years with all the other very likely developments enhancing efficiency? It's only going to take one manufacturer getting great feedback on a model, before others start doing it. That's inevitable, imo. I think we could see that on some models even in 10 years. Would be a great way to couple domestic upstart next-generation solar to domestic EV and ride the benefits across the entire economy, the headroom for coupled iterating solar efficiency and iterating EV efficiency is astronomical. Can you imagine what that is going to do in some place like India? I would take a bet for any sum of money they are doing precisely that in 15 years. Name an amount, and loser donates that money to hooking up Nanning.

4) Anywho, there's also other things like just better energy management + controls for commercial buildings using more capable sensors we expect to iterate over the next 10 years, actuators, data analytics, rough figure is we can likely cut 10-15% off total commercial building energy consumption, some even up to 40-50% with expected replacement practices, just with those levers. Rooftop and commercial solar glass also will cut down transmission & distribution losses, which are not insignificant. Ditto for more efficient EVs, especially when (not if) solar is placed on a lot of them. More proximal siting for generation, in general, and grid batteries, should also help overall electricity system efficiency, that's really one of the most promising things energy people are excited about, batteries are incredible grid assets and will be used as transmission assets too.

5) Recycling and bio-feedstocks are absolutely 100% essential pillars of any sustainable world. Here's my pillars: renewable generation, EVs, green hydrogen, bio-feedstocks, recycling. And real planning like non-idiots, like real large-scale insulation and energy efficiency measures with teeth. I might be forgetting one off the top of my head, but everything kinda branches off those. Hydrogen or derivative for maritime + aviation, bio-feedstocks including chemistry, materials, and also things like meat replacement, etc. My personal opinion, we're going to find out electricity is actually the relatively easy part, can bridge with green hydrogen fired turbines if necessary, it'll be cheap enough. I like to summarize the hard part like this:

Imagine a world of carbon based lifeforms, in an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere, that is about 3/4 water. Now imagine they have seemingly plentiful materials called "hydrocarbons", and think how that could be influential in their growing civilization and development.

This is basically where catalyst innovation, processes, material science, recycling, and even genetic engineering agriculture bio-feedstocks comes into play. Catalysts might be the most important, yet unmentioned and probably least understood, part of the transition equation. Much like batteries, our actual capabilities in observing/engineering weren't good/fast enough, that's starting to change though. If you're interested in science & research, material science (and chemistry) is critical and advancing, will undoubtedly see numerous breakthroughs over the next 10-15 years, batteries, industry catalysts, electrolyzers, photocatalysts, 2-D materials, power electronics, and things like recycling catalysts/processes, hopefully lignin, cellulose etc. The revolution starting to take shape in research computation, not just AI/ML, but expected deviation from decades of established computing architecture, new memories/hierarchies, interconnects, stacking, integrated silicon photonics, and synergy with AI/ML, will be a big boon if we focus.

6) Last one. The advantage we do have, is that developing economies, if given a choice, would much rather keep their industry value chains domestic, piggybacking off cheap domestic renewable generation, even if it's more expensive at the beginning. FFs require enormous value chains, most developing countries enter JVs (joint ventures), and they have to deal with multinational vulture energy companies who leverage not only $$, but political influence and capture. For example, think of a developing country who wanted to domestically produce fertilizer, those jobs in the value chain, also boosting agriculture industry, as we get on with it the domestic benefits from renewable electricity -> green ammonia -> fertilizer are enormous and much less a pain in the ass than having to go through all the trouble of either producing natural gas or spending a load of $$ on terminals, processing, and seeing all the supply money leave the country.

In future bio-feedstocks for chemicals and materials, they can grow and process it themselves or easily trade with neighboring countries who could be doing similar things. Recycling as well, theoretically they could import things, recycle or upcycle them, and just reproduce goods domestically.

Oh, one more thing. People really overrate where we were, which is about 5 hops out of the Stone Age. Our entire civilization has been built on laughably inefficient processes. We're seeing this shift finally. It wouldn't be hyperbole to say the human race is on the verge of a new era of human civilization, with 2020-2029 serving as the precipitous decline and trough, and ~2030 as the ramp to a new cycle. We see this all over the place in every major industry, and society through networking, communication, technological accessibility. As we're on ASIF, I'm sure the irony is not lost on ya'll. Do we actually reach a sustainable world without burning everything down? Don't ask me, that's above my pay grade.

Keep banging the table for hemp research, processing, catalysts, materials, computation/genetics work. It's a damn wunder material for things we can use between the crop and seeds, agriculture genetic engineering has done some pretty amazing things in the last year and that's just getting started. It's also relatively rugged, and sequesters something like 15 tons of CO2 per hectare (we can probably increase that), future butt-wipe, plastics, textiles, bunch of things, even has a high insulation rating while being easy to handle. Supposedly a good crop for regenerative agriculture. And given all the offshore wind farms/structures, algae-seaweed-kelp-etc farms and artificial reefs, I think a European group is doing a study/trial with this, I thought about that a few years ago, seems like a no-brainer to me and there's still likely a whole lot we can learn on actually using it.

(Yes, the US will cut significantly more than 50% off total energy consumption, if that timeline is 30 years anyway. That number will have a different meaning with so much proximal located generation like rooftop, as well. US energy consumption also likely peaked in 2018. PS. - Texas in 2020 is 36% 0-carbon electricity thus far with electricity demand higher than the UK, no real rooftop market, and solar just ramping up this year. - California's old turbines were running at about 40% capacity factors during one of those blackout times, they just don't build any, barely any since 2012, their grid management is mind boggling. - Yes, vehicle2grid will be huge, second life batteries have potential too.)

- Hope ya'll learned something
- Fin

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 31, 2020, 04:35:08 AM »
If you're trying to prove that 10 billion people cannot live as the average American does, you're preaching to the choir. But some comments about the numbers are justified:
* Assuming the average American as the goal/steady state is a harsh assumption. Americans live a wasteful lifestyle. Typical European energy consumption is about half, at a rather similar level of living.
* The concept of Primary Energy is very misleading, as it includes all the heat not used for any useful work. Since this is the renewables thread, and renewables have very little inefficiencies resulting in waste heat, it would be more appropriate to consider actual energy used. This decreases energy consumption by about 2/3.

So the world would need 15-20 TW of renewable energy production to bring forecast population to a European level of living.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 21, 2020, 04:12:42 AM »
The simulation is broken.  :o

$2020.20 on 8/20/2020

2020 is so crazy.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 19, 2020, 06:58:33 AM »
Truly sad this morning to discover my friend blumenkraft has left  :'( :'(
I really wish that you'll return soon.

I've read above a number of good and constuctive posts here which is great and shows that we are not a fighting or competing group but have the capacity for unity. Let's be aware of the fact that what is written here is public i.e. for the world to see.

And I agree with be cause that blumenkraft deserves an answer but I don't think he'll get it and it can't be forced. It is what it is. Being accused whilst not being guilty is something in life that cannot always be rectified and can emotionally be very tough. I wish you strenght and love blum  :-*.

Since we're not a real life group and therefore miss a lot of communication information because of our abstract interaction, it is even more important to use emotional restraint.

blumenkraft, you have many friends here who are sad that you have left and miss you and your input and efforts!  And your energy :)

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 16, 2020, 02:37:17 AM »

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 14, 2020, 12:16:57 PM »
BTW, there have been some obstacles (fuck Brexit), but i'm happy to report that Gero finally got his money this morning. YEY! \o/
That's very good news. I'm glad you've managed to fight your way through the bureaucracy.

And welcome back to the cheap seats, Blum. I have a feeling you won't be too unhappy about it – trying to be both Sheriff and Outlaw seemed to cramp your style!

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: August 13, 2020, 08:19:10 PM »

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 12, 2020, 12:00:05 PM »
Yeah, it's bluice unfortunately, another fine casualty of the forum's coronavirus crisis.
I am sorry to have to write this, but anyone who feels they cannot bear to read Neven's Covid-related posts anymore - I implore you to put our esteemed admin on ignore rather than quit the forum completely. The forum is much more than its creator and long-time leader, and the environmental and long-term subjects discussed are not going away anytime soon unfortunately.
I have stated my great respect for Neven, who has written so much about Arctic Sea Ice and related subjects, and who has created an environment of scientific debate that is rarely matched on the Internet, devoid of deniers and guided well over the years. I do think he has his head screwed the wrong way around regarding Covid, and am certainly saddened by this, but he has his reasons and reasonings and that is that for now.

If you feel the urge to go to your profile for a certain final action, do this instead. Click on profile - buddies/ignore list - edit ignore list - add member. And survive to post another day.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 11, 2020, 07:31:59 PM »
—- Thread by @ReflexFunds (rolled into one page at the link):
Some thoughts on Tesla’s Autopilot & Robotaxi strategy:

Here are follow up threads by @ReflexFunds:

This is a very nice overview of Tesla's Autopilot status. 

One detail missing is Project Dojo which is a new chip for training neural nets. Neural net training is computationally very demanding and currently done on GPUs (the HW3 chip is not suitable for training). The new chip is probably around an order of magnitude more efficient than a GPU enabling faster training and thus faster iteration. Project Dojo is expected to deploy late this year or early next year.

In summary, we can expect fast progress with Autopilot starting later this year when the new 4D architecture arrives followed by continuous improvements (the march of 9s) next year. Whether this is enough for full FSD remains to be seen, but we should be much wiser a year from now.

The politics / Re: Why CHAZ failed
« on: August 02, 2020, 04:34:47 PM »
How can you talk about CHAZ without mentioning Dave ?

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: July 31, 2020, 11:07:30 PM »
Well well,
At least now I know what denier blogs you read. Or at least one of them.

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: July 31, 2020, 07:58:07 AM »
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage which emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

Link >>

We have this a lot here. I wish we wouldn't have this.

Walrus, i have homework for you. Read this:

On Bullshit is a 2005 book (originally a 1986 essay) by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of bullshit that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bullshit in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but rather only cares whether their listener is persuaded.

Free to read here >>

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 28, 2020, 03:32:21 PM »
Zizek, you assume that Tesla is about replacing mass transport with individual transport.

Let me counter your claim.  You provide evidence that this is the Tesla goal.  After all nearly 90m personal vehicles are sold per year.  Removing mass transport would have to raise that figure to hundreds of millions.

Show me where that is identified as a goal.

Most mass transport is already electric (rail), or moving that way (busses with 0 or significantly reduced emissions).

If you can't prove that Tesla intends to replace mass transport with personal electric vehicles, then I just have to assume that you don't like Musk and are making statements.

Where have I heard that before??

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 22, 2020, 07:58:14 PM »
Bear in mind that when posters become emotional and belligerent, it will quickly tend to become a direct conflict between them and a moderator. Even in that case the mod still needs to do his/her job.
For me the solution is to only make moderation actions where really necessary, but where necessary to make them with a firm hand and not flinch. Both aspects much easier said than done, and I have a lot to learn myself.
Also very important as a mod is not to take things personally (such as when Phoenix accused me in a widely circulated PM of being Friv's bitch. An honor really, but never mind). This reduces the instances of the mod lashing back out of anger. Also important to give the benefit of the doubt, thus also giving the offending party a way to back down without publicly admitting wrongdoing.
My standing advice to Blum is to take a deep breath and think again when making a moderation decision, ask yourself if there is a softer way of achieving the same thing, often just with different words. You do a good job but need to hold back the natural hot-headedness (I know you agree with me).
My standing advice to posters who go rogue and start spreading anger around the forum - please don't. Nothing good will ever come out of it. The moderator has to moderate you because otherwise the forum is ruined, and you will just become more and more frustrated. Take a breather, stop posting for a day or two, do other things, then come back with a clean slate. People will think better of you that way.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 22, 2020, 03:00:14 PM »
A few words about being dyslexic. As a dyslexic person myself, i can give some insights.

Being dyslexic doesn't mean you can't type on a keyboard. Typos are just as common with dyslexic people than with 'normal' people. You don't mistype more, you just don't know how the words are written correctly even though you have seen them a million times in your life. You make the same mistakes over and over again without the correct thing overwriting the wrong or non-available memory in your head. (Is it life or live? Is it effort or efford? Is it backstabbing or backstapping? Is it wishes or whishes? - I just can't remember these things...)

I use a software called "Grammarly' which corrects my spelling. It's working amazingly good by the way. Big recommendation!

Names though are an extra obstacle. Grammarly doesn't know all names/usernames. This is why i copy&paste names in order to have them correctly.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 20, 2020, 08:18:53 PM »
because, There isn’t any news about the sea ice in the “ mainstream news “ so any new members have to find the arctic sea ice forum by circuitous means this year. I wouldn’t look at last years number of posts as a goal anyhow because last year was a real mess on the forum. I would like to express my appreciation to all of the moderators this year as trolling is much decreased from last year. I think most posters are authentic and reasonably knowledgeable. Thanks to everyone who shares!

Policy and solutions / Re: Life Without
« on: July 20, 2020, 03:44:08 PM »
Personally I would have said that KiwiGriff is arguing that the level of welfare and services in such a population dense country is only allowed with modern technological advances.

Prior welfare systems like Rome provided basic subsistence. No more. Rome, of course for the time, was a highly technologically advanced civilisation.

Policy and solutions / Re: Life Without
« on: July 19, 2020, 12:24:28 PM »
Occam's razor.
I have also observed that things drilled deep down into children's beliefs are very hard to shake as adults.

Edit: Removed religion-related stuff.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: July 18, 2020, 04:45:03 AM »
Ah, another fact free post

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: July 13, 2020, 10:29:36 PM »
BAU will continue to happen until an EV compromise asserts itself.  Right now we have two camps, one shouting F. U. We're keeping our ICE and our right to pollute.  On the other side is a raucous chant of Public Transport is all you should be allowed (or walk/cycle 20 miles to work if you don't have any).  In the middle are a fairly small camp being browbeaten by all sides.

Actually, it is useful to see the "green camp" as a spectrum of viewpoints ranging from Techno-utopianism to Neo-Ludditism. There is a fantastic (and long) series of tweets by Nafnlaus analysing this:

Techno-utopians see the solution to crises not as to sacrifice or revert, but to invent & move forward. There's all sorts of flavours of techno-utopianism - techno-progressivism (focused on achieving post-scarcity to eliminate unequality); technogianism (using technology to solve climate crises); transhumanism (using technology to overcome human limits); and so forth.

Neo-luddites see some / many of the technological changes of the past century as causing the problems we're in, and deeply fear proposed technological solutions to them. Faced with a crisis,  neo-Luddites tend to seek to revert to what they see as "older, better ways". The fact that most people haven't done so, seeing such reversion as a big sacrifice, is that they either truly don't understand how much happier they'll be, or they're bad people and deserve to be unhappy.

I highly recommend reading the full tweet series (26 tweets), it's really eye opening. I think most of us on this forum are somewhere between the two extremes, but it's clear that many of the arguments here arise because some of us are closer to Techno-utopianism and others to Neo-Ludditism. The tweet series has many examples.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 13, 2020, 04:51:20 PM »
I'm not the one trying to make a case that Tesla stock should value out at 1 years revenue.

You have shown a clear case of refusing to be educated, so why bother.

1765 at time of writing, up 220 or so.  Clearly it is goung to fall off the peak either before the earnings release or shortly after.

It might fall catastrophically, down to, say, 1,000.

What was your price again?  Zero wasn't it? Based on your facts that the M3 is a fake and will never sell more than S/X, that Giga Shanghai is a fake that the Model Y is a fake and will never make it to production.  As for the Cybertruck and the Semi, you have them as fakes too.

EVERY time your facts hit an impossible barrier of truth, you just move onto the next "fake" statement to make your case.

You never go back and answer the question as to why you were wrong.  Oh, no, always onwards, spewing new "facts" to prove why Tesla doesn't produce anything.

Why would I bother explaining anything to you?

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 13, 2020, 02:38:28 PM »
Confirming what wehappyfew has just posted:

Hefastios;  You are confusing irradiance with forcing.

THIS IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 OF THE LINK WHICH YOU PROVIDED. On the left-hand side is amplitude of solar irradiance (eye-balling the graph about 1.6 watts/m^2   and on the right hand side is the forcing: 0.25 watts/m^2). Hansen et al have done the conversion for you. It says " Left scale is the energy passing through an area perpendicular to Sun-Earth line. Averaged over Earth's surface the absorbed solar energy is ~240 W/m2, so the amplitude of solar variability is a forcing of ~0.25 W/m2."

 Either you are not understanding what is presented, not reading it all or wilfully cherry-picking quotes from scientific papers to make it look like they support what you say.  (Not for the first time either).

Also Figure 3 provides the GHG forcing (approx. 3 watts/m^2). So approx 12 times the amplitude  of a (unusually large?) solar cycle.

As you say yourself - OHC and surface temperatures are almost irrelevant side-effects ( ;-) ) of what happens at the TOA interface. So why do you complicate the discussion with these points? It could be taken as an attempt at a gish-gallop.

Either accept the points made by wehappyfew (and Hansen et al) or provide evidence to refute it and support your point.


Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 13, 2020, 02:31:55 PM »

Your comments do not address the errors I pointed out.

The amount of solar energy impinging upon each square meter of the Earth is ~1360 W/m^2 divided by 4, since the Earth is a sphere.

Until you acknowledge this fact, you will continue to calculate the impact of a Maunder Minimum incorrectly.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: July 13, 2020, 12:38:45 PM »
And now to something completely different!

This is my post number 4444! 🥂

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 10, 2020, 11:54:06 PM »
The Nile ain't just a river in Africa, that's all I can say on the subject.

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 10, 2020, 02:28:57 PM »
Scroll up to #71 and read it?

Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.

That is a total BS claim. Do read the wiki entries for the solar cycle and solar irradiance.
Then there is this:

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach."

The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.

Post #2 in,3168.msg272854.html#new

1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).

It is either funny or sad that you post that below ´Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.´

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: July 10, 2020, 05:31:55 AM »
Nikola is vaporware.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: June 29, 2020, 03:57:23 AM »
Please no more polls.

Let us be happy with and celebrate the existence of this forum; its general high level, its stability and functionality, its international character, its good and relaxed moderators and its vast scope.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: June 21, 2020, 05:00:09 PM »

Well if it is really hot and you don´t water the plants they die and that is why you had a greenhouse anyway. Evapotranspiration and all that.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 01, 2020, 08:03:28 PM »
In Norway this is ALL for free! And we take this for granted, paying our taxes more or less willingly. Despite this we Even survive and have handled this Corona-era fairly well. 

Personally I struggle to find any ups about living in the Promised land these days. But what do I know, being an European!

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 13, 2020, 03:36:55 PM »
"Swear words are to language what potent spices are to food."

Nicely put. Of course, some of us like us a bit more potent spice than others  ;D

I keep a jar of cayenne pepper powder next to the salt and pepper and us it only slightly less than the other two. So...frequently, but of course never in huge doses.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 18, 2020, 11:18:38 AM »
I saw this argument over at reddit, had to share it with you.

As of this moment, there have been 12,199 C19 deaths in NYC.

NYC population is 8.4 million people. So if the IFR of C19 was  0.1% then everyone in NYC already got it and then some. No one else should die of C19. Sadly that is not the case.

The forum / Re: Who would like to take over the ASIF?
« on: April 10, 2020, 01:23:49 PM »
my role will be to moderate BL .. :) .. b.c.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 04, 2020, 05:17:35 AM »
As this virus cripples Western culture and begins to ruin our lives, let's not forget where it came from:

Wuhan, China - almost certainly from the Wuhan Institute of virology. 

This was a human error.

Please just fuck off with that bullshit.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 03, 2020, 06:36:49 PM »
Yes, if it means that my children and grandchildren have a better chance.

OK, boomer. They brainwashed you hard.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 08:31:12 PM »
1 million and counting . As I said on page 1 .. this is far more contageous than SARS . b.c.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7