[pp.int.general] Global heating: 2 degrees of heating is 16 years away

[Gijs Overvliet]

+1 for Maxime and Jose. I'll continue on a more positive note here.

I have no doubt that there are ecological problems, or that some of them
are caused by humans.

Also, I am a firm believer in Peak-Oil, or peak-resource extraction in
general. This is the only reason why I have an "green" energy contract,
which "guarantees" that the electricity I use is produced by wind turbines.
And when looking for solutions in the field of energy supply, you can also
reduce CO2 emissions.

The problem with peak-oil is not that we run out of oil, but rather that we
can't get the stuff fast enough to meet global demand. There will always be
oil, and it will always be produced. However, at some point, the EROEI will
be negative. At this point it makes no sense to produce oil for energy, but
it DOES make sense to produce oil for other properties.

Part of the solution would be to electrify our transportation. However,
this presents a few problems, which CAN be solved:
1. Current technology is not good enough yet. There are electric cars, but
they have a limited range (about 200 to 300 KM, compared to 500 KM for
gasoline and 1000 KM for diesel), and take a long time to recharge OR the
recharging process will decrease the battery life drastically.
2. The grid needs an upgrade for this. In NL it is already aging as it is,
and won't be able to handle the load of an all-electric fleet of cars and
trucks.
3. Currently, in NL, the source of the energy will just shift from refined
oil to natural gas-powered power plants.
4. It will take at least 20 years to convert to an electric fleet.
Factories need to be built, cars need to be produced and distributed.

So, let's look at electricity generation.
I am pro-nuclear power, IF done right. Now, that's a pretty big if, and in
practice it's too expensive to build commercial nuclear powerplants with
the latest, safest technology.

Renewable energy, like solar and wind, are a solution. Germany is pretty
big on this now, setting a world-record by producing 50% of their
electricity needs (on a Saturday, 33% on the Friday before) by solar alone,
a couple of weeks ago. However, this experiment comes at a trade-off,
electricity prices are a bit higher than in surrounding countries. But
there are a few problems there too:
1. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. So you
need backup, which is, for now, the old coal/gas powered plants.
2. When too much power is produced, it needs to be drained from the grid or
the cables will melt. Current storage solutions are very nice, but not
enough. (I was at a hydro power plant a couple of months ago, which pumped
water up when there was enough electricity, and generated electricity when
that was needed) Producing hydrogen from water could be a solution, but
that technology needs more research too.

Wind turbines use about 2 metric tonnes of rare earth metals, and there's a
problem too. Rare earth metals aren't rare at all, but they are rarely
found in concentrations that are high enough so that production is
realistic. And China cornered that market, with over 95% of production a
few years ago. As far as I know, but my information on this is outdated,
there is one mine in South Africa by a US company.

Without energy, there is no industry and the economy will crash even more
than it has now. We NEED energy, and as cheaply as we can get it. By
reducing our need for fossil fuels, the oil-price can go down and I will
pay less to drive. That is a selfish incentive, but it is one that is much
stronger than "drive less and you won't have wet feet in 20 year".

Different problem, same solution.

Gijs.


2012/7/24 Philip Hunt <cabalamat at gmail.com>

> On 23 July 2012 14:04, Dario <i at dario.im> wrote:
> > Agreed. Next question: what we can do from a pirate POV without being a
> > Green spin-off?
>
> One way where Pirates differe from Greens is that there is an
> undercurrent of anti-science, anti-technology sentiment in many green
> parties, which doesn't exist in Pirate parties.
>
> So I think our approach to solving the climate change problem should
> be a science-based one.
>
> The two biggest carbon emitters are China and the USA, and
> realistically it is unlikely that either country will go out of its
> way to reduce its emissions. They will only do so if it is in their
> short term economic interests to do so.
>
> So, how to make it in their short term economic interests? If solar
> panels were cheaper, then everyonew would use them as one of the major
> ways to produce electricity. Therefore we should promote solar panel
> research.
>
> Another technology we could promote is carbon capture, e.g. by
> investigating seeding the oceans with iron to promote the growth of
> phytoplankton. (see for example
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18885083>)
>
>
> --
> Phil Hunt, <cabalamat at gmail.com>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120724/ae79b0fd/attachment.html>