sendler2112
100 kW
Human population.
.
.
.
.
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
If the intention is to imply that there is some direct causal relationship between population and atmospheric CO2 levels,
...then i wonder what the proposed solution might be from those wanting to either reduce CO2 concentrations ,..or even just prevent any significant further increase ?
...then i wonder what the proposed solution might be from those wanting to either reduce CO2 concentrations ,..or even just prevent any significant further increase ?
JackFlorey
100 kW
Stop increasing the population. Move to lower emission sources of energy. Stop with the endless growth paradigm. Simple.Hillhater said:
Hillhater
100 TW
Simple ??... to stop population growth ??JackFlorey said:
jonescg
100 MW
The population is already stabilising. We don't need any regressive measures to control population - education and good public health initiatives are working just fine.
Often when people talk about rapid population control they typically have someone other than themselves in mind...
Often when people talk about rapid population control they typically have someone other than themselves in mind...
Hillhater
100 TW
“Stabilising” .. is probably not the best description. ,!
Certainly the growth rate is reducing, but the lag before a real impact on population increase is considerable...
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth#global-population-growth
Certainly the growth rate is reducing, but the lag before a real impact on population increase is considerable...
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth#global-population-growth
jonescg
100 MW
A curve which approaches a maximum at the end of this century (probably sooner) is a stabilising population.
We know we can produce enough food for 11 billion people. We already do; and we waste it because we can.
We don't need to force people to stop having kids, they are doing it by themselves.
We know we can produce enough food for 11 billion people. We already do; and we waste it because we can.
We don't need to force people to stop having kids, they are doing it by themselves.
Hillhater
100 TW
Difference in definition of “already stabilising”, i guess jonescg.
Personally, I dont think a population that is rapidly increasing, likely to add another 50%, and forecast not to reach its maximum within maybe another 100 years,....could be said to be “stabilising” !
But either way, it just shows that Jacks “simple” idea of stopping population growth, is not going to happen at anything like the current population numbers..
Personally, I dont think a population that is rapidly increasing, likely to add another 50%, and forecast not to reach its maximum within maybe another 100 years,....could be said to be “stabilising” !
But either way, it just shows that Jacks “simple” idea of stopping population growth, is not going to happen at anything like the current population numbers..
JackFlorey
100 kW
A voluntary contraceptive that works for life - until you take an antidote - would work even better, and not result in World War III.Balmorhea said:
TheBeastie
1 MW
You guys watch/listen to way too much "boomer/everybody hold hands and sing kumbaya" broadcast mainstream media.jonescg said:
Haven't you watched any of the Stefan Molyneux videos where he talks to PhD experts on race and population projections etc?
It is expected Africa's population will just keep doubling and doubling again as it's part of their biological-culture probability to have extreme amounts of kids even when living standards are raised drastically, they just increase their rate of having kids.
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/goldstone_africa_2050_demographic_truth_and_consequences_revised1-20.jpg
https://www.hoover.org/research/africa-2050-demographic-truth-and-consequences
You guys are just going to suck on the Kool-Aid MSM until the world starts cracking right under your feet.
[youtube]nvesu6oK4rU[/youtube]
jonescg
100 MW
You spend too much time down YouTube rabbit holes.
Stephan Molyneux doesn't know shit about anything, and it's hardly a surprise he seeks out those who agree with his quite obviously white supremacy points of view, including the "Africans are too dumb for their own good" narrative.
I'd rather take the work of well credentialed demographers like Hans Rosling.
Stephan Molyneux doesn't know shit about anything, and it's hardly a surprise he seeks out those who agree with his quite obviously white supremacy points of view, including the "Africans are too dumb for their own good" narrative.
I'd rather take the work of well credentialed demographers like Hans Rosling.
sendler2112
100 kW
jonescg said:
All due to fossil fuel. Which will be leaving us soon either by decision or depletion.
jonescg
100 MW
Absolutely.
So if anything population growth will taper even sooner.
Rationing liquid fuels for agriculture will start to become more more common. If city folks give up their diesel cars for EVs, that frees up diesel for food production.
So if anything population growth will taper even sooner.
Rationing liquid fuels for agriculture will start to become more more common. If city folks give up their diesel cars for EVs, that frees up diesel for food production.
Hillhater
100 TW
?? What do yo base that speculation on ?jonescg said:
Do you not think the UN have factored fuel and food availability etc, into their “model” of population growth ?
.. ( or do you agree that UN modeling predictions are seriously flawed ?
:lol: )Even the most pessimistic predictions ...( frequently wrong) ,..do not predict fuel shortages within at least 100+ years, on known resources and predicted consumption rates,.let alone any of those resources we have yet to discover or any new energy technologies that will be developed
And, as you say, EV’s , Hybrids, fuel cells, CNG, etc etc, will all result in even further extending the availability of conventional Fossil fuels.
jonescg
100 MW
It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm arguing that the world's population will be entirely manageable up to 2100 based on our current ability to produce enough food. Sendler commented that fossil fuels are enabling that productivity, and in their absence, things won't look so rosy. So one could argue the population will max out lower than 11 billion, a bit sooner.
Personally I think we will see a re-allocation of our most energy dense fuels like diesel for purposes of growing food, ahead of frivilous activities like V8 SUVs. And also hopefully Abrams tanks and the like...
Personally I think we will see a re-allocation of our most energy dense fuels like diesel for purposes of growing food, ahead of frivilous activities like V8 SUVs. And also hopefully Abrams tanks and the like...
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
One can only hope that the gears of the war machine adopt greener technology, if we want to blame a percentage of global warming on humans then clearly it's our thirst for power in all forms that's led us down this garden path and the ultimate energy source is led to be fusion but until that power generation becomes sustainable them mobile we are stuck on the old dead animal juice to keep power dense operations active.
Solar wind etc can play a part no doubt but we are prospecting on land we yet to be the detail of and technology's available to keep it sustained 100 years is a long time if we went back to 1920 with a smartphone I think u look like someone out of star trek no one knows the long run we allways cock the weather forecast up for a few days how can we plan 50 years etc.
Solar wind etc can play a part no doubt but we are prospecting on land we yet to be the detail of and technology's available to keep it sustained 100 years is a long time if we went back to 1920 with a smartphone I think u look like someone out of star trek no one knows the long run we allways cock the weather forecast up for a few days how can we plan 50 years etc.
sendler2112
100 kW
The hardware for fusion is so expensive to build and then maintain after the constant neutronic damage to the inner most vacuum wall and heat transfering magnet shield. which requires complete disassembly to replace, even if we could get it to run uninterrupted at positive energy for more than a second at a time. it will be so expensive that no one will want it.
.
http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trouble-With-Fusion_MIT_Tech_Review_1983.pdf
.
.
http://orcutt.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Trouble-With-Fusion_MIT_Tech_Review_1983.pdf
.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Can't agree more we are living on bored time for sure the energy struggle of mad max will be a reality. It's coming true now for the bottom tier of society and that includes me priced out of everything while the rich carry on oblivious enjoying the world for the now and you can't blame them tomorrow economic forecast looks bleak always does.
Hillhater
100 TW
Well if you believe some of our scientist and future thinkers, the next major conflict (WW3 ?) will be fought from/in space , using fuels produced on the moon (Hydrogen+Oxygen etc)Ianhill said:
Various countries claim to have space weapons already, including the USA with what Trump refers to as the “Super Duper missile”
[youtube]o1nkkzz8KvE[/youtube]
https://youtu.be/o1nkkzz8KvE
Hillhater
100 TW
Some hope for a cheaper, safer, longer lasting, alternative for home storage battery packs.
They claim it it is so simple and easy to manufacture with readily available materials ( zinc and Bromine) that mass production costs could be 30% that of LiThium cells
GELION Endure..
https://www.gelion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gelion-brochure-Usyd-launch-FINAL.pdf
https://reneweconomy.com.au/gelion-launches-zinc-bromine-gel-battery-to-take-on-lithium-mainstays-28079/
They claim it it is so simple and easy to manufacture with readily available materials ( zinc and Bromine) that mass production costs could be 30% that of LiThium cells
GELION Endure..
https://www.gelion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Gelion-brochure-Usyd-launch-FINAL.pdf
https://reneweconomy.com.au/gelion-launches-zinc-bromine-gel-battery-to-take-on-lithium-mainstays-28079/
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Hillhater said:Well if you believe some of our scientist and future thinkers, the next major conflict (WW3 ?) will be fought from/in space , using fuels produced on the moon (Hydrogen+Oxygen etc)Ianhill said:
Various countries claim to have space weapons already, including the USA with what Trump refers to as the “Super Duper missile”
Guess they not seen the film gravity
Any space war would set us back all present work and hundreds of years into the future hate to predict that long but the junk will take along time burn up or break free of orbit.
It would be one of our saddest days from the great achievement if getting to space we turn it into a chaotic mess in the blink of an eye for earth time.
If we face the time Lord head on its clear to see there's an end and a means to all including ourselfs we can micro manage as much as we like our fate is allways the same thing, it's a bit like the covid situation.
The battery tech for homes is where a push is needed lithium is trying to blanket all sectors and it's stupid the cells purpose is for mobility and it's used stationary ffs why do we need light weight and long cell depletion it gets cycled every 12 hours.
Id use hybrid nickel metal hydrate cells for a back up down my shed because I've only got a 3000w max supply and the temps can get quite cold I don't need lithuim freezing up and lagging so a fair size battery to soak up juice from the grid and supply me with peaks for heavy power tool use could be needed if I want to keep the lights on aswell not been green but increasing my peak output and give me a backup I could wire a switch over breaker box in the house and turn the lights back on when the grid goes down but to be fair this blackout bollocks is just that the UK grid is a 24/7 365 deal and it's not let me down yet touch wood.
Hillhater
100 TW
If you watched the doco, i think you may believe they wrote the script for that movie !Ianhill said:hHillhater said:Well if you believe some of our scientist and future thinkers, the next major conflict (WW3 ?) will be fought from/in space , using fuels produced on the moon (Hydrogen+Oxygen etc)Ianhill said:
Various countries claim to have space weapons already, including the USA with what Trump refers to as the “Super Duper missile”
Guess they not seen the film gravity
Any space war would set us back all present work and hundreds of years into the future hate to predict that long but the junk will take along time burn up or break free of orbit........
It is predicted that 10,000 more satelites and devices will be launched into near earh orbit in the next few Years, and tracking them will be a huge, near impossible, Preventing collisions is a statisticly impossible !
But also , yes they know that any collision or deliberate destruction of a satelite would result in a catastrophic distribution of debris with consequent further collisions (potential snowball effect ?).
That is a basic feature of any plan to disable a countries “space resources”..(communications, GPS guidance, weapons control, etc etc.
.. the potential consequences are hard to imagine..hence the “race” to gain an advantage up there quickly.
Hillhater
100 TW
Possibly some common sense coming into play ?
Hillhater
100 TW
The latest “zero emissions” electricity /energy plan from our NSW Planners..
https://www.energymagazine.com.au/new-plan-to-transition-nsw-to-green-hydrogen-by-2027/
Basicly use Solar to produce Hydrogen via electrolysis , and use that Hydrogen in Fuel Cells to generate “Dispatchable”. electricity for backup and overnight electricity.
Also extra Hydrogen to be used for industrial heating and processes to replace Natural Gas usage.
Sadly, It seems they have not run the numbers to estimate the physical or financial implications od even simply maintaining 20-25 GW of grid demand overnight.
I do not recall of ever hearing of a GW h2 fuel cell, or a cost estimate ,.. let alone a 25GW capacity system ?
Which would of course require a substantial quantity of H2 ..(5000+ tonnes/day ?)..to be produced and stored somehow ?
Of course , production of H2 from Solar is a well established process (???) at about 75% process energy efficiency .
So just considering process efficiencies .. Electrolysis, fuel cell.. and ignoring minor details like hydrogen compression, losses etc... we get under 50% energy output from the input to the electrolysis.
Combined with the solar efficiency ( 20% optimistic best) ,..we realise that it would require approx 100GW of Solar capacity, ..dedicated to the electrolysis.. to produce the h2 just for 1 nights normal demand !
....And of course there is the obvious question....
.......what happens if there are one or two days with little or no sunshine ?
Note , that there are very few 1 GW solar installations anywhere in the world !!
We are being lead by gullible fools who are being manipulated by scheming profiteers who are exploiting Political soft spots..
https://www.energymagazine.com.au/new-plan-to-transition-nsw-to-green-hydrogen-by-2027/
Basicly use Solar to produce Hydrogen via electrolysis , and use that Hydrogen in Fuel Cells to generate “Dispatchable”. electricity for backup and overnight electricity.
Also extra Hydrogen to be used for industrial heating and processes to replace Natural Gas usage.
Sadly, It seems they have not run the numbers to estimate the physical or financial implications od even simply maintaining 20-25 GW of grid demand overnight.
I do not recall of ever hearing of a GW h2 fuel cell, or a cost estimate ,.. let alone a 25GW capacity system ?
Which would of course require a substantial quantity of H2 ..(5000+ tonnes/day ?)..to be produced and stored somehow ?
Of course , production of H2 from Solar is a well established process (???) at about 75% process energy efficiency .
So just considering process efficiencies .. Electrolysis, fuel cell.. and ignoring minor details like hydrogen compression, losses etc... we get under 50% energy output from the input to the electrolysis.
Combined with the solar efficiency ( 20% optimistic best) ,..we realise that it would require approx 100GW of Solar capacity, ..dedicated to the electrolysis.. to produce the h2 just for 1 nights normal demand !
....And of course there is the obvious question....
.......what happens if there are one or two days with little or no sunshine ?
Note , that there are very few 1 GW solar installations anywhere in the world !!
We are being lead by gullible fools who are being manipulated by scheming profiteers who are exploiting Political soft spots..
