Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KyussB

Stanford Researchers backing the feasibility of Green New Deal style infrastructure overhauls:

Stanford Researchers Have an Exciting Plan to Tackle The Climate Emergency Worldwide
...
Using the latest data available, they have outlined how 143 countries around the world can switch to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2050.
...
The plan would require a hefty investment of around US$73 trillion. But the researchers' calculations show the jobs and savings it would earn would pay this back in as little as seven years.
...
Here's how it would work. The plan involves transitioning all our energy sectors, including electricity, transport, industry, agriculture, fishing, forestry and the military to work entirely with renewable energy.
Jacobson believes we have 95 percent of the technology we need already, with only solutions for long distance and ocean travel still to be commercialised.
...
This plan "creates 28.6 million more full-time jobs in the long term than business as usual and only needs approximately 0.17 percent and approximately 0.48 percent land for new footprint and distance respectively," the researchers write in their report.
Building the infrastructure necessary for this transition would, of course, create CO2 emissions. The researchers calculated that the necessary steel and concrete would require about 0.914 percent of current CO2 emissions. But switching to renewables to produce the concrete would reduce this.
...
The authors of the report stress that while implementing such an energy transition, it is also crucial that we simultaneously tackle emissions coming from other sources like fertilisers and deforestation.
...
At least 11 independent research groups agree this type of transition is possible, including energy researchers Mark Diesendorf and Ben Elliston from University of New South Wales, Australia.
They reviewed major criticisms of 100 percent renewable energy transition plans and concluded "the principal barriers to [100 percent renewable electricity systems] are neither technological nor economic, but instead are primarily political, institutional and cultural."
So, multiple lines of evidence insist we have the technology, resources and knowledge to make this possible. The only question is, can enough of us put aside our fears and ideologies to make it happen?

https://www.sciencealert.com/stanford-researchers-have-a-plan-to-tackle-the-climate-emergency

None of it is a money or resources problem, the technological side of the problem is small compared to the scale of the problem and perfectly manageable - it boosts economies and employment - and the principal opposition to undertaking this is ideological and political, not economic or practical.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That is fake news. 1.98 Meters in 80 years means an average rise 24.75 mm per annum which are values not supported by actual sea level rise and fall measurements.

They are supported by the worst case projections.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

Stanford Researchers backing the feasibility of Green New Deal style infrastructure overhauls:

Stanford Researchers Have an Exciting Plan to Tackle The Climate Emergency Worldwide
...
Using the latest data available, they have outlined how 143 countries around the world can switch to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2050.
...
The plan would require a hefty investment of around US$73 trillion. But the researchers' calculations show the jobs and savings it would earn would pay this back in as little as seven years.
...
Here's how it would work. The plan involves transitioning all our energy sectors, including electricity, transport, industry, agriculture, fishing, forestry and the military to work entirely with renewable energy.
Jacobson believes we have 95 percent of the technology we need already, with only solutions for long distance and ocean travel still to be commercialised.
...
This plan "creates 28.6 million more full-time jobs in the long term than business as usual and only needs approximately 0.17 percent and approximately 0.48 percent land for new footprint and distance respectively," the researchers write in their report.
Building the infrastructure necessary for this transition would, of course, create CO2 emissions. The researchers calculated that the necessary steel and concrete would require about 0.914 percent of current CO2 emissions. But switching to renewables to produce the concrete would reduce this.
...
The authors of the report stress that while implementing such an energy transition, it is also crucial that we simultaneously tackle emissions coming from other sources like fertilisers and deforestation.
...
At least 11 independent research groups agree this type of transition is possible, including energy researchers Mark Diesendorf and Ben Elliston from University of New South Wales, Australia.
They reviewed major criticisms of 100 percent renewable energy transition plans and concluded "the principal barriers to [100 percent renewable electricity systems] are neither technological nor economic, but instead are primarily political, institutional and cultural."
So, multiple lines of evidence insist we have the technology, resources and knowledge to make this possible. The only question is, can enough of us put aside our fears and ideologies to make it happen?

https://www.sciencealert.com/stanford-researchers-have-a-plan-to-tackle-the-climate-emergency

None of it is a money of resources problem, the technological side of the problem is small compared to the scale of the problem and perfectly manageable - it boost economies and employment - and the principal opposition to undertaking this is ideological and political, not economic or practical.

thats the longest way to saying that barbara down the road doesn't want to be near a nuclear power plant for silly reasons she can't really explain so her husband doesn't either, nor their local politicians or the national politicians near them.

AlekSmart

Eric Cartman wrote: »

with a 0.5AEP (Low probability) 200 : 1 chance of it happening / 200 year reoccurence rate , and that a depth of 1.98 meters which isnt shown in that picture at all as the bridge sidings would be completely submersed.

Well it sure looks like Dickie Bruton has just gone on Greta's Christmas Card list....

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/drive-to-ban-sales-of-diesel-and-petrol-cars-by-2030-38818986.html

The scramble to clamber aboard this bandwagon is now intense.....I do hope they cling on as it clatters uncontrolably towards the Sun :eek:

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

None of it is a money or resources problem, the technological side of the problem is small compared to the scale of the problem and perfectly manageable - it boosts economies and employment - and the principal opposition to undertaking this is ideological and political, not economic or practical.

Once more into the breach. There is nothing "green," "clean"' or "renewable" about wind and solar energy. The sheer amount of land and raw materials, mines and factories required to build wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and transmission lines in order to harness widely dispersed, insufficient, intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy are anything but clean, green, renewable or sustainable. In fact, trying to meet those needs would require millions of turbines and billions of solar panels.

No country has ever built or sustained a modern economy this way and these methods were abandoned from the 17th century plus countries that have tried to by mandating wind, solar and fossil fuel free economies are paying a terrible price.


German Manufacturing Job Losses Top 100,000 With Daimler Cuts

Increasingly Powerful Headwinds Ahead: Germany’s Wind Industry Faces Extinction …”Several 10,000 Jobs Lost “

Call to prevent power cuts in poorest German households

Three million households already in energy debt ahead of winter

Netherlands farmers stage tractor protest, cause huge jams

Gilets Jaunes may be the start of a worldwide revolt against climate action


If you have been observing the utterances of the undemocratic EU, they appear to have hatched a plan to bring about federation by the back door of Climate Change to create a federal debt structure like the United States does.


EU plans energy tax to combat climate change

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

They are supported by the worst case projections.

In other words a doom mongers over-active imagination unsupported by reality.

Millicently

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The climate we experience is within expected bounds for each particular region on the planet, despite the hoopla there are no discerable trends that can be attributed to the activities of mankind. The media is however manipulating the public and has confused objectivity with advocacy.


RTE even resorted to disinformation and fake news in a recent program showing a computer generated image of flooding on O'Connell street.

The known facts about the rate of sea-level rise do not support RTEs projection, this was done solely for the purposes of emotional manipulation of its viewership.

In fairness to RTE they do need to get some work out of the bloody useless and patronising George Lee. Surprised they haven't sent him off to interview Verruca Salt yet.

AlekSmart

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

In other words a doom mongers over-active imagination unsupported by reality.

But,it's not about What you say...it's about Who you get to say it....Entender ?

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Once more into the breach. There is nothing "green," "clean"' or "renewable" about wind and solar energy. The sheer amount of land and raw materials, mines and factories required to build wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and transmission lines in order to harness widely dispersed, insufficient, intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy are anything but clean, green, renewable or sustainable. In fact, trying to meet those needs would require millions of turbines and billions of solar panels.

No country has ever built or sustained a modern economy this way and these methods were abandoned from the 17th century plus countries that have tried to by mandating wind, solar and fossil fuel free economies are paying a terrible price.

...

If you have been observing the utterances of the undemocratic EU, they appear to have hatched a plan to bring about federation by the back door of Climate Change to create a federal debt structure like the United States does.


EU plans energy tax to combat climate change

You didn't read even the quoted bit of the article, then - as the land taken up is negligible - the storage needed is a "solved problem" as the article says - the carbon contributions for manufacturing less than 1% of current emissions.

We're more than capable of expanding the manufacture and deployment of renewable infrastructure, by at least a couple orders of magnitude.

The scientists show that we have the economic ability to achieve this. The articles you show prove that private industry is incapable of this.

There's a lot that's wrong with the EU, but moving towards federalization makes it more democratic, not less. It's not a good idea to have a central currency without a central government to manage it, that's what caused the Euro Debt Crisis - the only ways to fix that are federalization, or losing the Euro.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

In other words a doom mongers over-active imagination unsupported by reality.

People providing worst-case projections based on what the IPCC themselves agree with as a plausible worst-case.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Stanford Researchers backing the feasibility of Green New Deal style infrastructure overhauls:Stanford Researchers Have an Exciting Plan to Tackle The Climate Emergency WorldwideUsing the latest data available, they have outlined how 143 countries around the world can switch to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2050. The plan would require a hefty investment of around US$73 trillion. But the researchers' calculations show the jobs and savings it would earn would pay this back in as little as seven years.Here's how it would work. The plan involves transitioning all our energy sectors, including electricity, transport, industry, agriculture, fishing, forestry and the military to work entirely with renewable energy.Jacobson believes we have 95 percent of the technology we need already, with only solutions for long distance and ocean travel still to be commercialised.This plan "creates 28.6 million more full-time jobs in the long term than business as usual and only needs approximately 0.17 percent and approximately 0.48 percent land for new footprint and distance respectively," the researchers write in their report.
Building the infrastructure necessary for this transition would, of course, create CO2 emissions. The researchers calculated that the necessary steel and concrete would require about 0.914 percent of current CO2 emissions. But switching to renewables to produce the concrete would reduce this.
The authors of the report stress that while implementing such an energy transition, it is also crucial that we simultaneously tackle emissions coming from other sources like fertilisers and deforestation.
At least 11 independent research groups agree this type of transition is possible, including energy researchers Mark Diesendorf and Ben Elliston from University of New South Wales, Australia.They reviewed major criticisms of 100 percent renewable energy transition plans and concluded "the principal barriers to [100 percent renewable electricity systems] are neither technological nor economic, but instead are primarily political, institutional and cultural."
So, multiple lines of evidence insist we have the technology, resources and knowledge to make this possible. The only question is, can enough of us put aside our fears and ideologies to make it happen . None of it is a money or resources problem, the technological side of the problem is small compared to the scale of the problem and perfectly manageable - it boosts economies and employment - and the principal opposition to undertaking this is ideological and political, not economic or practical.

So you are taking a research report and putting your personal spin over it?

The bolded bit about concrete is a good case in point. Cement the key ingredient in concrete
And it is estimated elsewhere that "Cement is the source of about 8% of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions" in contrast to the 2% claimed for combined cement and concrete manufacture in that report btw.

"If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world - behind China and the US. ..."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844

And please note it's not the energy requirements arising from manufacture and transport (approx10% of emissions from the sector) - but rather the chemical process itself where the principle constituent - limestone (calcium carbonate) undergoes a chemical reaction resulting in large emissions of CO2 - amounting to approx 90% of the CO2 released

And its completely incorrect to try and claim "switching to renewables to produce the concrete would reduce this" (your words not contained in the report)

And note none of that "is ideological and political. It is simply basic science

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

People providing worst-case projections based on what the IPCC themselves agree with as a plausible worst-case.

Chapter2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface (page 214)

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Do have a read of Cory Morningstars The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg. This is told from the perspective of a political left winger and sees this scheme as exploitation by the "capitalist class and their fellow travellers".


There is money changing hands behind Greta. I hope you are not naive enough to belief the fairy tale about how one day a random girl goes on strike and the next she is front page news and they she gets to travel in a multi-million pound yacht (that has a diesel engine just in case) to the a UN conference.

Like I said low information right wing types.
They ignore the scientific consensus and will believe meme's or grifters.

gozunda

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well it sure looks like Dickie Bruton has just gone on Greta's Christmas Card list....

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/drive-to-ban-sales-of-diesel-and-petrol-cars-by-2030-38818986.html

The scramble to clamber aboard this bandwagon is now intense.....I do hope they cling on as it clatters uncontrolably towards the Sun :eek:

The hilarious thing is that Bruton comes out with this gem at the same time Varadkar is telling us that we have rising demand for electricity and that Ireland is not up the task of supplying electricity for all those Electric Vehicles amongst other things

“there’s rising energy demand, and rising demand for electricity – and the more data centres we have, the more electric vehicles we have, the more people we have who heat their homes with electricity (from renewable sources) rather than oil or gas or solid fuels, the more electricity we’ll need.

In other election mode news Varadkar and friends are also pledging tax cuts, pensions hike and public sector pay rises ...

tabby aspreme

Brutons plan is to have over 930000 evs / hybrids on the road by 2030, with double the current number of home charger's, says it all really, not much though put into this, just sound bites.

jackboy

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Brutons plan is to have over 930000 evs / hybrids on the road by 2030, with double the current number of home charger's, says it all really, not much though put into this, just sound bites.

It’s just virtue signaling in preparation for the next election. Bruton knows he is talking nonsense. It’s a great time for politicians. They now just need to promise that they will do something in ten years time.

NIMAN

Full of hot air.

They added about 5000 in a decade, so he thinks in the next decade he'll add another million?

Delusional.

Pa ElGrande

gozunda wrote: »

The hilarious thing is that Bruton comes out with this gem at the same time Varadkar is telling us that we have rising demand for electricity and that Ireland is not up the task of supplying electricity for all those Electric Vehicles amongst other things

I noted this nugget recently regarding datacenters (aka. the cloud)

Power delivery issues 'hit returns' on data centres

In response to questions from the Sunday Independent on Taylor's comments, a spokeswoman for Equinix said the Irish market was experiencing rapid growth, leading to challenges in making enough power available to data centre providers.

Want his and her EVs? You will probably need 3-phase power if you want to use the shower and if all you have is on street parking then a new level of hurt opens up if you need to charge the car overnight. Lots of issues to be straightened out over the next decade.

An electric car will draw single phase 16A (3.6kW) when connected to your home charge point. A full charge from 0% will take between 6 and 8 hours

source

Eric Cartman

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I noted this nugget recently regarding datacenters (aka. the cloud)



Want his and her EVs? You will probably need 3-phase power if you want to use the shower and if all you have is on street parking then a new level of hurt opens up if you need to charge the car overnight. Lots of issues to be straightened out over the next decade.

Even new builds arent coming with three phase for the most part. Its a massive issue and were going to have to deal with this before making any big decisions about car bans and more electric appliances.

Thelonious Monk

Reducing private car ownership and reliance on them should be the aim, not putting different road clogging vehicles in their place

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Reducing private car ownership and reliance on them should be the aim, not putting different road clogging vehicles in their place

Why? Private car ownership makes ordinary people’s lives so much better. If it can ba done in an environmentally friendly way why would you be against that?

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

Like I said low information right wing types.
They ignore the scientific consensus and will believe meme's or grifters.

It used to be scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Following your line of reasoning you would have been a flat-earther had you lived during the 16th century. Consensus does not guarantee sound science and in the context you use the word it is really about manufacturing consent.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

Why? Private car ownership makes ordinary people’s lives so much better. If it can ba done in an environmentally friendly way why would you be against that?

Look how clogged our towns and cities are with cars. Gridlock at times. No room for pedestrians and cyclists on inner city streets. It's ridiculous.
It will only get worse if we head in a direction of everyone owning a car.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It used to be scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Following your line of reasoning you would have been a flat-earther had you lived during the 16th century. Consensus does not guarantee sound science and in the context you use the word it is really about manufacturing consent.

If you think the consensus is wrong simply write up your research and collect your Nobel prize.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Look how clogged our towns and cities are with cars. Gridlock at times. No room for pedestrians and cyclists on inner city streets. It's ridiculous.
It will only get worse if we head in a direction of everyone owning a car.

Fair enough in the cities, better public transport would be great. For most of the country though private cars can never be matched.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

Fair enough in the cities, better public transport would be great. For most of the country though private cars can never be matched.

A lot of that is down to poor planning. We shouldn't be planning our societies around cars.
Anyway Ireland is a car-centric society that doesn't like investing in public transport, so no one need worry, there's only going to be more and more cars on the roads in the coming years.

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

If you think the consensus is wrong simply write up your research and collect your Nobel prize.

Can you state what the consensus is?

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Look how clogged our towns and cities are with cars. Gridlock at times. No room for pedestrians and cyclists on inner city streets. It's ridiculous.
It will only get worse if we head in a direction of everyone owning a car.

we're at peak car ownership, less people are getting driving licences and more people are living in cities and choosing to walk / cycle / take transport. Its actually a giant issue for car manufacturers and considering how bland and soulless most electric cars are, I don't think its going away any time soon, in reality people are owning less cars, households no longer see having 2 cars in the driveway as something to be strived towards, many houses no longer come with parking. As we move towards electric cars becoming the only ones available, many houses will not be able to support the charging infrastructure which id say will become an altering factor in house prices in future but on the whole less people are driving full stop so your congestion issue is naturally working itself out.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

A lot of that is down to poor planning. We shouldn't be planning our societies around cars.
Anyway Ireland is a car-centric society that doesn't like investing in public transport, so no one need worry, there's only going to be more and more cars on the roads in the coming years.

we are nowhere near it, the UK is much more car centric than us, the states and a lot of asia infinitely moreso. Our cities predate cars and are not built for them or around them which causes its own issues.

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we're at peak car ownership, less people are getting driving licences and more people are living in cities and choosing to walk / cycle / take transport. Its actually a giant issue for car manufacturers and considering how bland and soulless most electric cars are, I don't think its going away any time soon, in reality people are owning less cars, households no longer see having 2 cars in the driveway as something to be strived towards, many houses no longer come with parking. As we move towards electric cars becoming the only ones available, many houses will not be able to support the charging infrastructure which id say will become an altering factor in house prices in future but on the whole less people are driving full stop so your congestion issue is naturally working itself out.

How do you know we're at peak ownership? I think I read the other day that the N11 through Glen of the Dowds or Downs or whatever in Wicklow had 20,000 cars a day going through it 10 years ago, and now it has 50,000 on average. I would have thought ownership will continue to soar as prosperity increases.