Denmark, Germany and Scotland must love having destablized grids because the have plenty of wind power and are building more. Or maybe they understand the situation a bit better than you do.
Wind and solar require a larger energy input per energy out, so it's EROEI is smaller but still greater than 1, even after accounting for mining the raw materials.
This is now completely untrue by a large amount, it may have been true many years ago but it certainly isn't now. Solar's energy payback time is now as little as 6 months for a panel that lasts 30-100 years*, that's a EROEI of 60-200 not less than 1!!!
Wind is shown here to have an EROEI of 62-117 again rather better than 1.
*Some panels only lose 0.2% efficiency per year after the first year in which they initially lose about 5%.
Re intermittentcy of renewables:
Solutions to a 100% renewable and sustainable energy supply worldwide include but are not limited to hydro-electric and pumped hydro, geothermal, solar pv, wave-power, tidal lagoons and other tidal, onshore and off-shore wind in conjunction with better home insulation, heat pumps - ground source and air source, storage heaters, solar water heating, battery storage and charging electric cars whilst renewables output is high.
Well, do you? And what about cats and radio towers?
Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually - a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats
And of course most man caused bird deaths - about 1 to 3 million a day (USA) die flying into ordinary household windows. When's the last time you heard someone ranting about the danger of windows to birds?
I think it's a valid question, we've burned enough fossil fuels to the point were the amounts of CO2 we have put out would cover the entire globe in a blanket of co2 three foot high, so why is it so hard to believe that with that 3foot of co2 was also a fair bit of soot to go with it, we are burning about 7,000,000,000 tonnes of coal every year, that's a lot of smog and soot.
Plus of course, few individual minerals are absolutely essential anyway.
Sure because we can grow food by hand and live in mud huts.
Computers contain about 60+ different elements.
The infographic won't be far wrong because we are using rare minerals at an ever increasing rate, and look at it, there's hardly anything forecast to last until the end of the century.
Just like postal voting, Internet voting is a bad idea.
Absolutely, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Whilst I hate the gov't we just elected here in the UK, at least I don't have a concern about the votes being fixed. We have a simple system of putting a cross on a piece of paper and putting that piece of paper into a secure box.
Society seems to have a lot of denialists, denial that we can ever run out any mineral with arguments like oh but the sea is 0.0003ppm of that mineral which means there is x tonnes of it left or the crust is 0.05% of a particular mineral so there is no problem. Of course these numbers are not particularly relevant, what is relevant is how 'clumped' these minerals are and mow much it costs to extract them, if the cost is too high then we will effectively have run out for all practical purposes.
So, my Firefox did the whole pop-up thing with a message saying that it was urgent that I upgraded my browser for security reasons.
Did they offer me the DRM free version? NO.
Did they tell me that this next version would be infested with DRM? NO.
If the update was so urgent, why is the DRM free version dated 8th of may and it is now 13th May, it can't have been very urgent can it.
And why is it that when I went to about Firefox on the help menu it checked again for an update and said that none was available when Firefox had already told me that an update was available? FFS.
To recycle means to use again, one would argue that what you've described is not using the materials again so it is not recycling. The earth does not 'use' stuff.
we can easily support our lavish lifestyles with zero carbon cost
Except that we can't because by the time we've switched to carbon neutral methods, we'll be running out the the minerals we need to maintain our lifestyles. Only if we move to 100% recycling can we live the diverse lifestyles with all of the products we have now and it's unlikely that the whole world will ever be able to live the way people in the US are now.
Summary: The way we are living is completely unsustainable.
The cars can't drive in heavy rain, I'm not even sure if they can drive in normal rain or at night. Or how they handle driveways and car parks since those aren't mapped by google maps. Snow is right out of the question. How about leaves on the road? A rubbish bag scattered across the road?
I don't think these cars will be able to handle all conditions any time soon.
Computers can recognise objects with up to 95% accuracy in ideal lighting conditions, so these cars will not be able to deal with foreign objects on the roads probably for decades.
If you're getting on the freeway everyday and sitting in slow moving traffic then perhaps you should buy a motorbike or find some other method of travel.... And doesn't lane control effectively cover this.
Paper bags being full of nails is not a normal thing and so is a risk that can be ignored.
Bags, cardboard boxes etc move differently in the wind depending on the weight of their contents, a human can judge the weight of an object by how it gets pushed by wind, a computer can't necessarily do that.
What about a road covered in leaves, should the car just stop and wait for the leaves to go away? And slight flooding?
It's a shame that these autonomous car systems are so propriety and that companies are keeping quiet about the details because it's a very interesting subject.
Right now it looks like autonomous cars can only drive in ideal driving conditions, they can't even handle heavy rain afaik, it'd be interesting to know how they're planning on dealing with this. Can they even drive at night?
Slashdot Mirror
Denmark, Germany and Scotland must love having destablized grids because the have plenty of wind power and are building more. Or maybe they understand the situation a bit better than you do.
What is your solution for cutting CO2 worldwide?
This is now completely untrue by a large amount, it may have been true many years ago but it certainly isn't now. Solar's energy payback time is now as little as 6 months for a panel that lasts 30-100 years*, that's a EROEI of 60-200 not less than 1!!!
Because the manufacturing of solar panels has evolved hugely:
Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977 - Price per watt
Wind is shown here to have an EROEI of 62-117 again rather better than 1.
*Some panels only lose 0.2% efficiency per year after the first year in which they initially lose about 5%.
Re intermittentcy of renewables:
Solutions to a 100% renewable and sustainable energy supply worldwide include but are not limited to hydro-electric and pumped hydro, geothermal, solar pv, wave-power, tidal lagoons and other tidal, onshore and off-shore wind in conjunction with better home insulation, heat pumps - ground source and air source, storage heaters, solar water heating, battery storage and charging electric cars whilst renewables output is high.
You'd get a mod point from me if I had any, I don't want a 'smart' TV for these reasons.
Indeed, I don't block ads, I use Ghostery to stop all of the corporate stalking, if ads are collateral damage then so be it.
You must go nuts at people who install windows in their houses because:
Windows may kill up to 988 million birds a year in the United States | Science News
Well, do you? And what about cats and radio towers?
And of course most man caused bird deaths - about 1 to 3 million a day (USA) die flying into ordinary household windows. When's the last time you heard someone ranting about the danger of windows to birds?
I sped read through the drivel (article) until I got to this and then quit reading.
So many words to say so little by someone who doesn't understand science.
File:Arctic-death-spiral.png
Not hard to say at all, it's clear where that spiral is heading. Zero Ice at the north pole.
And what about the acidification of the ocean, should we just continue releasing CO2 and kill all ocean life?
Thanks, a proper answer not silly pointless guessing.
I think it's a valid question, we've burned enough fossil fuels to the point were the amounts of CO2 we have put out would cover the entire globe in a blanket of co2 three foot high, so why is it so hard to believe that with that 3foot of co2 was also a fair bit of soot to go with it, we are burning about 7,000,000,000 tonnes of coal every year, that's a lot of smog and soot.
Sure because we can grow food by hand and live in mud huts.
Computers contain about 60+ different elements.
The infographic won't be far wrong because we are using rare minerals at an ever increasing rate, and look at it, there's hardly anything forecast to last until the end of the century.
This paper gives an idea of what the loss of various minerals will mean to us:
On the materials basis of modern society
Absolutely, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Whilst I hate the gov't we just elected here in the UK, at least I don't have a concern about the votes being fixed. We have a simple system of putting a cross on a piece of paper and putting that piece of paper into a secure box.
Those glaciers look very sooty, does anyone know how much of that is man made from coal and diesel pollution?
It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?
Gives you an idea of what the time-scales are:
A Forecast of When We'll Run Out of Each Metal - Visual Capitalist
China warns that its rare earth minerals are running out (Wired UK)
Society seems to have a lot of denialists, denial that we can ever run out any mineral with arguments like oh but the sea is 0.0003ppm of that mineral which means there is x tonnes of it left or the crust is 0.05% of a particular mineral so there is no problem. Of course these numbers are not particularly relevant, what is relevant is how 'clumped' these minerals are and mow much it costs to extract them, if the cost is too high then we will effectively have run out for all practical purposes.
So, my Firefox did the whole pop-up thing with a message saying that it was urgent that I upgraded my browser for security reasons.
Did they offer me the DRM free version? NO.
Did they tell me that this next version would be infested with DRM? NO.
If the update was so urgent, why is the DRM free version dated 8th of may and it is now 13th May, it can't have been very urgent can it.
And why is it that when I went to about Firefox on the help menu it checked again for an update and said that none was available when Firefox had already told me that an update was available? FFS.
Netflix would work perfectly well without DRM, Netflix can go fuck themselves.
No, it's not, you are redefining it's meaning.
Eating is not using.
To recycle means to use again, one would argue that what you've described is not using the materials again so it is not recycling. The earth does not 'use' stuff.
Except that we can't because by the time we've switched to carbon neutral methods, we'll be running out the the minerals we need to maintain our lifestyles. Only if we move to 100% recycling can we live the diverse lifestyles with all of the products we have now and it's unlikely that the whole world will ever be able to live the way people in the US are now.
Summary: The way we are living is completely unsustainable.
You should be thankful WHO renamed that, it was dogshag flu before.
The cars can't drive in heavy rain, I'm not even sure if they can drive in normal rain or at night. Or how they handle driveways and car parks since those aren't mapped by google maps. Snow is right out of the question. How about leaves on the road? A rubbish bag scattered across the road?
I don't think these cars will be able to handle all conditions any time soon.
Computers can recognise objects with up to 95% accuracy in ideal lighting conditions, so these cars will not be able to deal with foreign objects on the roads probably for decades.
If you're getting on the freeway everyday and sitting in slow moving traffic then perhaps you should buy a motorbike or find some other method of travel. ... And doesn't lane control effectively cover this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Paper bags being full of nails is not a normal thing and so is a risk that can be ignored.
Bags, cardboard boxes etc move differently in the wind depending on the weight of their contents, a human can judge the weight of an object by how it gets pushed by wind, a computer can't necessarily do that.
What about a road covered in leaves, should the car just stop and wait for the leaves to go away? And slight flooding?
It's a shame that these autonomous car systems are so propriety and that companies are keeping quiet about the details because it's a very interesting subject.
Right now it looks like autonomous cars can only drive in ideal driving conditions, they can't even handle heavy rain afaik, it'd be interesting to know how they're planning on dealing with this. Can they even drive at night?