Originally Posted by
Mx241
Emotions are high on both sides of this argument. Has carbon gone from 280-400ppm? absolutely. Does that mean we’re doomed? I don’t think so. It’s interesting how science is effected by funding. We really don’t know the implications of +co2. We have an enormous durable atmosphere. We can act without panic. Activist pitted against deniers make interesting fodder for debate but won’t move the needle.
Economics will solve this problem long before we wreck the climate beyond repair.
China, India, etc. are going to pollute as long as it’s in their economic interest to do so. It makes no difference what we do.
Yes.
Originally Posted by
Mx241
Economic viable solutions will be developed either by MIT smart people or some uneducated redneck. The holy grail is storing hydrogen at room temperature at near atmospheric pressure <500psi. Sounds crazy but it’s possible, still experimental but it’s being done.
H2 has good potential for transport modes which are too large for batteries (trucks, ships, long-range trains). A non-cryogenic, low pressure storage system would be a huge enabler, and as you said they have some tech for that.
H2 is also good in that it may not need as much infrastructure as fossil fuels... a small device could produce gaseous, low-pressure H2 at home using grid power and a little water. So you could refuel your H2 car at home, office, job site, etc. Batteries might still be more ecomical for smaller pax cars used on short trips.
Unfortunately there's a little problem with H2 use for airliners. Remember the tropopause? Where the temp lapse rate changes? It does that because that's where the humidity changes.... there's almost no water in the stratosphere. Burning H2 fuel produces only one by-product: H2O. Turns out that dumping water vapor into the stratosphere where it doesn't belong would likely have a bad greenhouse effect of it's own. May just need biofuel (or artificial fuel created from atmospheric carbon) for jets.
Originally Posted by
Mx241
Roof top solar is cheap and will be viable once storage solutions other than rare earth batteries are developed. The rich show off guy will be the first to buy it, the technology will mature making it viable for the masses.
It's already heavy deployed in my 'hood. It won't solve the problem but with durable collectors, it should be a economical contributor.
Originally Posted by
Mx241
Coal plants will shut down because of economics.
Politics too. Personally I think we can do without coal, in addition to the cost and the carbon, it does spew some pretty nasty pollution which is NOT subject to debate.
Originally Posted by
Mx241
We’ll continue flying on kerosene by the way.
Logically and mathematically we could, if we mostly eliminated most other large-scale carbon sources. But politically and emotionally, aviation will HAVE to move to lower or near-zero carbon fuel.... the greta/OAC crowd has cast aviation as the high-profile villain/bogeyman of this political production. We're very visible, loud, and represent the kind of progress they badly want to crush. The fact that we're a tiny fraction of the total problem is irrelevant to the agenda.