In 1934, Hitler named Ribbentrop Special Commissioner for Disarmament. In his early years, Hitler's goal in foreign affairs was to persuade the world that he wished to reduce military spending by making idealistic but very vague disarmament offers (in the 1930s, the term disarmament was used to describe arms-limitation agreements). At the same time, the Germans always resisted making concrete arms-limitations proposals, and they went ahead with increased military spending on grounds that other powers would not take up German arms-limitation offers. Ribbentrop was tasked with ensuring that the world remained convinced that Germany sincerely wanted an arms-limitation treaty while also ensuring that no such treaty was ever developed.
Interesting stuff.
Brian, do I presume if I think this was intended to point out similarities with negotiations to reduce humanity´s impact on the climate? The similarities are evident.
ReplyDeleteLast night I concluded a cheap battery is the only viable solution. A cheap battery means electricity can be stored, and this allows truly effective use of wind and solar power.
And if the battery isn´t available then we do need to look at geoengineering options to sequester CO2. Which reminds me, why do we worry so much about eternal CO2 storage?
You are into numbers, work out what happens if we could put away half the anthropogenic CO2 into a "container" with a 0.1 % leak rate while we work slowly to reduce the total emissions.
Fernando,
ReplyDelete"Putting away" CO2 has a large upfront cost.
People do not like up front cost.
And, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is more expensive than not putting it in the atmosphere. We learned that engineering to reduce hazardous waste. End of pipe controls are always more expensive.
Brian : funny, I have been composing a letter to some politicians suggesting that "I was just voting along party lines" will be in the future seen as akin to the Nuremberg Defense.
ReplyDeleteFernando : read about the cost (in terms of percentage of energy produced) of Carbon Capture and Storage technology. Unless someone circumvents thermodynamics, I'm mostly putting CCS down as another delay tactic. Also, please search for "limnic eruption", have a read and then tell me that you really want a couple of million tonnes of compressed CO2 stored in your backyard.
Fernando Leanme
ReplyDeleteLast night I concluded a cheap battery is the only viable solution.
Vanadium flow battery technology is looking increasingly promising in this respect.
Thermal solar with molten salt seems better than batteries for storage.
ReplyDeleteIt's all worth a look. We have nothing to lose except our chains.
ReplyDelete:-)
I can comment on this because I know a little something about this.
ReplyDeletehttp://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2013/03/vanadium-dioxide-and-ionic-liquids.html
They are proposing a very low density approach to accomplish this, at high densities we call this Mottness. There are better ways to do this kind of thing. Mottness is a notch beyond conventional engineered donor acceptor technology, so basically you have to approach this problem within the realms of high energy electrostatics and electronic correlation and outright bulk electrochemistry.
Massive increases in the use of solar and wind are possible without a compelling storage solution. I'd like to see more focus on making that happen. Right now, for instance, Congress is dawdling with extension of a tax credit for wind, in the face of a well-funded campaign by the Kochs and their puppets aimed at repealing it. The credit has already been allowed to expire several times, each time causing disruption in the wind industry. I wish a better storage gizmo would stop the Kochs, but it won't.
ReplyDeleteMassive increases in the use of solar and wind are possible without a compelling storage solution.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely doubt you will find a grid engineer who would agree with this. Slew and intermittence become worse barriers to grid integration the larger the solar and wind components of the energy mix.
That said, the efforts of vested interests to hamper the development of the renewables sector are another non-trivial barrier placed in the way of progress. At least utility-scale batteries are simply a technical problem.
Massive increases in the use of solar and wind are possible without a compelling storage solution.
ReplyDeletePossible, but not prudent.
Production without storage means non production times must still be backstopped with the same amount of fossil fuel production - inefficient and costly.
Storage, however, does really change the game - even for those of us who point out how silly worrying about small temperature change is.
Electricity is nicely decentralized, so people don't care about how they get their power, but only
1. cost
2. reliability ( whenever I hit the light switch ).
3. availability ( 24/7 )
Solar is already approaching parity on cost (1.) .
Storage gets you to parity on 2 & 3.
It's happening, Reg!
Something's actually happening!
I don't think you people get the 'you have to change your lifestyle' part of this problem. Seriously, you don't seem willing to change.
ReplyDeleteRequired viewing: "Lacombe, Lucien"
ReplyDeleteReally. Search it out. It's about how damnably easy it is to go along with any monstrosity.
TLE
ReplyDeleteI don't think you people get the 'you have to change your lifestyle' part of this problem. Seriously, you don't seem willing to change.
Er, where did this come from?
I don't think you people get the 'you have to change your lifestyle' part of this problem. Seriously, you don't seem willing to change.
ReplyDeleteYou mean sitting around all day posting on blogs?
I hear ya, but change isn't easy.
Er, where did this come from?
ReplyDeleteIt's directed at whiners like you who demand new storage technologies so you don't have to give up any of your comforts by counting amps.
I guess you just aren't used to people with a moderate amount of scientific experience and training confronting your beliefs head on.
You mean sitting around all day posting on blogs?
ReplyDeleteNo, by sitting around all day watching the plants and trees grow.
Posting on blogs is a pleasure I reserve for anonymous commenters trying to make themselves relevant.
TLE
ReplyDeleteIt's directed at whiners like you who demand new storage technologies so you don't have to give up any of your comforts by counting amps.
Ah. I see. You don't understand the way the grid works. Thanks for the clarification.
Elefritz,
ReplyDeletefortunately, we still have some liberty so you are free to live as you see fit, so long as it doesn't deny the rights of others.
Anon.
ReplyDeletefortunately, we still have some liberty so you are free to live as you see fit, so long as it doesn't deny the rights of others.
An argument against emissions reduction policy within developed economies might conflict with your concern over the rights of others.
You don't understand the way the grid works.
ReplyDeleteAhh, I see, you are utterly incapable of living off the grid.
Incompetence, closed mindedness and complete reliance on others to support your lifestyle that you are totally unwilling to give up. The definition of addiction, that is. Now I understand you.
TLE
ReplyDeleteUtility-scale batteries make renewables more efficient and easier to integrate into existing infrastructure of the sort that powers things like hospitals reliably.
They are not a means to enable the developed economies to wallow in profligate consumption. They are a necessary component of efficient decarbonisation of electricity supply at a global level. Something I hope we agree is an urgent necessity.
easier to integrate into existing infrastructure of the sort that powers things like hospitals reliably.
ReplyDeleteOh, now it's the old 'do it for the CHILDREN!' argument. Anything to cling to your beloved and irreplaceable infrastructure (AKA modern conveniences). You just can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that your infrastructure is the problem.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not going to upgrade yourself out of a problem that is, at it's very foundation, the problem itself. And to add insult to injury, you don't seem to understand that global warming is just one very small aspect of that infrastructure problem.
I deem you in denial. You are a denialist, just of a different stripe. Nothing you can say now will make me take anything you say seriously anymore BBD.
Your just another denialist sucking at the government, corporate and university teat.
Your just another denialist sucking at the government, corporate and university teat.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you feel that way, Thomas.
I'm sorry you feel that way, Thomas.
ReplyDeleteWhat is truly laughable about your position of incompetence and ignorance is that you fuckwads actually think that you can propagate this ludicrous Ponzi scheme into another twenty or thirty years of personal comfort, all the while carrying a self induced military derived public debt of twenty trillion dollars.
Delusion of the highest order BBD. You blew your wad on nonsense, time to own up to that. If not, I will continue to point it out to you every time you post more nonsense logic where I have to look at it, or listen to it.
TLE -
ReplyDeleteYou really are going to have to clarify what you mean by 'counting amps'; or as I understand it, using less.
I am something of a geek, and a geek with solar panels; I know full well that the majority of electricity use in my household goes on things like refrigeration, cooking and washing clothes. Consumer electronics - which I presume are the target of your ire - barely register.
If I also include my wider energy budget, then hot water and space heating dominate. These are not luxuries. The point is that my non-luxury energy spend dominates the household energy budget, just as non-luxury money spending dominates the household money budget. The big bills are the ones you have to pay.
The point of this? If you want people to seriously reduce their energy consumption, it's NOT a case of asking them to give up luxuries, it's a case of giving up essentials. And that's a hard sell; worse than that, it's an impossible sell. You go around telling people that they have to live lives of discomfort and inconvenience in order to save the planet, they'll tune you out and believe anyone who says that there isn't a problem. Does this sound familiar?
The fact is, there are no scientific, technical or economic reasons why we cannot build sufficient solar, wind and nuclear (Th/U-breeder) capacity to provide all our electricity requirements - at or above current levels - and a large surplus to use to synthesize fuels. None at all. As an example; France decided to stop using heavy oil for electricity in 1974 and by 1994 had a nearly zero-carbon grid.
Yet apparently this cannot be done, and we should all freeze in the dark instead. A cynic would think that this kind of thinking derives straight from that of religious edicts that make a fetish of discomfort and self-denial, because I see no other reason for it. And it plays straight into the hands of those who want to continue burning stuff.
TLE
ReplyDeleteWhat is truly laughable about your position of incompetence and ignorance is that you fuckwads actually think that you can propagate this ludicrous Ponzi scheme into another twenty or thirty years of personal comfort, all the while carrying a self induced military derived public debt of twenty trillion dollars.
I think you have confused me with someone else. You seem to think that I am an apologist for the fossil fuel industry and a proponent of the status quo. I am very obviously neither. Please sort your head out.
You blew your wad on nonsense, time to own up to that.
*What* nonsense? Point to a specific error.
To the management...
ReplyDeleteI have to say, TLE's tone and vocabulary seem inconsistent with the commenters I've read in the past. He seems to have slipped past the moderator? Or perhaps he's been left for educational purposes -- a bad example for the rest of us to take note of and avoid?
Don't mind Thomas, robert. He'll realize soon enough that even His incandescent mind can't enlighten the darkness of this rabbit hole.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, he's from the private sector and knows how to invest His time wisely.
Thomas - I just read your recent comments. RR hasn't reiterated it in a while, but we authors draw a line at obscenities, most especially aimed at fellow commenters.
ReplyDeletePlease refrain.
Maybe when you dicks and janes start treating your planet and your fellow humans and lifeforms a little better I might consider it. I know you've all got your lilly white asses to cover, but AFAIC, you're all on my lengthy shitlist.
ReplyDeleteIt's that bad. Deal with it.
Aaron, you commented about the high up front cost to sequester CO2 using mechanical means (what they call Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS). However, let´s say it´s a given they want to store it, this could be carried out by burning enriched air in a gasifier (I must confess I´m an engineer and I supervised a project to check its cost and economic feasibility to gasify heavy oil molecules and capture the CO2, but I won´t get into the technical details). So we have as a given we have captured a stream of CO2....and now they come and tell me I have to store it as if it was radioactive waste. However, a simple model will show you that storage in a container with a small leak rate works fine. You see, if the CO2 migrates out as a function of cumulative stored volume, it´s easy to show a huge benefit from such storage because it amounts to setting a very small throttle in the CO2 emissions stream. Hope you do understand I proposed geoengineering as a possible solution given that capture is indeed so expensive. Also, I approach this as an engineer, therefore I´m not into Gaia this or that, or whether we are killing the polar bears. I´m basically trying to see if there´s a sound solution to the problem. So far I fall back to the old standby, we need a battery.
ReplyDeleteLooks like a percussive discussion on energy storage, something I have spent the last seven years working on, knowing it would be critical. But not surprisingly, policies and systems optimization rule the outcome.
ReplyDeleteOff-topic: I need to contact you. I looked at the water authority board site, and could send emails to that server, but decided a more direct line would be to post a comment here asking you to send me an email.
Use paulklemencic at gmail dot com, and I will send you a reply email explaining myself and why we should meet.
What I have to discuss, involves green vehicles (like your EV posts), green power, energy use effectiveness, water issues, carbon sinks.... its a game changer. Please contact me.
Fernando Leanme -- "Also, I approach this as an engineer"
ReplyDeleteIf you're an engineer: on Guardian CiF (last year IIRC), how come you didn't know the reason the water felt cold in your pool on that hot day was because of heat transfer through your skin, and not because the water was very cold? We were "debating" ocean temperature I believe. Perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking engineers would know that kind of thing.