[eclipse]

Seriously guys - the Isaac Arthur below is awesome! Here's the teaser headline to give a vibe of the humour:-

Civilisation has collapsed. The only rational way forward is to cover your dune buggy with spikes, craft some leather, S&M armour, and resort to cannibalism. Mohawks are optional.
https://youtu.be/QWmEgu1iP_E

[theluckycountry]

Seriously guys - the Isaac Arthur below is awesome! Here's the teaser headline to give a vibe of the humour:-

Yeah, it's a good vid. Blows most of the preconceptions about surviving the apocalypse out of the water. In a hundred years it'll be leather coats and little villages no doubt.

[eclipse]

If we nuked ourselves today, in 100 years I personally think the population would be back to like 7 or 8 billion, and we'd have modern cities but without the car dependent suburbia (because there wouldn't be the easy oil to drive all that.) There's just so much we could scavenge so fast that we'd bounce back. Fast.

[Plantagenet]

If we nuked ourselves today, in 100 years I personally think the population would be back to like 7 or 8 billion, and we'd have modern cities but without the car dependent suburbia (because there wouldn't be the easy oil to drive all that.) There's just so much we could scavenge so fast that we'd bounce back. Fast.

Thats certainly a possibility.........recent computer model runs show the global effects of even a small limited nuclear war include a global nuclear winter-----a global climate change that results in crop failure and mass famine affecting the entire planet for a year or two.

But after that it might be possible to farm again, and rebuild cities, and try to get civilization back on course.


Is it safe to come out now?

Sure........thats a positive spin on a terrible global catastrophe. Why not?

[eclipse]

The nuclear winter scientists are retracting their work.
Even a large nuclear war couldn't really touch the likes of Mt Pinotubo.
https://youtu.be/KzpIsjgapAk

[Plantagenet]

The nuclear winter scientists are retracting their work.

No they are not. This is some disagreement about the details of the models between various scientists but the conclusions of the modeling showing that nuclear war would create a nuclear winter isn't seriously doubted. I suggest you read the link I provided with my comment.

Even a large nuclear war couldn't really touch the likes of Mt Pinotubo.

Actually a nuclear war would release far far far more energy then Mt. Pinatubo or other comparable eruptions. For instance, the most recent large well-studied eruption was the huge explosion in Tonga last winter. It is estimated to be equivalent to about a 10 Megaton explosion......thats just a fraction of the energy released by a single 50 megaton hydrogen bomb detonation.....and a nuclear war would ilikely involve more than a single nuclear bomb detonation.....perhaps many more.



Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Oops...sorry. I read the discussion about nuclear winter in NATURE but I didn't put the link in my post above.

SOOOO....Here is the link to a recent (2020) discussion of nuclear winter, and the likelihood that it would occur after even a limited and small nuclear war.

NATURE: nuclear winter would occur after even a small nuclear war



Cheers!

[eclipse]

I suggest you watch the youtube I submitted - one of the original nuclear winter scientists retracting his work, and why.
Then I suggest you read the nuclear winter wiki and see how politicised this is.
The youtube shows how conflicting the politics is.
He HATES the idea of nuclear war.
But he also HATES bad science, which discredits all science in the popular mind when it is found to be wrong.
He is just trying to be honest.
He shows recent bushfire science shows that not enough soot gets high enough to stay for a while.
The Australian megafires of 2019 make it into his data.
I was here.
Sydney was brown.
It was horrendous.
I could barely breath for months - I felt like I had become a smoker.
But it wasn't really high enough to stay and lower temperatures.
And it was the most intense climate-driven megafires we have ever had - with rainforests that have not burned in MILLIONS of years drying out and burning.

[eclipse]

The theory is that smoke gets lofted high when large areas burn, right?
Hiroshima burned 6 square miles. The Australian 2019 bush fires burned 24,324 square miles - 4054 times bigger area.
But they only cooled the planet about 0.06 ± 0.04 K by mid-2020.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 21GL093841
Yet Mt Pinotubo threw millions of tons of sulfur dust up past the rain into the stratosphere where it could last years, cooling the planet by a degree for a few years.
It's all about how high the smallest lightest particles can get - and the Aussie bushfires show that giant fires are not enough. Also, remember those bushfires often generated the pyrocumulous storms - bushfire lightning storms - that look like mushroom clouds.
But still no competition for one volcano.
So I know both cities and bombs are bigger today than Hiroshima, but are they a combined 4054 times bigger? And even if the area burned is larger - is the soot really going to go higher? That huge Aussie fire only cooled the planet .06 degrees!

[eclipse]

But enough of me - over to the peer-reviewed work.

The Toon vs Reisner teams are still debating this.

Toon was a contemporary of Sagan, and probably not keen to see any shift on the nuclear winter science.

But Reisner is more optimistic:

"We present a multiscale study examining the impact of a regional exchange of nuclear weapons on global climate. Our models investigate multiple phases of the effects of nuclear weapons usage, including growth and rise of the nuclear fireball, ignition and spread of the induced firestorm, and comprehensive Earth system modeling of the oceans, land, ice, and atmosphere. This study follows from the scenario originally envisioned by Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, et al. (2007, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2003-2007), based on the analysis of Toon et al. (2007, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1973-2007), which assumes a regional exchange between India and Pakistan of fifty 15 kt weapons detonated by each side. We expand this scenario by modeling the processes that lead to production of black carbon, in order to refine the black carbon forcing estimates of these previous studies. When the Earth system model is initiated with 5 × 109 kg of black carbon in the upper troposphere (approximately from 9 to 13 km), the impact on climate variables such as global temperature and precipitation in our simulations is similar to that predicted by previously published work. However, while our thorough simulations of the firestorm produce about 3.7 × 109 kg of black carbon, we find that the vast majority of the black carbon never reaches an altitude above weather systems (approximately 12 km). Therefore, our Earth system model simulations conducted with model-informed atmospheric distributions of black carbon produce significantly lower global climatic impacts than assessed in prior studies, as the carbon at lower altitudes is more quickly removed from the atmosphere. In addition, our model ensembles indicate that statistically significant effects on global surface temperatures are limited to the first 5 years and are much smaller in magnitude than those shown in earlier works. None of the simulations produced a nuclear winter effect. We find that the effects on global surface temperatures are not uniform and are concentrated primarily around the highest arctic latitudes, dramatically reducing the global impact on human health and agriculture compared with that reported by earlier studies. Our analysis demonstrates that the probability of significant global cooling from a limited exchange scenario as envisioned in previous studies is highly unlikely, a conclusion supported by examination of natural analogs, such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 17JD027331

[C8]

I cannot imagine anyone can predict how a nuclear mass bombing would affect the climate. There are way too many variables and things about the Earth's ecosystem that we still do not understand.

I also think that models will not affect the risk taking nature of nations- so it really doesn't matter.

[vtsnowedin]

I cannot imagine anyone can predict how a nuclear mass bombing would affect the climate. There are way too many variables and things about the Earth's ecosystem that we still do not understand.

I also think that models will not affect the risk taking nature of nations- so it really doesn't matter.

Precision estimates are very unlikely but it is a pretty good bet that whatever the level of the nuclear exchange was the effects to the climate would be bad if not very bad.
I prefer to not test my theory out.

[eclipse]

Hear hear! Let's not test this theory out!

Also, I'm reconsidering what I thought I 'knew'. My youtube source above is not what I thought it was, and the peer-reviewed debate is still in a back and forth between various climate models from experts on both sides. If peer-review have not sorted this out yet, who am I to take a side?

Now back to the thread topic.

What is the critical limit or challenge for an all renewable grid? (Of course meaning wind and solar - geothermal, hydro and others are already fairly maxed out.) Do you guys use the term VRE for "Variable Renewable Energy"?

I'm not saying I'm completely sold that solar and wind can do a 100% renewable grid - but I'm more open to it. (I'm still a fan of nukes.)

What is changing my mind is the the fact that wind and solar are now SO cheap you can overbuild them for winter. If you're good for winter with all that overbuild, then storage is less of an issue. Vox discusses a study which says storage costs could go as high as $150 / kwh installed capacity cost and still be economic because you're using so little of it. ($150 also requires a few smart-grid tricks like demand-shifting flexible stuff like industrial cooling processes etc.)

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... lectricity

The summer excess can desalinate water in desert countries or be stored as heat for colder climates that might need local heat. Heat? What could store heat that long? Now we're getting into what blew my mind.

Imagine a giant warehouse - bigger than your local hardwarehouse - full of hot graphite-blocks heated by 2000 degree molten metal tin pumped through the system. The heat is trapped in argon gas. Apparently these can store heat for months.

Half the genius of this system was inventing pumps that wouldn't melt at 2000 degrees! See:-
"Liquid Metal Research Paper - Royal Chemistry Society"
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/article ... c8ee02341g

Not only that, they could hypothetically pump the heat out to run a turbine to get the electricity back. BUT THEY DON'T! Instead they dip something like a photovoltaic cell in, but it's a Thermo-Photovoltaic units. Yeah, I'm with you. I also thought it would just melt! But these things come with cooling systems.

The whole thing is covered in this next youtube video - but what's better is that MIT estimate it could come in at $10 / kwh capacity capital cost. This is so cheap it might allow a relatively 'normal' grid even with intermittent renewables!

https://youtu.be/Gn7pfYKB7DA

Thermophotovoltaic efficiency of 40%
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04473-y.pdf

"Near-perfect photon utilization in an air-bridge thermophotovoltaic cell"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2717-7.epdf

[Tanada]

What is the critical limit or challenge for an all renewable grid? (Of course meaning wind and solar - geothermal, hydro and others are already fairly maxed out.) Do you guys use the term VRE for "Variable Renewable Energy"?

I'm not saying I'm completely sold that solar and wind can do a 100% renewable grid - but I'm more open to it. (I'm still a fan of nukes.)

What is changing my mind is the the fact that wind and solar are now SO cheap you can overbuild them for winter. If you're good for winter with all that overbuild, then storage is less of an issue. Vox discusses a study which says storage costs could go as high as $150 / kwh installed capacity cost and still be economic because you're using so little of it. ($150 also requires a few smart-grid tricks like demand-shifting flexible stuff like industrial cooling processes etc.)

Personally I use the term, Intermittent Green energy for Solar and Wind and to an extent Tidal power systems. Tidal and Solar happen on well understood time tables but are not available except during those expected times. Wind is so variable as to make nameplate capacity a rather bad term to use for any given generator or field. Dome locations only deliver power 15% of the time or less while other locations may produce power as much as 66% of the time in certain mountain ranges or off shore in carefully chosen field locations.

Nuclear and Hydroelectric I consider baseload green energies. If our hydro dams were dedicated strictly to power production instead irrigation and recreational reservoir uses they could be very critical in balancing grids where Solar and Tidal produce power only during daytime in the former and with the orbital mechanics of the moon every 12 hours for the latter. You would use all the available Solar and Tidal and whatever random Wind power that was available when those supplies were active and use the Hydroelectric dams to fill in the gaps of needed power during the periods when those renewable supplies were absent.

[C8]

What is changing my mind is the the fact that wind and solar are now SO cheap

But is that b/c of govt. subsidies? If so, then it won't scale up well worldwide

[vtsnowedin]

What is changing my mind is the the fact that wind and solar are now SO cheap

But is that b/c of govt. subsidies? If so, then it won't scale up well worldwide

That is an excellent point. I would much prefer if the cost estimates they use were for un subsidized products produced totally in North America including all the computer chips.
Then you could compute the carbon footprint of the facility including the mining needed for the raw materials and the bottom line cost v. benefit of the proposal.
I still have seen nothing that indicates we can get more then about 25% of our electricity from renewables without destabilizing the grid. That stability issue has to be successfully solved if we ever want to move beyond that point.
One thing they should do is modernize the electric grid and fully connect it coast to coast. Reason being that a calm day in the North East is often balanced by a windy day in Texas or Wyoming and the sun rises and sets three hours later in California then it does on the East coast. A better grid would let you use excess renewable power from where it is excess to where it is needed.

[kublikhan]

* European Commission could move to put lithium on a list of toxic substances.
* This piece of regulation could drive up prices across the battery supply chain.
* Should the European Commission take this decision, it may undermine the EU’s energy security.

A potential European Commission (EC) act to classify lithium as a Category 1A reproductive toxin in this year’s fourth quarter could undermine the European Union (EU)’s attempt to create and support a domestic battery materials supply chain. The EU currently relies heavily on imports of lithium to supply its nascent electric vehicle (EV) production sector and the classification may increase its reliance on other regions, at a time when the union is focused on energy security and reducing emissions. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) at the end of 2021 published its opinion that it agreed with French proposals to classify three lithium salts as Category 1A reproductive toxicants.

“The EU is a global regulatory powerhouse, so any decision to classify lithium as Category 1A toxicant in the world’s largest single market will be keenly studied by regulators elsewhere. Industry hates regulatory uncertainty, so the longer it takes for a ruling, the more it will delay existing and significant investment decisions. This is more than a technicality; the impact could be far-ranging and wide.”

Implications for EV production
A drawn-out permitting process for new mining operations in Europe has already been highlighted at recent industry events as one of the main barriers to new mining projects ramping up quickly. Rystad Energy is aware of at least one new proposed lithium hydroxide processing operation that is now withholding its investment decision pending the outcome of the EC’s final resolution.

Energy Transition Goals At Risk As EU May Label Lithium As Toxic

[kublikhan]

But is that b/c of govt. subsidies? If so, then it won't scale up well worldwide

It varies by region. Globally renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels without subsidies because of falling renewable costs and rising fossil fuel costs. But this is not the case in every single country. For example, Southeast Asia has long had substantial fossil fuel subsidies that undermined a large scale renewable transition there. Then there is the intermittency issue that becomes more and more problematic as renewables increase their grid penetration. This problem is not properly captured in current cost estimations so they must be taken with a grain of salt.

* It is now cheaper to switch from coal to clean energy, compared to switching from coal to gas. That’s thanks to the falling cost of renewables and battery storage, coupled with the rising volatility of gas prices.

Record-high coal and gas prices have been pushing prices higher for consumers and businesses alike, but there could be a silver lining. It is now cheaper to switch from coal to clean energy, compared to switching from coal to gas — thanks to the falling cost of renewables and battery storage, coupled with the rising volatility of gas prices. “The carbon price needed to incentivize the switch from coal generation to renewable energy for storage has dipped to a negative price. So essentially that means that you can actually switch to renewables at a cost saving.”

The report claims that the global average cost of switching from coal to renewable energy has plunged by 99% since 2010, compared to switching from coal to gas. The company measured the carbon price level it takes to motivate 25 countries to switch fuels, from existing coal to renewables such as new onshore wind or solar photovoltaics plus battery.

The coal-to-clean carbon price varies across regions, and the picture isn’t “as rosy” in Asia compared to the European Union due to differences in market structure and fuel price mechanisms. Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam still face a relatively high cost of transitioning directly to renewables from coal. According to Tao, these countries have traditionally lagged in the renewable energy transition due to fossil fuel subsidies for domestic producers of coal and gas.

“Banks are increasingly finding it risky to lend to these fossil fuel assets in the concern that they will become stranded assets in the near term down the road due to the global energy transition. That’s going to mean that there’s going to be limited upstream supply that’s going to come online, and we are going to see increasingly tight gas markets and fossil fuel markets in general that will be prone to demand and supply shocks.”

It’s now cheaper to switch from coal to renewables instead of coal to gas, report shows

[Newfie]

Lithium batteries, especially some types, seem to be getting negative attention from insurance companies. Pleasure boat fires have brought negative attention, some insurers won't insure boats with them.

Then there was the car carrier which recently sunk, lithium batteries in the electric cars aboard were blamed.

If there is a bad fire in a confined parking lot that could bring more negative attention.

This is still a young industry, lots could appen.

[kublikhan]

I'm curious to see if Tesla's switch to the safer LFP batteries will reduce the number of fires for those models. Time will tell.

Tesla might be making a switch in its battery chemistry to a type that is less susceptible to combustion after sustaining damage.

One of the most appealing things about LFP (lithium ferrous phosphate) versus the current NCA type is that the battery pack has a much lower risk of fire or explosion, even when damaged in a collision. LFP batteries are known to have less energy density than the current NCA type, which might be seen as a drawback, however, the standard range models have enough room to use a larger battery pack and that might be the solution.

LFP also costs less and has a longer life, withstanding many more charge/discharge cycles than NCA. For safety-conscious shoppers, an LFP battery pack is also less likely to catch fire.

Tesla May Adopt New Battery Tech To Prevent Vehicle Fires And Save Lives

Tesla confirmed that nearly half of all its vehicles produced last quarter are already using cobalt-free iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries. Iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which don’t use nickel or cobalt, are traditionally cheaper and safer, but they offer less energy density, which means less efficient and shorter range for electric vehicles. However, they have improved enough recently that it now makes sense to use cobalt-free batteries in lower-end and shorter-range vehicles.

Last year, Tesla also announced it is “shifting to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry globally” for “standard range vehicles.”

Tesla is already using cobalt-free LFP batteries in half of its new cars produced