[Outcast_Searcher]

Short answer: no

Nice to see that as usual, you provide a thoughtful answer, backed by facts, logic, good citations, etc. /s

The average 9 year old is far more insightful.

[onlooker]

christianlouslange1.jpg (50.42 KiB) Viewed 14002 times

These appeals to technology always make me pause and think:

[Outcast_Searcher]

Thanks a lot for posting this KJ.

Lots to go through and will take some time, of course.

But I really like the agnostic approach of the article re AGW, and just looking at the tech re costs and practicality.

Some fascinating ideas, and it's good to see that older ideas like vertical indoor farming are still being improved upon..

[onlooker]

Given that oil is free, we have almost forever, and money is created out of nothing, there is little to prevent us instituting a world-wide carbon sequestration program powered by 4th Gen hemp biodiesel. An unicorn poop, via thermodepolymerization. Or we could go with fusion? I don't know? Who does

Pstarr, why so pessimistic having you heard algae and seaweed will solve ALL our problems LMAO

[Newfie]

Short answer: no

Nice to see that as usual, you provide a thoughtful answer, backed by facts, logic, good citations, etc. /s

The average 9 year old is far more insightful.

Unfortunately we collectively act as 9 year olds. So it is extreamely unlikely we will do anything helpful.

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie - Exactly. Engineers can come up with lots of workable ideas. Such as the most obvious: drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned by consumers. What can be done isn't relevant: what govts/societies are willing to do is.

[KaiserJeep]

I think that you are all being naive. There may or may not be serious side effects to burning FF's. Without any doubts whatsoever, six billion humans will starve if we abandon petroleum-powered mechanized agriculture, and the transport of foodstuffs from distant places.

Nobody has yet convinced me that any AGW/CC consequence is worse than that.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I think that you are all being naive. There may or may not be serious side effects to burning FF's. Without any doubts whatsoever, six billion humans will starve if we abandon petroleum-powered mechanized agriculture, and the transport of foodstuffs from distant places.

Nobody has yet convinced me that any AGW/CC consequence is worse than that.

But I don't think this thread is about just abandoning burning FF's, which I agree, at least in the short term, would be a disaster. I think it's about mitigating the effects, via technology.

Those are two very different things.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Newfie - Exactly. Engineers can come up with lots of workable ideas. Such as the most obvious: drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned by consumers. What can be done isn't relevant: what govts/societies are willing to do is.

Completely fair and valid point.

But if viable technologies make it easy and in fact cheaper to do something else, then it's not a big deal to change. In fact, organizations and individuals might change in their own self interest.

So for example, if solar truly gets meaningfully cheaper (via better technology) than burning fossil fuels in a decade or so, switching to solar will occur, simply to save money.

Same story for BEV's, once maintenance costs are factored in.

Some of the ideas in KJ's initial linked story are along the same lines re cost for other ideas. If, for example fuel cells can mitigate 90% of the CO2 created by many power plants cheaply, then that's not a meaningful burden. So doing that might happen. Especially if it helps avoid things like a CO2 tax.

...

So I could be wrong, but I believe the main reason governments and voters have been so strongly resistant to doing anything meaningful thus far is primarily the perceived high cost.

So to me, the real question here is can technology greatly lower that cost (or even turn that cost into savings in some cases)?

By the time we know in, say, a decade, we'll have more data on whether the recent spate of record setting high temperature years globally abates or accelerates. Also on whether SLR is hitting insurance costs meaningfully in places like Florida.

If people wake up enough to realize the costs of warming aren't trivial, that really changes things if the solutions aren't horrendously expensive.

[KaiserJeep]

There's only one viable technological plan for mitigating the FF apocalypse that I know of. That would be moving off the Earth and into self-sufficient space colonies, safe from the resource squabbles on Earth.

[dohboi]

p, it just gives him another opportunity to trot out his tired old Frank Sinatra 'Fly Me To The Moon" shtick.

The original is much better!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hxibHJOE5E

[Ibon]

Unfortunately we collectively act as 9 year olds. So it is extreamely unlikely we will do anything helpful.

Being 9 years old is maybe the best of times, old enough to reason, innocent enough to believe in fantasy, relationship with money is in how much candy you can buy and still a couple of years away from those hormones that twist us all up.

[Newfie]

You are correct. I apologize to all 9 year olds!

[Cog]

Climate change is irrelevant compared to running out of oil. At least as far as humanity's future goes. Although pstarr may be a dope smoking hippie with questionable hygiene, he isn't wrong about the over-riding issue of our time.