Climate Change

[SnowMachine]

What I really find maddening is the lack of emphasis on making each and every new construction as energy efficient as possible and insulated to the gills.

What is scary is that most of the worlds population aspires to live like those in the west. Who can blame them, in many countries our poverty level would look pretty damn good.

Can this planet sustain that level of consumption or anything anywhere near that level? ETA Rhetorical question....

No, and it shouldn't. Our level of consumption is insane. It took most of my lift to understand my role in it. In my 40's it's like a like switch turned on and I decided to slowly make changes to a more sustainable way if living.

Even the push to electric cars is somewhat insane. The smallest footprint option is keeping cars on the road longer.

What's everyone's thoughts on burning wood for heat vs. fossil fuel (propane or natural gas)? There are a lot of interesting conversations to have.

Off of that track, I'm very excited for solid state battery tech.

[SnowMachine]

Solid-state battery electric cars are set to go on sale in European markets in 2025. The solid-state batteries will be less expensive, lighter, and charge faster. The cars will initially have a 447km (277 mile) range and charge to full in 12 minutes on a fast charger. After that, 600 miles with a 45 minute at home charge time by 2030.

That would effectively cull ICE cars.

[SnowMachine]

Pretty much. I mean to say humans are having no effect is ignorant and frankly kinda insane.

Is anybody truly making that argument? I don't think you can without having your fingers crossed behind your back.

[MultiVerse]

https://www.decouple.media/p/the-ene...ion-will-never

A radical new history of energy and humanity's insatiable need for resources that will change the way we talk about climate change

It has become habitual to think of our relationship with energy as one of transition: with wood superseded by coal, coal by oil, oil by nuclear and then at some future point all replaced by green sources. Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s devastating but unnervingly entertaining book shows what an extraordinary delusion this is. Far from the industrial era passing through a series of transformations, each new phase has in practice remained almost wholly entangled with the previous one. Indeed the very idea of transition turns out to be untrue.

The author shares the same acute anxiety about the need for a green transition as the rest of us, but shows how, disastrously, our industrial history has in fact been based on symbiosis, with each major energy source feeding off the others. Using a fascinating array of examples, Fressoz describes how we have gorged on all forms of energy – with whole forests needed to prop up coal mines, coal remaining central to the creation of innumerable new products and oil still central to our lives. The world now burns more wood and coal than ever before.

This book reveals an uncomfortable truth: ‘transition’ was originally itself promoted by energy companies, not as a genuine plan, but as a means to put off any meaningful change. More and More and More forces its readers to understand the modern world in all its voracious reality, and the true nature of the challenges heading our way. ]

Fressoz's main point is there are sources of carbon emissions outside the electricity sector that need to be addressed too. Like cement production. In the past more coal meant more wood was used, for example. More car production meant more coal burned and so on.

The point being there are large energy-intensive industries that still need reliable constant sources of energy not well suited to renewables. There can be no rapid energy transition without addressing these industries too.

That's where nuclear energy is still needed. Groups that block clean energy projects with frivolous environmental challenges are extremely bad. The great irony is that decarbonization requires dismantling & defunding parts of the old green movement like the Sierra Club that are still very high prestige—who to this day oppose nuclear and even solar & wind projects.

[Falcon3]

Even the push to electric cars is somewhat insane. The smallest footprint option is keeping cars on the road longer.
.

Smallest footprint option is to invest in mass transit options such as electric bus and rail, to emphasize urban and suburban density to reduce transit distances, and to increase safety and accessibility of alternate options such as bike infrastructure.

[Trackhead]

to emphasize urban and suburban density to reduce transit distances.

I live in a town of 1800 people and drive two miles to work. I’m glad someone wants to live urban but it isn’t me.

[raisingarizona13]

I live in a town of 1800 people and drive two miles to work. I’m glad someone wants to live urban but it isn’t me.

The only suitable answer is less people. There's WAY too many of us now. The overall quality of life has shit the bed with the population as it sits now. I'm serious, almost everything going wrong right now has a connection to the current human population and encroachment.

[Trackhead]

Almost everything going wrong is related to humans in general. We don’t self regulate like the animal kingdom. We have just enough of a brain to manipulate our world to our evolutionary advantage until we bump up against our own self destruction.

[raisingarizona13]

Almost everything going wrong is related to humans in general. We don’t self regulate like the animal kingdom. We have just enough of a brain to manipulate our world to our evolutionary advantage until we bump up against our own self destruction.

In-fucking-deed. We have just enough brain power to screw everything up.

[plugboots]

^^^ I always thought that this was what the Kurt Vonnegut book “Galapagos” was about. Seals have a pretty good life. Why couldn’t they just stay the way they were, eat some fish, lay on the rocks in the sun and fart.

[Trackhead]

Imagine if breeding in humans followed the same rules as the animal kingdom.

[abraham]

Fressoz's main point is there are sources of carbon emissions outside the electricity sector that need to be addressed too. Like cement production. In the past more coal meant more wood was used, for example. More car production meant more coal burned and so on.

The point being there are large energy-intensive industries that still need reliable constant sources of energy not well suited to renewables. There can be no rapid energy transition without addressing these industries too.

That's where nuclear energy is still needed. Groups that block clean energy projects with frivolous environmental challenges are extremely bad. The great irony is that decarbonization requires dismantling & defunding parts of the old green movement like the Sierra Club that are still very high prestige—who to this day oppose nuclear and even solar & wind projects.

Have you read anything of his or heard him speak? Just curious. I understand on some level the need for energy sources that are not well suited to electricity. Much less renewables.

There are some people who appear to think we should electrify as much as possible in order to preserve oil/gas for the places where it is really hard to replace. Someone, and I can't remember who it was, talked about a potential future where nuclear powered ships mine the dissolved CO2 in the ocean to generate hydrocarbons while reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's not something I've sat down to see if I believe the math but it's at least thought provoking to me. It's also not clear if there's a future haber-bosch process that will help us clear some of the coming resource limitations. I'm not betting on it currently. But that doesn't mean someone smart won't discover something.

Almost everything going wrong is related to humans in general. We don’t self regulate like the animal kingdom. We have just enough of a brain to manipulate our world to our evolutionary advantage until we bump up against our own self destruction.

In-fucking-deed. We have just enough brain power to screw everything up.

^^^ I always thought that this was what the Kurt Vonnegut book “Galapagos” was about. Seals have a pretty good life. Why couldn’t they just stay the way they were, eat some fish, lay on the rocks in the sun and fart.

What if our purpose in the universe is simply to consume more energy, faster?

Another interview I listened to recently had a point that lycopods nearly killed all life on earth 350 million years ago because of how rapidly they took in CO2 and cooled the earth, and now in the present day they're changing the world again as we convert their remains back into atmospheric CO2.

why does life exist?

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England(opens a new tab), a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new...life-20140122/

[AirheadD8]

This is depressing so the best I can hope for is to download my consciousness to a computer so I can virtually ski after I’ve expired.

Oh the human arrogance to think we won’t become extinct lol.

[PB]

Well, I personally expect to be extinct in the next 10-15 years or so.

Ha! Joke's on the Lycopods!!

[old goat]

What's everyone's thoughts on burning wood for heat vs. fossil fuel (propane or natural gas)? .

We have a cast iron stove that sits out from the old fireplace. We have a forced air gas furnace but I make a fire most nights and in stormy weather. The radiant heat keeps us comfortable with the thermostat at 65 during the day. I don't know if the net CO2 production is more or less than if I just used the furnace and kept the temperature higher. (55 at night.)

[Trackhead]

I just bought a “high efficiency” soapstone stove last year and got the fed $2000 rebate. I think the goal of the rebate is not for new stove installs, but to replace older “dirty” ones. Some argue dead trees will give off the same CO2 as they decay over decades, and burning them emits the same just sooner. So net equal. I don’t know if I buy that logic, but factually it is true? Also the PM 2.5 from wood burning isn’t great. Mine is I think 77% efficiency or something but on start up, prior to catalyst being hot, it’s like any other stove.

Is wood burning any worse than fracked natural gas, heating oil, or propane? No idea. In a city like Salt Lake with bad air pollution I’d have a hard time wanting to burn wood. In rural Montana it seems like local effects aren’t noticeable in terms of PM2.5 which has nothing to do with climate change.

[MultiVerse]

FWIW, wood stoves on average increase their owner's own indoor Particulate Matter (PM) somewhere between 250–400% ( PM 2.5 and PM 1 ) compared with when the stoves are not in use. If a person is concerned about indoor air pollution then limiting stove use or if in use limiting the amount time the stove door is open to the shortest amount of time possible is the best way to mitigate indoor PM.

Have you read anything of his or heard him speak?[

I listened to a nuclear power podcast that had him on as a guest.

[rod9301]

Same increase in 2.5 with gas stoves

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[MultiVerse]

Indoor gas cooking stoves are of concern too for PM but emit around 5 times less PM than wood stoves. High efficiency gas furnaces with an outside air intake/exhaust don't raise indoor PM nearly as much, or much at all, compared with burning wood.

[Trackhead]

FWIW, wood stoves on average increase their owner's own indoor Particulate Matter (PM) somewhere between 250–400% ( PM 2.5 and PM 1 ) compared with when the stoves are not in use. If a person is concerned about indoor air pollution then limiting stove use or if in use limiting the amount time the stove door is open to the shortest amount of time possible is the best way to mitigate indoor PM.



I listened to a nuclear power podcast that had him on as a guest.

I have a high quality PM2.5 monitor in my house and haven’t observed that at all. Cooking bacon or pan frying meat on cast iron is worse. I run a HEPA in the winter but seriously the PM 2.5 doesn’t go more than a few percent maybe.

[MultiVerse]

That's good. Most woodstoves, according to research, without outdoor air intakes increase indoor PM by a lot, although not nearly as much as open wood burning fireplaces.

[bodywhomper]

Is this the research? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934936/

“Median (IQR) household PM2.5 was 6.65 (5.02) µg/m3 and BC was 0.23 (0.20) µg/m3. Thirty percent of homes used a wood stove during monitoring. In homes with versus without a stove, PM2.5 was 20.6% higher [although 95% confidence intervals (?10.6, 62.6) included the null] and BC was 61.5% higher (95% CI: 11.6, 133.6). Elemental carbon (total and fractions 3 and 4), potassium, calcium, and chloride were also higher in homes with a stove. Older stoves, non-EPA-certified stoves, and wet or mixed (vs dry) wood were associated with higher pollutant concentrations, especially BC.”

[bodywhomper]

Some argue dead trees will give off the same CO2 as they decay over decades, and burning them emits the same just sooner. So net equal. I don’t know if I buy that logic, but factually it is true?

I think part of the question/answer (in fire country portions of the world) is whether the wood will actually decay or become fuel for a wildfire.

[Trackhead]

Yurp jumped on the biomass bandwagon with pellets and apparently that is driving US deforestation. We burn dead/down wood, never cut live (public land). Some argue the soil captures the CO2 to some extent during decay.

Hey, I use an electric saw and wood splitter exclusively now

Natural gas is apparently 67% fracked, and propane is derived from that source. So the comparison with wood also must include the environmental/water usage from fracking. Same with lithium batteries and mining destruction. Lotta variables to consider in this game of sustainability.

[MultiVerse]

Is this the research? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934936/

That's one of several studies. They all differ in measurement methodology. The Northern New England study measured averages over seven days in homes with wood stoves versus homes without but did not record PM with versus without the stove in use. Other studies look at different types of stoves or when the stove is in use versus when the stove is not in use etc. Looking at in/out use:

"Indoor Air Pollution from Residential Stoves: Examining the Flooding of Particulate Matter into Homes during Real-World Use. First, the daily average indoor PM concentrations when a stove was used were higher for PM 2.5 by 196.23% and PM 1 by 227.80% than those of the non-use control group. Second, hourly peak averages are higher for PM 2.5 by 123.91% and for PM 1 by 133.09% than daily averages, showing that PM is ‘flooding’ into indoor areas through normal use. Third, the peaks that are derived from these ’flooding’ incidents are associated with the number of fuel pieces used and length of the burn period. This points to the opening of the stove door as a primary mechanism for introducing PM into the home. Finally, it demonstrates that the indoor air pollution being witnessed is not originating from outside the home. Taken together, the study demonstrates that people inside homes with a residential stove are at risk of exposure to high intensities of PM 2.5 and PM 1 within a short period of time through normal use."
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/12/1326