I'm sure there are places where corporate money is not as deeply entrenched in government decisions as in the US.
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
6 days ago
0
#31383
Elroch wrote:
Well, it's a large part of the way there. While only 30% of the world's electricity is renewable at present, about 90% of new generating capacity is renewable. This means the renewable technology industry is already providing effectively almost all of the replacement generation market for the electricity sector. This trend leads to a sector that is almost all renewable in the end (by which I mean after a generation - scuse the pun - of hardware).
Here your point is important. Replacing power stations still leaves their fuel bill to be paid in the future. Renewable energy require bigger investment for a given capacity but this is justified because the "fuel" (sunlight and wind) will be free for the 25 years of operation.
The only difference from the scenario I described is that the electricity sector needs to grow from being to engulf much of the fossil fuel sector. For example, the IEA is (I feel) rather conservative when it expects an expansion of electricity from 20% of the whole energy market to 50% by 2050. I don't see fossil fuels doing anything like that well in 25 years time. In the past I have generally been right in guessing IEA forecasts were a tad conservative.
But by 2050 electricity demand will be much increased.
And world population will have increased considerably too.
Which will mean even more electricity demand and production and consumption.
Even if renewables get most of that increase -
the numbers indicate that carbon fuels are getting some of that too.
Carbon fuel supporters tend to think in terms of
'lets use all the oil and natural gas and coal the earth contains. Its stops when it runs out and then it can't be used anyway'
also:
carbon fuel industry executives/owners/bigshots: 'that fuel is there. So we're going to make big money from it as long as its there. We are. We will. Nobody and nothing will stop us.'
carbon fuel workers: 'Our jobs! Our families! Our money and property!'
anti-environmental and rejectors of climate news and climate science: 'lets hate those who care about the world! they hate us so lets hate them. Everybody responsible for his own/himself/family/neighbourhood/town. Let the others fear and worry! Go coal/oil/natural gas!'
-------------------
That's the kind of thing that renewables knocking out carbon fuels - is up against.
Why didn't this happen with CFC's and the ozone layer?
Why and how did commonsense and logic and the world win over Chlorofluorocarbons ??
Because CFC's weren't big enough. Too few people depended on them.
Many didn't even know what they were and probably still don't.
The carbon fuel industries are thousands of times bigger.
I thought population was supposed to plateau at 10 billion,about.
6 days ago
0
#31385
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
I thought population was supposed to plateau at 10 billion,about.
'supposed to' ? Throughout history people have had 'other plans'.
5 days ago
0
#31386
The trend has been for estimates of the peak population to be slightly revised down over time, due to the way average fertility is falling.
In recent years the global population has been rising at less than 1% for the first time since WW2. The reason it continues to fall is that the average fertility rate is falling, with an observed increase in the fall since 2005. It is highly likely it will fall below 2 in the near future.
It's not only the fertility falling below replacement that matters - there is also the demographic imbalance. At present the global population is still young. In a world with fertility less than 2 the skew gradually vanishes.
YOURE cheeky ! (..with that name 
)
tryn2plan population is tryn WAY too hard. tho funny how covid barely blipped the charts.
Making procreation less fun would help with the exploding population trend. Outlaw botox and mandate fatty foods.
No one wants to jump in the sack with a fat ugly person. The fatty food would also help with heart attacks.
5 days ago
0
#31390
Elroch wrote:
The trend has been for estimates of the peak population to be slightly revised down over time, due to the way average fertility is falling.
In recent years the global population has been rising at less than 1% for the first time since WW2. The reason it continues to fall is that the average fertility rate is falling, with an observed increase in the fall since 2005. It is highly likely it will fall below 2 in the near future.
It's not only the fertility falling below replacement that matters - there is also the demographic imbalance. At present the global population is still young. In a world with fertility less than 2 the skew gradually vanishes.
That graph would appear to have deaths catching up to births after the year 2080.
So population would continue to increase for the next 55 years.
But adding - increase in demand for electricity this century has very much outpaced increase in population. Worldwide electrical demand has doubled since the year 1999.
And tripled since 1988.
And even as growing renewables provided a lot of that increased demand - carbon fuel burning also increased.
A better year to measure from than 2000 is 1988.
Why? Because the 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 in 1988 is considered the maximum 'safe' level by science apparently.
Burning of coal and natural gas for electricity very much increased since then.
Which means that their annual addition of extra CO2 into the atmosphere also increased.
--------------
Point: Even if we went back to the year 1912 and use of coal back then that got the atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 300 - that use would stil apparently be enough to continue to raise the atmospheric CO2 of 350 of 1988 past the so-called 'safe' level. In other words to continue to increase the ongoing disaster that is manmade climate change. (now the CO2 is up over 420 ppm and climbing.)
But back in 1912 (the year the coal-fired ship Titanic sunk) - the CO2 was increasing at less than 0.5 ppm per year.
Now its up around 3 ppm increase per year. Six times as fast. And climbing.
Both the CO2 ratio and the rate at which that ratio increases. Both climbing.
5 days ago
0
#31391
Yes, the way I view it is that the change in population is dominated by other factors. GDP per capita growth is much higher. Agricultural productivity growth is higher. Electricity usage growth per person is much higher. Carbon emissions per capita have also fallen much more rapidly than population has grown in countries such as the US, so the carbon efficiency has dominated the growth in population to leave a large reduction in total carbon emissions.
All these these can play out globally. Carbon emissions per capita may head towards zero more rapidly than population grows soon. This is all you need for a clear fall (after a period when it has often not been clear if there is a rise or a fall, because of the nearness to zero change).
I don't understand the relevance of per capita CO2.
If the population grows at a factor of ten and nothing else changes, the per capita CO2 drops by a factor of ten. It makes no difference if 100% of new energy is solar and wind to cover the higher demand of a larger population if the present fossil fuel use remains the same unless the atmosphere and the planet expand by a factor of ten.
No one wants to jump in the...
uhhh...lotsa indiscriminate ppl here...and im sure there & e/w else.
5 days ago
0
#31394
The role of per capita CO2 is that:
Total CO2 = Per Capita CO2 x Population
Remember this is a sideline about population, so this is where it appears.
Per capita hallucinations ? And including this " other wordly" population 🙄 called AI:
AI “hallucinations” are outputs that seem coherent, but aren’t factually accurate.
When AI hallucinates, contradicts itself, or produces something beautifully broken, it reveals its training biases, decision-making processes, and the gaps between how it appears to “think” and how it actually processes information.
First, it reveals bias and limitations in ways normal usage masks: you can uncover what a model “sees” when it can’t rely on conventional logic.
Second, it teaches us about AI decision-making by forcing models to show their work when they’re confused.
Third, it builds critical AI literacy by demystifying these systems through hands-on experimentation. Critical AI literacy provides methods for diagnostic experimentation, such as testing – and often misusing – AI to understand its statistical patterns and decision-making processes.
These skills become more urgent as AI systems grow more sophisticated [....]
Per Capita co2 measures each individuals guilt.
I know what per capita means. My point is that when the population grows we get a false sense that per capita CO2 is decreasing. That's why per capita is an invalid measure of CO2 output. It should simply be based of countries regardless of pop size.
Yes inertia is my point.
This is where the notion of replacement comes in. It's necessary regardless. That being said, the economics are beginning to encourage a more aggressive approach - eg Australia's largest coal-powered power station is to be shut down early (now scheduled for 2027 instead of 2032) due to its inability to compete with cheap renewables + storage. Most of the country's coal-powered generation will be shut down by 2030.