Some climate scientists call for immediate phase out of fossil fuels in virtually all forms

Professional Mariner Forum
1

Please read the article before grabbing the pointy sticks. The jist or TL;DR is that we have a 64% chance to keep the impact of climate change to between 1.5C and 2C if we start now. Waiting until 2030 drops it to 33%. Ships and power plants are specifically mentioned in the article which is why I brought it here.

It also mentions all vehicles including planes and the beef industry. It’s hard to imagine (perhaps that’s part of the problem) all the people that would have their livelihoods affected if we were able to successfully move to renewables/ electric vehicles. Oil and gas as we know it would be gone.

1 Like
2

If we were to move to 100% renewables, we would hardly have the capacity to charge our electric cars. . . .

1 Like
3

For many countries to obtain 100% renewable energy would require a good % of nuclear in the mix. (Not strictly “renewable”, but not emitting greenhouse gases)
The other option is to capture and bury CO2 from burning fossil fuel in power plants. (Thus Zero emission to air)

4

I’d be happy to see a big cut in global emissions. PM2.5 is a serious human health hazard and responsible for a lot of premature death and disability.

5

so little to no transportation then…only electric vehicles including large trucks, ships powered by sail again and certainly no airplanes.

I say just deal with the effects of the global temperature increasing rather than try to stop it…mankind won’t be made extinct although the population of the planet might actually become smaller rather than larger and larger.

6

Good read, thanks for sharing.

7

I understand the last few volcanic eruptions far surpassed the human contribution to global warming, I believe in climate change, I just don’t see a convincing argument it’s being caused by humans.

8

even if it was 100% caused by humans (which I do not believe at all) the present screaming by all the greenies that only death awaits is just overblown hyperbole.

yes, the planet is warming
yes, there will be sea level rise
yes, people will not be able to continue to inhabit very low elevation locations
yes, certain species of animals will disappear

no, most of the global population is not going to bake, starve, drown, etc…
no, the planet is not going to become uninhabitable

even if there were 100% proof that ending the use of fossil fuels would in fact stop the planet from getting warmer, to cease all use of them would plunge the population of the planet into a tailspin vastly worse that any effects of climate change. Think of how many hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people depend on food (mainly grain) imported by bulk ships which burn oil. no fucking way in hell you gonna be able to move those ships with only wind.

we have got to stop all this nonsense about stopping all use of fossil fuels and strategize how to combat the effects of what we are facing and the sooner we get going on that the better everyone will be in 50 years time

4 Likes
9

we are just coming to the end of the ice age, cant we get over it.
We warm up
Sea level rises
Gets more humid
Deserts become fertile again

PS all the carbon in the ground was once in the air…
PPS some towns in Australia have not any temp change since records began
Its rains less in the south and more in the north, thats a measured change

no word on methane as the problem, oops inconvenient truth

3 Likes
10

Climate change is a constant natural process.

The “mini ice age” or “little ice age” occurred from about 1300 to 1850. The apparent causes were:

Decreased sun spot and solar flare activity,
Drastically decreased human population from the Plague, and
Increased volcanic activity putting a lot of ash into the atmosphere.

Temperatures now are about where they were just prior to the Little Ice Age.

At this time we have:

Increased volcanic activity, and
We are entering a period of “Solar Minimum” with decreased sun spots and solar flares.

Some scientists are warning of a new Little Ice Age beginning in a few years, but most scientists disagree.

Some population projections predict the Earth’s population damn near doubling from 7 billion to 14 billion people within the next hundred years. Some predict a tapering off of growth and the population stabilizing at around 9 billion people.

The Earth’s magnetic poles reverse about every 25,000 years. This brings an ice age followed by a warming period.

Probably the largest and fastest climate change events on Earth were large asteroid strikes.

Humans have no ability to control sun spots, asteroids, volcanic activity, or the earth’s magnetic field. While it is theoretically possible for humans to practice birth control, birth regulation, euthanasia, eugenics, and warfare to control the growth of the human population, human society is not willing to do so.

Famine and disease are nature’s natural mechanisms to control the population of an ecosystem. However, the rapid development and increasing pace of human technology over the last 200 years has disrupted the ecosystem and prevented nature from limiting the size of the human population through famine and disease.

It’s very arrogant for humans to think that they can control climate change, particularly, without drastically controlling the size of the human population.

Eliminating fossil fuels, without replacing them with not yet available alternatives, would be a form of population control. Without continued mass transport of food, agricultural tools, seed stock, manufactured goods, and medicine, famine and disease would restore the natural balance of Earth’s ecosystem and drastically reduce human population over a few decades. That is a “cure” to the climate change problem that Human society is unwilling to accept.

Talking about eliminating the use of fossil fuels is a waste of time; it will never happen.

3 Likes
11

I agree that eliminating fossil fuels wouldn’t be possible today much less practical, The supply of fossil fuels have been so ensconced in our daily lives over the last century that the industry of producing renewable alternatives has been crowded out as being economically viable.

But as successful as fossil fuels have been the continued use of them may work to our detriment should we continue their use as we have been accustom to doing. Early in the Industrial Revolution Rudolph Diesel invented his compression ignition engine which set the path for more efficient use of fuels. Low grade fuels at that. But an interesting footnote in the early history of the Diesel Engine has all but been lost. That is the fact that the inventor had originally wanted to use plant based oils for the fuel source. His engine has been tweaked over and over thru the decades to gain higher and higher levels of efficiency as more and more of these engines come online while the population expands. We’ve been using the Diesel engine in about every transportation industry now for nearly 130 years.

Has there been any effort to change the Diesel trend ?

60 years ago the NS Savannah was commissioned as the first nuclear powered merchant ship. It was a project/experiment to demo nuclear powered ships for peacetime use. By and large it was successful and safe. Labor and pay issues with crews became a burden and the design which was impressive to the eye didn’t really lend itself to competitive shipping. Something more of a Yacht than a Freighter.

Still it is the only example I can think of that would make the argument for nuclear powered freight ships. I’ve seen designs for sails fitted to freighters too, but I just don’t know.

As for a break thru idea regarding sails, perhaps the material of the sail could contain photovolatic modules since there would be many square feet of sails to catch the sun. Perhaps the sails could harvest a mega watt or two of electric power. But then such a Freighter may have to contain a huge ballast of storage batteries to power electric engines at night, whenever the wind is slack, or on overcast days. Still the ready availability of fossil fuels stands by like a drug dealer for the addicts.

With the growth of the worlds population the need for suitable land for growing the necessary food will likely edge out growing vegetation that could be used for motor fuel oils. Eventually we’ll reach a point where there are no choices left if this trend continues.

Thus we come full circle and face to face with the easy way out. Fossil.

…and the not on my boat alternative.

NS Savannah

image

image

2 Likes
12

The answer is simple. Listen to people like Bjorn Lomborg who gathers groups of experts on all sorts of matters who crunch the numbers to list the sorts of things we could do which provide the biggest bang for the buck. Don’t listen to hysterical articles in the media hyping ever more armageddon-like scenarios if we “don’t act now”.

No such changes come for free. The step everyone seems to miss (evade?) is to calculate the realistic cost benefit and also ask what other beneficial uses there are for the money. Lomborg lists any number of alternative global problems which would be a far more effective use of funds. No only that, he explains how implementing policies to slow global warming can actually do considerable harm costing far in excess of any conceivable benefit and worst of all, hurting the poorest people of the planet who desperately want cheap reliable electricity.

The starry eyed global warmists believe we can twiddle the magic CO2 control knob (they neglect the far more effective greenhouse gas, water vapour, because they can’t work out how to tax that) and dial up the Goldilocks-style not too hot, not too cold, but just right temperature. We can’t. Don’t try. Lomborg, a global warming believer, suggests a preferable alternative in conducting research on energy to reach a possible solution down the track when we can generate power more cheaply than today’s conventional methods. Once this is achievable businesses will do it without compulsion … and my guess is the climate will still refuse to bow to us.

Here’s just one history snippet about peak oil alarmism. 15 years after Edwin Drake drilled the first successful oil well in 1859, a Pennsylvania geologist was saying the United States would run out of oil by 1878. In 1908, the US Geological Survey said we’d exhaust our domestic oil reserves by 1927; in 1939, it moved petroleum doomsday to 1952. I can keep going but you get the picture.

Don’t underestimate human ingenuity.

1 Like
13

It is hard to imagine anyone in Texas being overjoyed at the actions demanded by the doomsayers; no oil and gas industry and no beef. Just because we question the science we are labeled climate change deniers and join the flat earth society as demented.
What I want the scientists to tell me is why the earth warmed suddenly 200,000 years ago and 200,000 year intervals twice before that.
If the beef industry is so bad for the planet why are the 42 million cattle now in the USA worse that the estimated 61 million bison that once roamed the plains of North America.
Krakatoa blasted 3 cubic kilometres of material into the the earths atmosphere in 11.5 seconds and an earlier eruption also in Indonesia ejected 600 cubic kilometres of matter into the earths atmosphere over a year. Crop failures caused widespread famine in Europe but the English artist Turner painted some beautiful sunsets.
I’m not a fan of polluting the planet but what they are proposing is hair brained.

1 Like
14

Sometimes I wonder if “The Scientist” have studied Architectural History and Anthropology at all. Again, the nice thing about Fossil is it’s convenience. So many devices for the end use of Fossil have been created and refined to a point where it is just too easy to take them for granted.

I once knew an Engineer who was fond of saying, “wonder how much better off today we would all have been if the wheel hadn’t been invented”. Suggesting that we may have found other means to eliminate friction or levitate ourselves for transport. He was only saying that to illustrate our dependence on the wheel during discussions of Fossil fuels.

Speaking of History and Anthropology this website steps back some 6000 years with solar energy usage and shows what the ancient Greeks were able to do with it.

7 Great Solar Energy Stories

Even in the USA in the late 1800’s some homes were fitted for heating water with solar.

Circa 1892

Solar Hot Water Heating

1900 Home fitted with solar

image
image.jpg1365×1024 211 KB

More and more vehicles on the road today are being fitted with hybrid
energy systems. Some automobile companies have announced that they will just produce electric vehicles. Volvo being one of them and Tesla another.

Locomotives on the Railroads have long used Diesel Electromotive where the Diesel turns an Alternator which in turn directly supplies the electric motors in the wheel trucks for propulsion.

I’m left to wonder if smaller freight ships could use large electric motors where solar could be harnessed for daytime and clear weather while Diesel electric would power them at night. I really don’t know if it would be a good solution or not.

But if “The Scientist” are going to be instrumental in warning us about the climate, then some of the other “Scientist” should step up and begin to develop support technologies to offer as solutions. Otherwise
“The Businessmen and Women” will continue utilizing what is so available…Fossil…and “Their Bean Counters” continue to use the Tax Advantages which Fossil’s Lobbyist have no doubt had a hand in writing such that the of us rest will continue to be trapped in this revolving door with our best and brightest figuratively shouting “Fire Fire” ! Yes, we get it that there are ecological issues, diminishing supplies of Fossil, and a rapidly increasing global population. Some of the “Solar Scientist” are even warning of “Solar Dimming” with the air pollution limiting the solar energy entering the earth’s atmosphere.

So what can be done about it ? The average guy can only wring his hands, worry or hope.

I’ve seen a lot of Solar home innovation for those living on the land. Much of it with Solar and alternate building techniques. But what goes on with ships that would match it ? Still even on land if you try to live “Off the Grid” local Governments will try to shut you down and make you attach the home to the Grid. It’s how they know you are there and can tax you.

This Architect has been around since the 1960’s trying to offer solutions for housing. I wonder if there are any Naval Architects like him ?

1 Like
15

We bought a used, low-miles Nissan Leaf a couple years ago, they sell used for small money.

It’s a very nice car. It’s costs almost nothing to run. Far cheaper than conventional gas car. No cooling system, no exhaust system, no oil change, no catalytic converter, routine maintenance is tires, windshield and brakes.

In the winter we warm it up with the garage doors closed, no exhaust. It gets toasty warm while still plugged into 220 volts power.

We are about 10 miles from town, that’s 95% of our trips. When our gas car wears out plan to buy a hybrid, I’ll never buy a gas only car again.

2 Likes
22

Last I heard, battery pack replacement was $4k or a little more.

1 Like
23

Looking forward to the 2020 F-150. Hybrid edition of the classic truck.

Unlike gas/diesel only vehicles, the carbon footprint of a hybrid/fully electric vehicle isn’t fixed. It will get better or worse depending on the grid.

24

Concern about battery degradation is one of the reason they sell so cheap. When they come off lease people just opt for a new car. Better range with new models.

We havn’t seen any degradation. In any case I expect the car will rust out before it’s not useful for us. Many of our trips are less than 4 mile round trip. 95% are less then 20 mile round trip.

More than that we use the gas car, but they seem primitive now. EVs have many advantages. Cheap to run and maintain, lots of torque off the line.

25

Contradiction in terms? The Oil & Gas company Equinor (ex Statoil) is spending time and money to reduce fuel consumption (and thus emission) from vessels under contracts:

They also try to reduce emission from the rigs, production platforms and refineries under their control by innovative but expensive methods like Carbon capture and injection into disused offshore fields.

Lastly; they spend tons of money on developing renewable energy worldwide to compete against their own main product, oil and gas.

Why, oh why do they do such a stupid thing? Have they collectively lost their mind?
Or do they see long term profit in this mad policy against their own short term interest?

26

No point in debating the deniers, they can outflank any argument, no matter how valid, by adding another layer of conspiracy.

2 Likes