2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

If we continue at the current rate, we can raise temps enough to melt all of the ice. The question is instead how long would we have to wait. Part of the problem is that there is a positive feedback mechanism whereby increasing temperatures frees up CO2 from the oceans thereby increasing temps further. Avoiding the issue means avoiding the tipping point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is a level of fossil fuel utilization that can be tolerated in the long term. The problem is that we are currently way above that. In the short term, replacing significant portions of fossil fuels with alternatives, capturing CO2 and removing it from the cycle where we can, conservation, and using the fossil fuels that we must use more wisely, avoiding usage of the most polluting versions of oil and coal can substantially moderate the effects without making everyone live like a refugee. We actually have no experience showing us what that would look like. The introduction of fossil fuels way back when interrupted the development and exploitation of solar based technology. We've never actually lived in a world where the alternatives replaced substantial portions of carbon burning.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, and you should not be talking about a world with no energy if you want to be relevant. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Volume of what, ringo? What parameter raised to the third power correlates to the observed/expected/predicted increase in energy usage? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, but that is a bad model for how we Han dle growth. A closer model is a combination of either doubling the number of buildings or increasing the height of buildings as the population grows. If area is a limited resource, what is gained by doubling the length and width of any given building? Also consider that we don't have to have a building in order to have a solar array. Finally, some places, like say Manhattan are places where we might model pop density as you suggest, but that model does not match other places.I understand that you are trying to point out the limitation imposed by the surface area needed to capture sunlight, but your analysis is not correct. The problem is really that per capita energy usage is approx. flat, (to first order) but surface area is limited.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you are talking about scaling and the cube vs square law, then you are talking about growth. You were attempting to model how increasing population density affects the possibility of employing solar collection solutions. Your model still contains bad assumptions. Energy need not be generated locally even in Manhattan or Tokyo. And population growth in cities includes the sprawl out away from centers which employs more land more buildings etc and not just making taller buildings. There is no place on earth where we accommodate population growth strictly by increasing the height of buildings and thus no place where the square/cube law models scaling of solar power. Fortunately the real outlook is far better than your prediction would lead us to believe.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Transmission losses are primarily just heating looses that are proportional to the distance transmitted, and which decrease as the voltage of transmission is increased. They are calculated using Ohm's law.

Exactly. And more generally, just how much power do people think is actually generated inside of Manhattan using conventional sources anyway?List of power stations in New YorkList of power stations in New York - WikipediaOnly Manhattan source listed:

quote:

---

East River Generating Station - Manhattan - 317(MW)

---

The question how do we get power from Queens to NYC is a bit of a strange one.

It seems that there aren't very many participants around who don't understand the process. Electricity is routinely transmitted from one state to another and even between Canada and the US. What lack of knowledge did the question uncover?

I guess fission power can be considered a form of stellar power, i.e. energy formed from stars other than Sol. But fusion is not a form of solar or star energy at all. Hydrogen is a primordial energy source formed in the big bang.But there is no real reason to care about such a lumping as 'it's all solar'. Each method of deriving energy from a solar source has its own characteristics regarding how it affects the environment, the carbon in the atmosphere (climate), and what other resources must be consumed to produce it. Even burning carbon has different implications depending on the source of the carbon. If we are burning renewable carbon sources, we are not adding to the atmosphere as we do when we burn fossil fuels.Substantial reductions in AGW can be gotten by exploiting renewable and non-carbon burning energy sources and using them to replace the burning of fossil fuels to the extent possible. While that won't eliminate all effects of planet warming, it is the current goal.The proposition that we cannot accomplish anything meaningful without becoming a Kenyan-like economy is not self evident. In fact it is counter intuitive. So far that case seems to be that if we use solar energy in the same proportions as Kenya then we'd have a Kenyan economy. In short, not an argument worth discussion. I'd like to see a case made for such a proposition at least equal to the facts already presented for the opposite proposition which suggests that the capacity for wind and solar is sufficient to keep us well below acceptable AGW. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

World's largest solar plant goes live, will provide power for 1.1M people | Computerworld

quote:

---

The world's largest solar power plant, now live in Morocco, will eventually provide 1.1 million people with power.

​

...could eventually start exporting energy to the European market

​

...the plant will be able to store energy in the form of heated molten salt, which allows for the production of energy even at night.

---

Yes that is true. But that is hardly the point. Burning fossil fuels did help get us where we are, but replacing those fuels with renewable sources to the extend possible does not move us backwards. You continue to argue as if the only alternative to doing what we currently do now is to go cold turkey off of burning ancient carbon. You haven't come anywhere close to establishing that premise.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously, Jon. Your argument is to let someone else make your argument?If we manage to reduce our carbon footprint by even 30%, that would be a significant outcome as far as climate change is concerned. Why do you continue to insist that we have to either replace all fossil fuels with renewables?

Exactly. It certainly is an option. In fact, in many locations, the power company will install devices that manage some of your large energy users for you so that they get cut off during peak demand[1]. If you agree to that, you get a lowered power bill. Of course Jon will tell you that conserving power results in having a Kenyan type economy.[1] If peak demand exceeds some amountEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You simply are not thinking. How hard is it really to do your laundry at some time other than the peak time? While there are some activities that you won't want to shift around, it is pretty easy to spread some things around the clock. And with some automation, you don't even need to handle them personally.Don't do your laundry at dinner time, and then your hot water heater won't run out of shower water when you take a bath or do dishes. If you are doing dishes using the dishwasher, why can't that happen while you are at work? Even some seemingly time bound things like cooking can be scheduled so that the major power consuming portions are off peak. I understand that most people won't want to turn off their air conditioners in the heat of summer, but many other activities can be delayed or advanced so that they don't occur together.The idea that you cannot significantly shape your energy usage or that large groups of people cannot do so even with some technical help is simply ridiculous. Even if the total energy usage is still the same, reducing peak means reducing I2R losses and results in an increase of efficiency.Now if what you are really suggesting is that you would personally be unwilling to behave in such a fashion, then I'll accept that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.