[chiralSPO (OP)]

NOTE: this thread will assume that anthropogenic climate change real, as it is generally accepted by the scientific community—any attempts to shift discussion towards questioning accepted science will be removed.

Since it seems that there is not yet enough political or economic will to shift to renewable energy sources or make major societal changes (like population control, limiting meat-based agriculture/diet, not clear-cutting our forests, different approach to transportation, less materialism etc.), I am hoping to identify methods that are economically viable to be undertaken by individuals and small communities/organizations that can have significant impacts in the near term.

Feel free to propose solutions or discuss others' proposals. I'll start:

1) A significant percent of the global energy budget is producing low-grade heat for residential and commercial buildings during the winter months. Insulation is the first step.

After that though, we need better ways to heat our homes and businesses. While heat pumps, solar heaters are better than gas-, oil- or coal-powered heaters (which essentially directly converting valuable fuel or electricity into waste heat), wind-powered heaters may well be the way to go. Essentially, the mechanical energy of the rotor can be converted directly into heat either by using a Joule heater (like a water brake) or an induction heater (spinning a magnet around near a conductive material to produce eddy currents)

I found this:
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with-a-water-brake-windmill.html

2) We might be able to send some energy back out to space more efficiently.
Just simple mirrors or white paint over dark surfaces that get direct sun would be useful. This could be especially important in tropical regions where sunlight is most intense, in polar and high-altitude regions that have lost ice/snow cover, revealing dark rock/water/etc.

Also, to increase the rate of energy loss from the ground during the night time, wind, hydro, or thermoelectric power could extract usable energy out of the surrounding environment and be used to power LEDs or lasers that can be used to emit visible light into space. (obviously the cost to power ratio of these devices would be significant, but they also serve a purpose that is otherwise not being done.

[Zer0]

Carbon Fixation?

" A type of bacteria called cyanobacteria also use carbon dioxide to grow, as do green algae and single-celled organisms called diatoms. In both cyanobacteria and photosynthetic organisms, the process of converting carbon dioxide gas into an organic building block is called carbon fixation. "

Could all of the above be seeded into coconut shells or other biodegradable artificial eggs.
& Then dropped like mini seedling bombs all over the oceans of earth.
(Approximately 50% surface area of the planet could be utilised)

Ps - i support Greta, but i seriously Dislike her way of doing things.
Rather than choosing the right words n being constructive, Her P.R. team chooses the ill words n becomes destructive.
👎
(Honestly, after FLOP26...where China was Missing, Russia seemingly Disinterested & India being Sly & two faced...i feel it would be UnFair for Europe & North Americas to shiver in chilly colds while the Others bask in the warmth of their own ignorance)

[Bored chemist]

Her P.R. team chooses

How do you know it's not her?

"What are some low-tech ways to address climate change?"
Don't have kids.
Don't eat much meat.
Plant trees.

[alancalverd]

Thanks, BC. I got a very stern rebuke a couple of days ago for saying the same. The only problem is that whilst these are effective,cheap and lazy (i.e. intelligent) ways of reducing CO2,  I don't think it will actually have any impact on the climate. Still, it's an experiment worth trying.

[Bored chemist]

I don't think it will actually have any impact on the climate.

Which of the laws of physics do you think have changed?

[Petrochemicals]

Heat pumps are all very well but they are expensive and not particularly efficient in the use of fossil fuel energy.  Heat recovery units are cheaper, along with insulation would be a far more economic option.

https://www.bpcventilation.com/panasonic-heat-recovery-system

[Bored chemist]

Heat pumps are all very well but they are expensive and not particularly efficient in the use of fossil fuel energy. 

The whole damned point is not to run them on fossil fuel, but on renewable electric power.

Heat recovery units are cheaper, along with insulation would be a far more economic option.

They will not actually heat your house.

There is, of course, nothing to stop you using both heat recovery and a fuel pump, indeed it would be a very good idea.

[Halc]

Rather than just list some feel-good actions one can personally take (sure, renewable energy is better than consuming fossil fuels), I think you need to start with identifying some specific goals we're trying to achieve with the solutions being discussed. I say this because without it, all you're doing is causing a delayed and more thorough destruction of what you are probably intending to not destroy.

Since it seems that there is not yet enough political or economic will to ...

There will never be any such will. The politicians are interested in short term gain for the people and the economy. The scientists point out the problem, but offer few if any real solutions. I'd be hard pressed to suggest specific actions without said statement of goals.

like population control, limiting meat-based agriculture/diet, not clear-cutting our forests, different approach to transportation, less materialism etc.

The problem with any of these actions is that it makes you less fit. A country that limits births and keeps its forests will be taken over by the countries that burn the candle at both ends and consume the resources declined by the country doing the better thing. So my contribution is a world government with real authority, that has yet-to-be-identified goals in mind and not necessarily the immediate comfort of votors. Thus it will probably not consist of elected leaders. Such a thing would form if there were a common enemy such as aliens, but we apparently don't consider climate change to be such a common enemy.

While heat pumps, solar heaters are better than gas-, oil- or coal-powered heaters

Maybe. Electricity is notoriously expensive, so a 200% heat pump might still consume more resources than direct burning of fuel. Wood is renewable, so burning it adds carbon-free heat for free so to speak. Oil/gas does not of course. I agree on the insulation bit. Easier said than done since it isn't trivial to insulate an older building.

wind-powered heaters may well be the way to go. Essentially, the mechanical energy of the rotor can be converted directly into heat either by using a Joule heater (like a water brake) or an induction heater (spinning a magnet around near a conductive material to produce eddy currents)

Those are not even 100% efficient. The wind power is kinetic energy. That should directly drive the compressor on some sort of no-electricity heat pump, yielding better than 100% efficiency of wind directly to heat. Consider that one of my contributions. But who wants heat that only works when the wind blows? Needs backups.

We might be able to send some energy back out to space more efficiently.
Just simple mirrors or white paint over dark surfaces that get direct sun would be useful.

We don't want to throw it away like that. Put a solar panel there, or a tree. Use it. All the solar energy coming in ends up in space anyway, so said mirrors are not going to change the planet temperature except during a brief moment while the new equilibrium is set up.

Also, to increase the rate of energy loss from the ground during the night time, wind, hydro, or thermoelectric power could extract usable energy out of the surrounding environment and be used to power LEDs or lasers that can be used to emit visible light into space.

You want to generate power and eject it instead of put it into the grid? That's just backwards...

[alancalverd]

Which of the laws of physics do you think have changed?

None. That's the problem.

[alancalverd]

The whole damned point is not to run them on fossil fuel, but on renewable electric power.

UK per capita energy consumption is about 5 kW.

Apart from tidal energy, which has never worked in this country, the only renewables derive one way or another from sunlight. 

Average annual insolation over the UK is 100W/square meter. 10% conversion efficiency (which is a good average for solar PV electricity or sun-wind-turbine conversion) means that we need to harvest our renewables from 2.8 x 10¹⁰ square meters of surface. The surface area of the UK is 2.4 x 10¹¹ sq m, so assuming constant supply and demand we need to turn about 12% of the surface area over to electricity generation of some sort.

PV panels are fairly harmless but only work half the time, and hardly at all for the 3 months of the year when we need most electricity, so the answer has to be an awful lot of windmills and enough batteries to supply all the winter demand for at least two weeks (a common winter "zero wind" anticyclone). How many windmills? Enough not merely to meet demand when the wind is blowing, but at the same time to recharge the batteries, so we need  at least 1500 GW of installed capacity to meet a 350 GW peak demand - plus batteries "to be announced".

Which doesn't leave much room for anything else.

[Bored chemist]

Alan, you are embarrassing yourself.
The energy harvested from wind is a consequence of sunshine over the Atlantic ocean, rather than over the land, so your calculation is a red herring and you know it.


Nobody is saying that decarbonising the economy will be easy.
What people are saying is that it's cheaper than "business as usual".

[alancalverd]

Insolation of the north Atlantic is pretty much the same as over the UK, and as you have pointed out, wind energy is solar energy deposited somewhere else. The available power per unit surface area doesn't change much between land and sea. It is indeed possible to harvest it offshore, but the area requirement is still substantial and the installed peak capacity still needs to be a factor of 3 greater than anticipated peak demand. Not to mention some means of storing energy.

[Petrochemicals]

UK per capita energy consumption is about 5 kW.

If I where a git Alan I may remonstrate your lack of finesse in the quoted statement. 5kw per capita is 5kwh per houror 120 kwh per person a day, the uk having a population of 65 m, is about 8 ml billion kwh per day, or 3 trillion a year.  3 trillion kwh is 3 quadrillion wh. Is this acurate?

[alancalverd]

Possibly.

5kW is correct and widely published. It's actually on the low side for western Europe, way above many parts of Africa and Asia, and about one third of the per capita consumption in Iceland or Bahrein.

Even though I  have played in a medieval dance band, I have no idea what a quadrillion might be.   

[Bored chemist]

I  have played in a medieval dance band,

I knew you were old but...

[vhfpmr]

like population control, limiting meat-based agriculture/diet, not clear-cutting our forests, different approach to transportation, less materialism etc.

The problem with any of these actions is that it makes you less fit. A country that limits births and keeps its forests will be taken over by the countries that burn the candle at both ends and consume the resources declined by the country doing the better thing. So my contribution is a world government with real authority, that has yet-to-be-identified goals in mind and not necessarily the immediate comfort of voters. Thus it will probably not consist of elected leaders. Such a thing would form if there were a common enemy such as aliens, but we apparently don't consider climate change to be such a common enemy.

I've been arguing this for years, the only way out of a Prisoners' Dilemma is an authority that has the power to enforce Cooperation rather than Defection. This is why I'm convinced that there will be no meaningful action taken on climate change until it's already too late, people won't accept any policies that compromise their own lifestyle until it's their own lifestyle being compromised by the climate.

Recently I have been wondering if it might produce a bit more action to have conferences where the speaker is obliged to say what they've already done rather than what they're promising to do, along with a big display on the wall indicating how far ahead or behind their quota they are.

[Zer0]

Note of Apology to the OP.
🙏
I understand constructive suggestions were welcomed, but I'm truly Sorry to have brought in pessimistic ideas.
(It's Really hard to ignore Reality)

H & vhfpmr are Totally & Critically on Point!
👍

It's not that We are helpless & do not know what needs to be done.
But when the Captain & the Crew of the ship are hell bent on drowning it...what are WE passengers to do?

Ps - Everybody knows about the PoliTickAll cat in the room, but where is the fool who shall bell it?
🔔

[alancalverd]

Insist that all "climate change" conferences are held by Zoom. Problem is that it is high tech compared with the 400 private jets and God knows how many limousines and police vans  that were deemed essential  for the parasites' parade in Glasgow last week.

[Petrochemicals]

Possibly.

5kW is correct and widely published. It's actually on the low side for western Europe, way above many parts of Africa and Asia, and about one third of the per capita consumption in Iceland or Bahrein.

Even though I  have played in a medieval dance band, I have no idea what a quadrillion might be.   

Si prefixes peta = quadrillion.  UK usage is about 1500twh annually. This however does not take into account our consumer lifestyle but limited ability to manufacture or grow things. The new Zealand pm made the point that they produce much food an wine that is not consumed in the country.

A great way to reduce co2 or methane if you believe both to be the cause is to shoot animals, people will even pay you for the privilege. I have just heard that turtles eat sea grass which is a great carbon sink, so do you part for the cause brothers and sisters and have turtle soup for dinner. <------(facecious)

[Bored chemist]

Insist that all "climate change" conferences are held by Zoom. Problem is that it is high tech compared with the 400 private jets and God knows how many limousines and police vans  that were deemed essential  for the parasites' parade in Glasgow last week.

And accept once and for all that  a man who took a jet to go to a posh dinner in London can not be trusted to be honest abort anything- least of all his only election policy.