[hamdani yusuf]

Installing an array on your roof is environmental exhibitionism—and it's contagious.

Indeed, a few months after they were installed, I got a knock on my door. It was a neighbor from around the corner who'd seen my solar array and, like me before him, was intrigued. We clambered up on my roof, and I told him how they'd cut my electricity bill by about 80 percent, and frankly I was happy as a clam. With the tax credits I got, the panels would pay for themselves in seven years, after which it would be—well, crazy-cheap electricity for life.

My neighbor walked back home. And a few months later, a solar canopy popped up on his roof too.

Solar, it turns out, is a virus—a good one. Researchers have been documenting this, and it offers some intriguing hope for climate-change mitigation. Now that we know solar uptake has a social spread, we may be able to make it spread faster.

"Solar Panels Could Be the Best Fad Ever | WIRED" https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-best-social-fad-ever/

[alancalverd]

The Earth's climate hasn't changed this fast in millions of years.

The rate of change was much greater 10,000 , 130,000 and 325,000 years ago, just to pick some spectacular examples. But don't let the facts get in the way of popular opinion.

Humans seem too have adapted to ambient temperatures above 40°C and below -40°C since the species evolved. The problem with climate change is that, having established a local ecological niche, individual humans don't like moving, or having others move into their territory.

[alancalverd]

Hysteria

Just because they're natural, doesn't make it a good thing if you double the amount! Plenty of things are NATURAL, but kill you just fine.

Science

The Center for Disease Control has designated 100,000 ppm of carbon dioxide as life-threatening, or "immediately dangerous to life.". More recently, Dr. Peter Harper of Health and Safety Executive has determined that exposure to lower levels, starting at 84,000 ppm for 60 minutes or more, will also result in fatality.

Boring fact

The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2019 was 409.8 parts per million

Crying "wolf" is not always an effective strategy, however virtuous the objective.

[Bored chemist]

cience
Quote
The Center for Disease Control has designated 100,000 ppm of carbon dioxide as life-threatening, or "immediately dangerous to life.". More recently, Dr. Peter Harper of Health and Safety Executive has determined that exposure to lower levels, starting at 84,000 ppm for 60 minutes or more, will also result in fatality.

And this is how Alan tells us that he does not know what "immediately" means.

[alancalverd]

Permitted occupational exposure level of CO2 is 5000 ppm, indoor concentrations of 2500 ppm are not unusual. Below 50 ppm it is arguable that the equilibrium CO2 may be insufficient to stimulate normal respiration. Increasing the atmospheric content from 300 to 450 ppm is not a matter of first-order concern to human health.

[wolfekeeper]

Oh, no. It's not poisoning humans directly. It's poisoning the biosphere.

[Bored chemist]

Increasing the atmospheric content from 300 to 450 ppm is not a matter of first-order concern to human health.

Nobody said it was.

So why go on about it?

[alancalverd]

Oh, no. It's not poisoning humans directly. It's poisoning the biosphere.

Not according to the plants, which relish it

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.

and therefore provide more food for animals.

[wolfekeeper]

Plants aren't usually able to use the increased CO2 unless all of the other nutrients are available, and they're metabolically able to increase their growth rate. In practice above a certain amount of CO2, nothing good happens.

And there's a far worse problem: most plants are MASSIVELY harmed by droughts which are becoming more and more common due to climate change.

Climate scientists agree, high CO2 is NOT a good thing!

[alancalverd]

Climate scientists agree, high CO2 is NOT a good thing!

Farmers think otherwise, and some actually pay to increase CO2 levels in greenhouses. But what do they know about growing crops, eh?

Better still, a lot of "other nutrients" are generated by the Haber-Bosch process which involves burning fossil fuel and emitting  CO2, just to feed the human population. Ignoring a convenient hypothesis just to stop people starving - disgusting!

But we are drifting away from the topic.

[wolfekeeper]

The Haber-Bosch process cracks methane to produce hydrogen (with CO2 as a waste product) which is then reacted with nitrogen to make ammonia. That hydrogen could be produced from renewable energy instead and then no CO2 is emitted.

The fact that it's boosted in some greenhouses doesn't solve the problem that raised CO2 in the atmosphere is creating massive droughts and triggering enormous forest fires that are ENORMOUSLY more harmful to plant life.

[Bored chemist]

The Haber-Bosch process cracks methane to produce hydrogen (with CO2 as a waste product) which is then reacted with nitrogen to make ammonia.

Strictly, the H-B process is only the second step- the reaction of H2 and N2.
As you say, other sources of H2 could be used- notably electrolysis.
The H-B process could be made carbon neutral (though it's  always going to use a lot of energy).

Nitrogen fixation by legumes (and a few other plants) is a better bet in some cases.

[wolfekeeper]

The nitrogen fixing bacteria in the legumes and elsewhere aren't terribly efficient at it, otherwise we could just run some bioreactors instead of using the H-B process. It's an area of active research though.

[Bored chemist]

otherwise we could just run some bioreactors instead of using the H-B process.

For a very long time, we did.
The bioreactors were called "fallow".

If humanity decided to eat beans instead of grass, that would help a lot.
(Though it would presumably generate other problems)

[alancalverd]

Certainly if we ate beans instead of using animals to convert grass to protein, we'd reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 25 - 30% at no cost or significant social change.   

[hamdani yusuf]

The recent gas shortage in the Southeast of the US, prompted by Russian hackers using ransomware on a major oil and gas pipeline that feeds that portion of the United States made me realize just how stressful driving a gas or ICE car really is. Yes, the hoarding and lines at gas stations during the shortage were temporary, but on a daily basis, driving a BEV like our Tesla Model Y has proven to be so much more predictable and so much less stressful that it really has changed our attitude toward driving. Range anxiety? On a daily basis that happens much more in an ICE car than in our Tesla!

[alancalverd]

"Range anxiety" is a misnomer. It's not generally a good idea to drive more than 200 miles without a break. The problem is time.

Assuming that you have planned your journey to break and recharge at, say, 175 miles (allowing for Sod's Law), this works OK today because there will be nobody else using the recharging stations. But in 2030, if there is a queue of more than 2 per station, you will have to wait at least 90 minutes to refuel, depending on the charging speed of the slowest car in front of you. You can't get out of the car because you will lose your place in the queue. Remember your pee bottle!

In 90 minutes you could have refuelled along with the two ICE vehicles ahead of you, paid obeisance to Greggs and the  toilet,  and driven another 70 miles.

And what happens when the Russkies turn off the electricity grid?

[hamdani yusuf]

But in 2030, if there is a queue of more than 2 per station, you will have to wait at least 90 minutes to refuel, depending on the charging speed of the slowest car in front of you. You can't get out of the car because you will lose your place in the queue. Remember your pee bottle!

What if in 2030 there would be more  supercharging stations, and the charging time improve significantly?  Do you think that those cases are unlikely?

[Bored chemist]

And what happens when the Russkies turn off the electricity grid?

Same as when they turn off the gas pipe now.

[hamdani yusuf]

And what happens when the Russkies turn off the electricity grid?

For business owners, it's easier to build an independent charging station than an independent gas station. If you use solar cells, the operational cost can be near zero.