SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A group of scientists have called for a "moonshot" renewable energy research program called the "Global Apollo":
They say they have generated interest from major nations in their plan for an investment of 0.02% of their GDP [about $150 billion over 10 years, and about the cost of the Apollo program in 2015 dollars] into research, development and demonstration (RD&D) of clean electricity. Their report, launched at London's Royal Society, says on current projections the world will exceed the 2C danger threshold of climate change by 2035.
The academics are led by the UK's former chief scientist Professor Sir David King. He told BBC News: "We have already discovered enough fossil fuels to wreck the climate many times over. There's only one thing that's going to stop us burning it – and that's if renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels. "Under our plan, we are aiming to make that happen globally within a decade." Another of the authors, former Cabinet Secretary Lord O'Donnell, told BBC News: "People never believed we could put a man on the Moon - but we did. People don't believe we can solve climate change - but we have no choice."
It complains that renewable energy has been starved of investment to a shocking degree, with publicly funded RD&D on renewable energy only $6bn a year – under 2% of the total of publicly funded research and development. The authors say this compares poorly with the $101bn spent worldwide on production subsidies for renewables and the $550bn "counter-productive" subsidies for fossil fuel energy.
Solar is the most favoured renewable source as the group says it has greatest potential for technology breakthroughs, and most new energy demand will be in sunny countries. The cost of solar has been plummeting and is already approaching competitive prices in places as different as Germany, California and Chile. But the authors believe next-generation plastic photovoltaics can to keep prices tumbling. They believe battery technology is improving fast – but think batteries and other forms of storage need to be massively developed to store intermittent renewable energy. The authors say much smarter software is needed to enable electricity grids to cope with the new sources of power. Some experts believe that energy technology has developed so fast that it simply needs further price support to keep volumes rising and costs falling. Others will complain that the Apollo group has done little to tackle the immense problem of replacing fossil fuels in heating.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:41PM
People don't believe we can solve climate change - but we have no choice.
The climate will never change ever again? Let me guess, this dude thinks the earth is only 6000 years old LOL.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BK on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:04PM
Your sarcasm aside, one hanging question in discussions about climate change is what the correct climate is. Unfortunately, we don't have infinite options... The climate that is changed to provide a heavy snow pack in the Sierra Nevada will doubtless lead to a relative drought in Eastern Siberia or in Georgia or even in Georgia. Willfully picking a climate is about impoverishing some at the expense of others.
We may well someday soon be able to fix CO2 and make the global CO2 level a managed thing, but we will probably fight wars over the "climate".
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:58PM
Yes, but aside from extremes and wars, when/if "we" agree to do something, which seems near impossible, then the thousand times bigger battle will begin over what goal to set.
Where my butt is sitting right now had more than a mile of ice in the last 20Kyrs, and it most certainly will again. So there's not mere fine tuning involved.
An interesting hard-ish sci fi story could be written about upper midwest terrorists blowing up CO2 sequestration wells in 9000AD to save their families from freezing in a glacier. Someone better read than I am probably can name some examples of that plot already in print, LOL.
On the topic of war, you could get a "real" world war lit up by figuring out what climate state best serves, say, eastern hemisphere northern half and noting that doesn't exactly match the global optimum for perhaps western hemisphere southern half or whatever and off go the nukes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:36PM
> Implying that humanity's alteration of the atmosphere to date constitutes "fine tuning".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png [wikimedia.org]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Atmospheric_CO2_CH4_Degrees_Centigrade_Over_Time_by_Reg_Morrison.jpg [wikimedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:22PM
I kinda doubt that, because climate isn't that simple. Say you decide a warmer climate is nice for the USA -- get longer growing seasons out of those northern states, and start producing more tropical and citrus stuff in the south. Sounds great, so you pump up the CO2, warm the planet...and now most of the US's most populated cities are underwater. Oops.
What's good for one part of your country might not be great for the rest of it. All of our existing infrastructure and construction is built around our current climate. Which is exactly why climate change is such a big issue. If we could just pick up and move NYC then we would do that and not really have a problem.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:26PM
You were writing such an excellent comment until that damned guy showed up :3
Now maybe I read you wrong and I'm saying this as pleasantly and optimistically as I can muster: you need to kick Al in the nuts for making you think that's what the climate models predict. Maybe also whoever else contributed to making you think that (which could be a very large number of people). Or maybe just share this comment with some of them instead.
Shoddy duck analogy: if you wanted to convince people who deny the existence of ducks about the existence of and perhaps also some importance of ducks you probably wouldn't want to base it all on a drawing of Donald Duck :D
I challenge you to find your “Donald Duck” in the recent UN IPCC reports. Actually I don't it has been in any of them, not even the oldest ones.
One way or the other there will be a lot less “deniers” around when people stop pushing Ghore's¹ version of Waterworld.
¹ intentionally left that “h” there, it fits, makes it look like I misspelt “whore”, the guy is a complete slimeball.
Now just so you don't think I'm out to fool you I'll probably still be called a “denier” anyway since I know science works neither by acclamation nor trust and so far the science is lacking in my opinion (and yes my opinion is rightfully the only thing that matters, if I can't “reproduce” or be sufficiently swayed by whatever “proof” is on offer then the scientific thing to do is to reject it or at the very least not assume that it is right. Argument by authority is a logical fallacy: whatever is offered has to make sense). We don't actually have all the causal chains established —not the chemistry and physics, not the meteorology, and of course then not any “climatology” either since that's a derivative of the others— nor models that are able explain past measurements which means there's an awful lot we don't know yet.
That's not up to debate nor an invitation to debate: most people are not aware that there are huge petaflop systems [sciencedaily.com] (several because that's not the example I was looking for, I would think there's some exaflop ones too by now) dedicated to research but /they can't compute what they don't know/. “Climatology” is not even wrong yet; instead it's just GIGO and you can safely throw away all the conclusions you've ever heard (which includes everything out of the UN IPCC too, they've got no occult knowledge to share, it's just another circlejerk).
Of course from an epistemological perspective it really doesn't help that “climatology” has established the approach of repeated ad hoc models as the traditional modus operandi: it's the curse of the yes-men and does make and should make people even more skeptical of the claims made. In my opinion so much so that it's outrageous that so many so-called scientists aren't far more skeptical; it's like they don't actually know science (and they probably don't and aren't).
Okay got a bit ranty, hopefully not too much. now please go “kill” that “Donald Duck” XD
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:57PM
The climate will never change ever again?
Literally nobody has ever suggested that. Other than straw men that you invent, of course.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:41PM
solve climate change
Just saying thats a direct quote, not me putting words in anyones mouth.
Personally I think politicians mostly define "solve" for any problem as in take away rights, raise taxes, gain power, and F the earth, so I do acknowledge there are multiple interpretations of the phrase "solve" and its entirely possible there are at least three interpretations, mine, yours, and the theoretical politician in this paragraph. Unfortunately the politicians rule us so the only "solution" that will be permitted to be implemented is the one in this paragraph. But thats a whole nother argument.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:35PM
Obviously when they say "solve" they mean "avoid catastrophic disaster". There is no ideal for everyone, but there definitely are many very bad scenarios for the majority of the world's population.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)