Climate change Threatens the Future of World Crop Production

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Woody1, Jun 14, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    I didn't say it was THE plan, just that it was a good plan.
    Not at all. What is required is a believable cause and a good scapegoat. (Witness the recent "blame everything on Muslims" meme.) And China makes a great scapegoat - even if, over time, we have put more CO2 in the air than they have.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    Well, then so has been oil up until now. So is renewable energy, if you listen to the right wing. But both seem to be succeeding.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    You said that in the context of the current construction boom in nukes - which is not part of your good plan, agreed?

    So "good for them", as a comment, was bestowed upon some other plan, despite appearances.

    Presumably one in which, as in the good plan, after baseline power and peaking power have been covered by nukes and gas there is a large leftover amount of power - the "bulk" - to be handled by something other than nukes and gas plants - or coal plants, all important though they will continue to be for our lifetimes: https://www.americanprogress.org/is...32141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/
    Scapegoat for what? Not climate change - that's nobody's fault, remember, in wingie world.
    And China makes a lousy target for warmongering. Killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs is for peasants.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    What we want has nothing to do with it. It is how we acquire it, that is the problem.
    And it's only June, this year.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2017
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    What I cannot understand is why, with all our technology, we cannot find a way to capture the sun's energy.
    We have this amount of desert available (and growing)
    IMO, I don't care how difficult it is, this is only the unlimited source of power available which could sustain our ever increasing need for energy, without impacting the earth's natural resources.

    p.s
    and that includes fracking.

    http://www.worldometers.info/
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    We are still in the EU until 18 months from now.

    Brexshit may well prove impossible to negotiate in the available time. God knows what will happen then.
     
  10. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    605
    Efficiency of nuclear power plants is about 30%-35%

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What about to recover the wasted energy? TEG isn't enough.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    That would be a great solution, but recovering and converting wasted energy usually takes energy.
    I did read that old smelters could be converted into energy storage units, for recapturing energy loss of physical electrical power lines.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    To review - I said "Good for them. A combination of nuclear (for baseline power) natural gas (for peaking) and renewables (for the bulk of our energy) is a good plan."

    Building more nuclear reactors is PART OF going to a combination of nuclear (for baseline power) natural gas (for peaking) and renewables (for the bulk of our energy)
    Probably true. All we can do is make sure we are headed in the right direction.
    No one is better at blaming other people than republicans.
    They made a pretty good target for Trump.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    True of low temperature reactors. Fortunately the fuel is cheap (per kwhr generated.)
    Sure. You just run into Carnot limits pretty quickly.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    If it is.
    If it's not, then it isn't - it's just building nukes as part of some other plan, which would mean incurring the heavy expense and high risks of nukes without even that marginal benefit.
    Which so far we are not, at least not in the building nukes aspect. Without the "bulk from renewables" aspect all the plans are bad, and building nukes is building liabilities.
    Not so far, and what's going to change? China does not make a good target for warmongering by Trump - he won't get backing from the war profiteers, or the military, or the corporate interests involved.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    Yes, it is.
    A world in which most energy comes from nuclear is better than a world in which most energy comes from coal - so if we can build more nuclear we should. Most energy from renewables would be better still, of course.
    The right wing has always needed a good enemy to create fear. In the 1960's and 1970's it was Russia. They are now the right's bestest buddies after helping Trump win, of course; fortunately, the evil, terrorist Muslims and the rapist Mexicans are good replacements for them. They can switch to China just as quickly.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    I don't see the "bulk from renewables" part.
    Maybe, maybe not.

    That depends on 1) the absolute amount of energy they are fractions of 2) nukes replacing coal - rather than replacing other stuff.

    Nukes are very high cost, among the costs are the very high risks.

    It's quite possible a world in which the nuke money was spent on conservation and efficiency improvements and coal was still the core energy source would be better off - including less coal burned - than one in which nukes provided most of the energy.
    Unlikely. Too much of a financial hit for the warmongers, too dangerous for the military, etc.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    Agreed on #2. Fortunately the trajectory in per-capita energy use in developed countries is downward, as appliances, vehicles, industrial processes, lighting and HVAC becomes more efficient. There will be a challenge in developing countries, because per-capita energy use rises dramatically as standards-of-living rise. That's why it is important (IMO) to be pushing to source those energy needs from renewables and nuclear, rather than coal.
    Yes they are. You pay a lot for that cleaner power.
    While I agree, in the world we are in now, there is a tremendous amount of money being spent on conservation and efficiency improvements. Thus, in the world we are in now, making sure that new sources of baseline energy are nuclear rather than coal is important.
    The first is a rational consideration, the second is an argument from compassion. The right wing has never been strong on either one.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    Per capita trends are not key. Total fossil fuel combustion is the key.
    And they have a hard time handling nukes. Their risk premium is much higher than even the risk premium of the developed countries.
    The question is where the increase should go - where's the biggest marginal gain from the next dollars.
    Sinking them into such high cost, politically centralized, and risky alternatives as nukes seems to need serious justification, rather than happy talk about some as yet vague future where the "bulk" of the power is coming from "renewables" unspecified and radically underfunded in comparison.

    So, for example, if the question is how to get off coal, and fossil fuel generally, we have a distinct possibility that the money spent on nukes would be better spent on conservation and and efficiency improvements first, the "renewables" second, and nukes get the leftovers.
    I did not mean to mislead - the "danger" aspect is not one of compassion, but military assessment. The Pentagon - one of the warmongering power centers involved - does not want to make war on China, because China is too dangerous a military power.

    Meanwhile, Trump has something like 125 marques registered in China - not as substantial as his interests in Russia, but not chicken feed either.

    None of the warmongering factions in the US gain, even short term, by war with China. So that probably isn't much of a possibility, is my guess.

    On the other hand, China is among the countries apt to generate large numbers of climate refugees - and to the immediate north there is no ocean, no mountain range, no real physical barrier at all.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,757
    They are if you want to predict where energy usage within a country will go.
    We have already hit the point of diminishing returns there.

    There was a lot of low hanging fruit in efficiency. Incandescent bulbs were hideously inefficient (2-5%); they were replaced by CFL's which were more efficient (around 15%.) They in turn were replaced by LED's. Very good LED's are now about 45% efficient. You are not going to reach 100% - which means that you are going to spend more and more for less and less improvement in efficiency. At that point your only option is to live with less light.

    Motor drives - compressor based refrigeration - computing - heating - those are also getting pretty close to their theoretical limits. (And of course, resistance heating has already reached its theoretical limit.) All of that means you can't tell India "don't build any more power plants; just use less!" Just not practical. You need new sources.

    I agree. But you do not need to make war on someone to vilify them in order to create any level of fear. Look how much the USSR was used to that end during the Cold War, even though the Pentagon was well aware that any war with them would be suicide.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,297
    There still is.
    And it only has to be low enough to beat out nukes on a marginal return basis - that's not very low.
    A cold war with China would bankrupt most of the US warmongers, not make them rich as the one with Russia did.

    And in the coming climate change, unless pretty much everyone is wrong, China is going to be dealing with severe internal refugee issues and other destabilizers - not a country you want to be in a state of hostility with.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    Whoever said that may want to reconsider that statement. If temperatures in northern Canada would be like Florida, that same rise in temperature would give Florida a tropical climate and the same temperature rise in the tropics would make those countries uninhabitable.

    Be careful what you wish for.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,839
    Amish do make great cinnamon rolls. They used to come by the hospital I worked for and sell them at a very reasonable price..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,500
    On the brighter side, the growing season is up an average of over 25 days in the western USA, and up 15 days from it's low about a century ago.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Add in extension of double cropping in the northern parts of China, and cropping at higher altitudes in Kazakhstan.

    conclusions?
     

Share This Page