It could be done with Solar and a power grid in a decade. Environmentalist are going to have to give up huge swaths of desert habitat though. Battery storage or wireless power transmission will be the yet unsolved keys.
There is only one solution to AGW. With 10 billion humans, carbon emissions will only increase. Trying to slow it down through most means is an exercise in futility. The is only one solution - fusion power. We have to create a world effort to develop this technology - a 500 billion dollar fund across all nations. Fusion power will solve the energy crisis, remove the middle east as an issue - result in world economic growth on unparelled levels, turn deserts into cornfields, and result in unlimited drinking water. We would be awash in energy - unlimited.
So definitely not the coming decade, right? I don't think batteries or wireless power transmission solve our problem of transmitting that power to somewhere useful without large losses. Also, are these solar panels in the desert self-maintaining? Who is going up there and brushing off the sand and dust? One bad sand storm could wreak some pretty bad havoc on your panels as well.
Here's a fun one: A limitless power source for the indefinite future http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-limitle...paign=6c5e9735ca-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email November 11, 2011 by Amara D. Angelica Space solar power satellite, artist's impression (credit: SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc./Spaceworks Commercial) On Monday, the National Space Society (NSS) will present findings from an eye-opening new report by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA). You’re hearing about this here first. (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the NSS board of directors.) Some background: By 2030–40, the projected annual electrical energy consumption will be a staggering 220 trillion kiloWatt hours, double the consumption in 2010 — and four times more by 2090–2100, according to the International Energy Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. “Economic concerns have diverted attention from energy policy and limited the means of intervention,” the International Energy Agency reports in its 2011 World Energy Outlook. “Post-Fukushima, nuclear is facing uncertainty. MENA [Middle East and North Africa] turmoil raised questions about the region’s investment plans. Some key trends are pointing in worrying directions: CO2 emissions rebounded to a record high, energy efficiency of the global economy worsened for the 2nd straight year, and spending on oil imports is near record highs.” Global energy demand increases in mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) by one-third from 2010 to 2035, with China & India accounting for 50% of the growth (credit: International Energy Agency) The space solar power solution In 2002, Dr. Martin Hoffert, Professor Emeritus of Physics, New York University, proposed a radical solution to what appears to be a serious coming energy shortfall (Science, 2002): space solar power (SSP) — collect energy from space and transmit it wirelessly anywhere in the world. The basic concept, invented in the late 60s by Dr. Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little: a large platform, positioned in space in a high Earth orbit continuously collects and converts solar energy into electricity. This power is then used to drive a wireless power transmission system that transmits the solar energy to receivers on Earth. Because of its immunity to nighttime, to weather or to the changing seasons, the SPS concept. has the potential to achieve much greater energy efficiency than ground based solar power systems. There are significant advantages to SSP compared to ground solar power, according to an NSS statement: solar energy in space is seven times greater per unit area than on the ground, and the collection of solar space energy is not disrupted by nightfall and inclement weather, avoiding the need for expensive energy storage. And it’s especially valuable for isolated areas of the world (parts of Africa and India, for example.) SSP technically feasible in 10–20 years However, so far, the SSP concept has lacked the needed in-depth technology, market, and economic assessment. (I’ve personally been skeptical.) But on Monday Nov. 14 at a press conference (open to the public) at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the National Space Society will announce the findings of an impressive three-year, ten-nation study of space solar power by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), co-chaired by John Mankins, a 25-year NASA veteran who headed NASA’s study of space solar power in the 90s, and Prof. Nobuyuki Kaya, Vice Dean of the Graduate School of Engineering, Kobe University. Its findings include: Space solar power appears to be technically feasible within 10–20 years using technologies existing now in the laboratory; It appears to be economically viable in the next 1–3 decades under several different scenarios for future energy markets, including potential government actions to mediate environment/climate change issues; Low-cost Earth-to-orbit transportation systems appear to be technically feasible during the coming 20–30 years using technologies existing in the laboratory now; Flight experiments are needed, and policy-related and regulatory issues must be resolved. Occupy space “The report gets across one very basic message: in the eyes of the leading experts on aerospace technology worldwide: harvesting solar power in space and transmitting it to earth is no longer science fiction,” says author Howard Bloom in a companion announcement by the Space Development Steering Committee. “It is sound, current-technology-based science fact. And it is a green energy option we can’t ignore. “SSP produces no greenhouse gases. It offers a way out of the trap of climate change. It is supremely sustainable. It can make us a net energy exporter, a position the United States enjoyed until 1951. And, as a National Space Security Office report on space solar power points out, SSP is an energy source that can end our hemorrhage of cash to hostile oil nations and can save us from the trillion dollar budgets of energy wars. No wonder a recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Institute concluded that ‘A successful effort,’ in space solar power ‘could provide unprecedented levels of clean and renewable energy.’” “Without any doubt the components technology for space solar power as well as various system concepts have been developed and tested successfully,” says Dr. Neville I. Marzwell, NASA-JPL Advanced Concepts and Technology Innovation Manager (recently retired). “The next logical steps are the validation of power transmission from space to ground, and power storage at a continuously increasing level to validate the economical analysis and create financial, technical, social, environmental, and political support across the globe. The industrial countries of the world cannot and should not miss this opportunity to meet their energy demand safely while creating financial and job growth.” “We run on energy like Rome ran on slavery,” says Hoffert.”But we’ve hit an economic, energy and environmental wall. Space-based solar power is a technologically ready path over the wall to sustainable high tech civilization on Earth; an ideologically cross-cutting approach encompassing the military-industrial complex and Occupy Wall Street. “It can create real jobs, both near- and long-term in orbital light and power industries of the 21st century much as the NASA’s Apollo Program industrialized the South to produce high tech cars and aircraft today. And of course space-based solar power offers a unique challenge to the U.S. in the spirit of Steve Jobs and Silicon Valley: ‘Don’t tell us the sky’s the limit when our footprints are on the Moon.’” Ref.: John C. Mankins, Editor, Space Solar Power: The First International Assessment of Space Solar Power: Opportunities, Issues and Potential Pathways Forward, International Academy of Astronautics, 2011
Except are you also considering changes in weather patterns that could greatly increase rainfall in some areas while reducing rainfall in others? Another factor is that changes in climate also mean a change in regard to what type of diseases may flourish and what sort of susceptibility crops may have in a different climate. Also consider that a lot of our development is along coastal areas and rising sea levels will damage that development or else require very costly mitigation. Our civilization has developed within a relatively predictable climate range and if that range changes it will be very costly to adapt.
Personally for me I have made many decisions already to reduce my energy usage. If it required me to pay more at the pump I would.
To me it's a non-issue. Because here are the possibilities. 1. It's a myth(good) 2. It's natural and things will eventually cool down in the natural course of things, so we should just adapt(acceptable) 3. It's man-made and scientists come up with alternative energy sources to quickly stop the bleeding.(good) 4. It's man-made we're too late to stop it, in which case I'm not going to spend my time agonizing over it and trying to fruitlessly do my part to stop it(bad but what are you going to do?) 5. It's man-made but people are selfish creatures and don't care about the future(bad but what are you going to do?) Eventually, the human civilization will either be mostly wiped out by the process and we revert to some post-apocalptic movie scenario where few remain. Or mankind will live on like normal. Quite frankly, given how troublesome our overall growth had been in recent years, I'm not sure a reset may even be a bad thing for mankind.
Yeah, in retrospect, not weslinder's finest BBS moment. If warmer air is all you need, deserts should be teaming with life. Agree strongly with Sweet Lou on this one.
First, you say could - nobody knows what weather patterns will do. Climate has and will change - we can't do anything about that. We've seen warmer times than now over the last two thousand years, but haven't seen much change in sea levels. Given the small measured rate of sea level change, I'm confident that we can keep up with 3mm per year. Finally, you mention our civilization. Our civilization has always boomed in warmer times and shrunk in colder times. Warmth has almost always been good for our civilization. The great fear should always be of the coming ice age. If it were possible to avoid that through AGW, I'd be all for it. Sadly, I doubt that it is true.
Deserts are usually in "rain shadows", behind mountains on the lea side of wind patterns. Mountain's lift the air causing it to cool and condense the contained water vapor out of it, raining, and drying it. And it that weren't enough, as the air drops down the other side of the mountain is is compressed and heated (adiabatic heating). From Google: The Gobi Desert lies in the rain shadow of the Himmalayas. The Atacama Desert lies in the rain shadow of the Andes. The Patagonia region lies in the rain shadow of the Andes. Death Valley lies in the rain shadow of the Pacific Coast Ranges of California and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The city of Spokane in the state of Washington lies in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountain Range (Spokane receives little rainfall). Seattle, Washington lies on the windward side of the Cascades (it receives generous amounts of rainfall).
Here's one: Sahara pump theory By around 4200 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today, leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara. The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago. These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory
We'll adapt to regional changes. Life as a whole on the planet prefers a warmer climate than we have today. Mounds of archaeological evidence supports that. People are mobile, life adapts. A warmer planet is a wetter planet. The water cycle works faster at a higher temperature. This has been shown throughout prehistory.
Of course it will but to the extent that we contribute or hasten that change though is something we should be careful about. What we have done for the last 150 years is run an uncontrolled geo-engineering project on the atmosphere and we are only recently understanding what the affects of that are. Except that rise's impact varies quite a bit dependent on where it hits. It might not be very bad in San Francisco but its already serious for places like the Maldives. Also consider that billions are spent protecting the Netherlands now consider how much that will cost to protect many the many cities that lie in low lying areas. Warmth hasn't always been our friend. Consider how much displacement was caused by the Dust Bowl or how just recently how much of a strain on Texas by the record heat this past summer. Further Global Warming doesn't mean that everywhere warms up consistently. One possibility is that some places become much colder such as Western Europe if the Gulf Stream were to be altered. Our civilization doesn't so much depend on warmth but on relatively predictable and stable weather patterns. Our agriculture and water supply depend on those and a major change in weather patterns will have profound affects on our economy and development.
this might get way too off topic, if so just ignore. but for the people who tend to follow the energy/green technology debate/discussion. whats it looking like we're moving towards? does it look like in the next 15-20 years we'll be using solar or something for most of our energy? is it too early to tell?
Life on a whole might prefer a warmer climate but that doesn't mean that the change won't have some big negative impacts for us. Consider the example that Dubious cited above about the Sahara. There is plenty of archeological evidence that a flourishing agricultural civilization existed in the Sahara thousands of years ago. A change in regional climate destroyed that civilization. Global warming though will not wipe out humanity or our civilization but it will be very very costly to adapt to given how we have developed. We aren't nomads that can move to follow pasturage and drinking water. Again though you are just looking at this in terms of global averages. The affects of global warming aren't the same everywhere in the globe. Many places will get wetter many will get drier. Consider how the varied affects of El Nino while it brings it more rain to the US it causes droughts in Australia. Also more precipitation isn't always a good thing when you consider how costly river flooding has been in the Midwest in recent years and also precipitation isn't just rain but increased snow fall which I can tell you first hand is very costly.
I liked your comment in the other thread that warming ocean water won't hurt coral reefs because coral reefs are in warm water.
I don't think a Super Computer could model the changes to climate of a butterfly's wing flap. This stuff will evolve in a million ways we can't predict. Maybe faster than we can believe, like my beach disappearing in Galveston. People will adapt. Life on Earth will adapt. Hell, the continents move if you hang around long enough. Solar, all you need at some semi-decent cost efficiency, achieved by massive scale; collectors for steam generation (and water desalinization), and future invention: http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-limitle...paign=6c5e9735ca-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email
LOL. Who said that? weslinder? It underscores my point. The current species on the planet evolved more or less to our climate range, so monkeying with that in any natural or anthropogenic way risks mass extinctions. We are already in a mass extinction, for what that's worth, according to most people who study these things.
