The Reef Ain't Dead

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well bar 1 out of 15 all my boats have been 20yrs old plus.. so third, fourth and even ninth hand.. its called recycling.. Digging in a kitchen garden I can and have done.. walking to the office (apart from offices having zero appeal) would be crazy when I have a mountain bike..

Actually that would be reuse if we want to be picky. Much better that recycling

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Way to nurse an 11 yr old AND often disproven meme. Fyi, such conspiracy theories were getting more love in the covid threads, if you're hoping for a more receptive audience.

Told ya so!

[SailOar]

Gravity Energy Storage Will Show Its Potential in 2021

Pumped hydro storage, where water is pumped to a higher elevation and then run back through a turbine to generate electricity, has long dominated the energy-storage landscape. But pumped hydro requires some very specific geography—two big reservoirs of water at elevations with a vertical separation that’s large, but not too large. So building new sites is difficult.

Energy Vault, Gravity Power, and their competitors seek to use the same basic principle—lifting a mass and letting it drop—while making an energy-storage facility that can fit almost anywhere. At the same time they hope to best batteries—the new darling of renewable-energy storage—by offering lower long-term costs and fewer environmental issues.

In action, Energy Vault’s towers are constantly stacking and unstacking 35-metric-ton bricks arrayed in concentric rings. Bricks in an inner ring, for example, might be stacked up to store 35 megawatt-hours of energy. Then the system’s six arms would systematically disassemble it, lowering the bricks to build an outer ring and discharging energy in the process....

Piconi sees several advantages over batteries. Advantage No. 1 is environmental. Instead of chemically reactive and difficult-to-recycle lithium-ion batteries, Energy Vault’s main expenditure is the bricks themselves, which can be made on-site using available dirt and waste material mixed with a new polymer from the Mexico-based cement giant Cemex.

Another advantage, according to Piconi, is the lower operating expense, which the company calculates to be about half that of a battery installation with equivalent storage capacity. Battery-storage facilities must continually replace cells as they degrade. But that’s not the case for Energy Vault’s infrastructure....

Gravitricity plans to pull one or just a few much heavier weights up and down abandoned, kilometer-deep mine shafts.

These great masses, each one between 500 and 5,000 metric tons, need only move at mere centimeters per second to produce megawatt-level outputs. Using a single weight lends itself to applications that need high power quickly and for a short duration, such as dealing with second-by-second fluctuations in the grid and maintaining grid frequency. Multiple-weight systems would be more suited to storing more energy and generating for longer periods....

New Energy Let’s Go are also looking underground for energy storage, but they are more closely inspired by pumped hydro. Instead of storing energy using reservoirs at different elevations, they pump water underground to lift an extremely heavy piston. Allowing the piston to fall pushes water through a turbine to generate electricity....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

You can see my numbers, so you know I am (~5% of you).

I had a minor typo - I meant this thread in CF. People have been pretty darn good in this thread. Your post raised 'race', 'religion', and 'politics'.

I politely asked you not to.

Not exactly a minor typo since I was obviously referring to the record of all these threads, many of whom have a similar cast of characters who frequently post. I've never raised it, nor would I ever find it relevant. But it has been raised countless times by L-E and others as a lame substitute for actual debate on the relevant topic. So like your misuse of the denier label, there's nothing trivial about using these terms to attempt to vilify people for their otherwise sincere opinions over CC. It's classic identity politics at its worst, behavior which I think we would actually agree should be challenged. Suggesting culpability on my part makes about as much sense as accusing Jackdale of being a denier.

Btw, I believe you may have misunderstood GordMay's recent post about the carbon footprint of homeless people in the US. Either that or I did.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But it has been raised countless times by L-E and others as a lame substitute for actual debate on the relevant topic.

FOR THE RECORD, yes I have in past raised the fact that the majority of us on CF are some combination of white, western, male, middle-aged or older... and I'd hope that 'well-off' is a given, since just about all of us here can afford to own and use boats. Also a lot of Americans.

I have, in times past, pointed to these obvious demographic facts to help explain why so many on here lean to the right politically, and hence are often skeptical of AGW or its potential impact, a view very much proven to be more prevalent on the right, especially in the US. I did so to make my point that this anti-AGW position, for many people, is a tribal one - a view transmitted and encouraged via right-wing echo chambers. And so the viewpoint is often one of dogma, not of reason.

Am I wrong? Yet mentioning this used to drive Exile nuts. Hasn't got over it, apparently.

Religion - One of Exile's scientific heroes is a self-declared Creationist. I've stated that I have no problem with that scientist's work within his scientific speciality. I still think that his religious outlook makes his opinion on more 'existential' things like the potential harm from AGW more open to questioning.

There, Lester, you're up to speed. Have I missed anything, Exile?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not exactly a minor typo since I was obviously referring to the record of all these threads, many of whom have a similar cast of characters who frequently post. I've never raised it, nor would I ever find it relevant. But it has been raised countless times by L-E and others as a lame substitute for actual debate on the relevant topic. So like your misuse of the denier label, there's nothing trivial about using these terms to attempt to vilify people for their otherwise sincere opinions over CC. It's classic identity politics at its worst, behavior which I think we would actually agree should be challenged. Suggesting culpability on my part makes about as much sense as accusing Jackdale of being a denier.

Well, I tried to encourage ratcheting it down a bit. Oh well...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

lean to the right left politically, and hence are often skeptical of alarmist about AGW or its potential impact, a view very much proven to be more prevalent on the right left , especially in the US. I did so to make my point that this anti-AGW alarmist position, for many people, is a tribal one - a view transmitted and encouraged via right left-wing echo chambers. And so the viewpoint is often one of dogma, not of reason.

Am I wrong?

Not with the modifications above

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

FOR THE RECORD, yes I have in past raised the fact that the majority of us on CF are some combination of white, western, male, middle-aged or older... and I'd hope that 'well-off' is a given, since just about all of us here can afford to own and use boats. Also a lot of Americans.

I have, in times past, pointed to these obvious demographic facts to help explain why so many on here lean to the right politically, and hence are often skeptical of AGW or its potential impact, a view very much proven to be more prevalent on the right, especially in the US. I did so to make my point that this anti-AGW position, for many people, is a tribal one - a view transmitted and encouraged via right-wing echo chambers. And so the viewpoint is often one of dogma, not of reason.

Am I wrong? Yet mentioning this used to drive Exile nuts. Hasn't got over it, apparently.

Religion - One of Exile's scientific heroes is a self-declared Creationist. I've stated that I have no problem with that scientist's work within his scientific speciality. I still think that his religious outlook makes his opinion on more 'existential' things like the potential harm from AGW more open to questioning.

There, Lester, you're up to speed. Have I missed anything, Exile?

No, nothing. Exactly the same old prejudices, partisan biases, and labels with no explanation about their relevance to the topic at hand. Except this time with some revisionist history thrown in. With no evidence of actual relevance, it is simply proffered as a way to incite and divide, with the inevitable result being thread derailments and closures. There IS a way to discuss peoples' respective disagreements with respect and civility. It likely won't change minds but it may just get people out of their echo chambers and little bubbles of confirmation bias.

[AKA-None]

So back to the gbr and the homeless American. I wonder how much waste heat and co2 comes from all the lights left on all night?

I’ve seen photos of beautiful reefs and photos of dead reefs but I’ve not seen where anyone tried to get the same photos of the same places over time. Do such exist?

[jackdale]

In my experience in these discussions I have learned that two things will not change opinions: one is facts, the other is science. Gord does a great job with both; I admire him for that.

In experience on boats I have learned to puke to leeward. Know which way the wind blows.

That is why most of my time of this thread has been spent lurking. The times I have interjected have pretty much verified my conclusion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, nothing. Exactly the same old prejudices, partisan biases, and labels with no explanation about their relevance to the topic at hand. Except this time with some revisionist history thrown in. With no evidence of actual relevance, it is simply proffered as a way to incite and divide, with the inevitable result being thread derailments and closures. There IS a way to discuss peoples' respective disagreements with respect and civility. It likely won't change minds but it may just get people out of their echo chambers and little bubbles of confirmation bias.

If the last 4 years, and Wednesday Jan 6 in particular, haven't convinced you that the US right wing has had a serious problem with misinformation... then there's no convincing you of anything.

There was more relevance back when those arguments were fresh, when more of those misinformation parrots were squawking here on CF. Many of them have moved on (trolls seldom hang in for a lengthy debate), and a few were disciplined or kicked. Not by my doing, let me hasten to add.

It's encouraging to note that at this time, most of the participants here are more civil, rational, and less prone to constantly regurgitating the denier pablum they were spoonfed. We have both noticed that full-on denial is no longer fashionable. Progress, I guess.

But denial skeptic whack-a-mole is still a feature here. Long-discredited zombie arguments live on. A real, science-based discussion of these important (yet non-cruising ) subjects is still difficult.

See also: covid denial.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If the last 4 years, and Wednesday Jan 6 in particular, haven't convinced you that the US right wing has had a serious problem with misinformation... then there's no convincing you of anything.

There was more relevance back when those arguments were fresh, when more of those misinformation parrots were squawking here on CF. Many of them have moved on (trolls seldom hang in for a lengthy debate), and a few were disciplined or kicked. Not by my doing, let me hasten to add.

It's encouraging to note that at this time, most of the participants here are more civil, rational, and less prone to constantly regurgitating the denier pablum they were spoonfed. We have both noticed that full-on denial is no longer fashionable. Progress, I guess.

But denial skeptic whack-a-mole is still a feature here. Long-discredited zombie arguments live on. A real, science-based discussion of these important (yet non-cruising ) subjects is still difficult.

See also: covid denial.

Nothing to add to my post that you quoted, except more confirmation. Learn some tolerance. Might teach a bit of humility, if not make you less hateful of different types of people you've repeatedly made clear you know nothing about.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So back to the gbr and the homeless American. I wonder how much waste heat and co2 comes from all the lights left on all night?

I’ve seen photos of beautiful reefs and photos of dead reefs but I’ve not seen where anyone tried to get the same photos of the same places over time. Do such exist?

I seem to recall that one of the problems Ridd had with some of the "The Reef is Dead" so called studies was the use of old photos of different reefs to illustrate the before and after of the damaged areas being studied.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Hey GordMay,
If you are trying to imply that reduced carbon footprint = poverty, that is bogus and a straw man argument attempt.
The person burning dried dung to stay warm and cook their food is not going to have a renewable alternative. But I currently heat and cook with natural gas and it is conceivable that I could switch to solar/wind. If developed countries would properly price fossil fuels and their costs, people would migrate away in droves.
Exile is half right about natural gas - it IS an example of how fairly subtle cost changes can induce major changes in behavior. It is NOT anything close to being able get us where we need to be.

I, generally, agree with your comments.
However, the authors of the study [“Leaving our mark”], are saying that Americans use more than twice the carbon energy, as do everyone else, and to a certain extent, it’s largely not in their control.
I suggest you read the study*, but here are some excerpts:

“Whether you live in a cardboard box or a luxurious mansion, whether you subsist on home-grown vegetables or wolf down imported steaks, whether you’re a jet-setter or a sedentary retiree, anyone who lives in the U.S. contributes more than twice as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as the global average an MIT class has estimated.
The class studied the carbon emissions of Americans in a wide variety of lifestyles—from the homeless to multimil-lionaires, from Buddhist monks to soccer moms—and compared them to those of other nations. The somewhat disquieting bottom line is that in the United States, even people with the lowest energy usage account for, on average, more than double the global per-capita carbon emission. And those emissions rise steeply from that mini-mum as people’s income increases.
Regardless of income, there is a certain floor below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop ...

... one major factor is the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States. These basic services--including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military--were allocated equally to everyone in the country in this study ...

... The students looked at the factors within each person's control that might lead to a reduction in carbon output. They found that achieving significant reductions for the most part required drastic changes that would likely be unacceptable to most people. As a result, they said, "this all suggests to us very significant limits to voluntary actions to reduce impacts, both at a personal level and at a national level...

... the biggest factors in most people's lives were the obvious energy-users: housing, transportation and food. "The simple way you get people's carbon use down is to tax it," Gutowski says. "That's a hard pill to swallow--politicians don't like to step up" to support such measures. Absent such national actions, he says, it is important to study "what role consumer choices can play" in lowering the nation's carbon emissions ...”

* “Leaving our mark” ➥ https://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416

The second article, I posted, “The carbon footprint sham: A 'successful, deceptive' PR campaign” , makes a different, but allied, point.
➥ https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-...campaign-sham/

Taken together, one might conclude that the authors are suggesting that individual carbon footprints are just a single component of the problem, and somewhat of an irrelevancy.
This is a conclusion, with which I (mostly) agree.

The third article, on Aramco’s miss-reporting of their carbon emissions, is just an interesting aside, (perhaps) revealing my personal distaste for huge corporations.

[GordMay]

FWIW:
Renewables outstrip fossil fuels as the EU’s main source of power
Renewable sources such as wind and solar generated 38 percent of the 27-member bloc’s electricity in 2020, with fossil fuels such as coal and gas contributing 37 percent, the report ["The European Power Sector in 2020"] by think-tanks Ember and Agora Energiewende showed.
Denmark achieved the highest proportion of wind and solar power, which contributed 61 percent of its electricity needs in 2020. Ireland achieved 35 percent and Germany 33 percent.
Countries with the lowest share of renewables, below 5 percent, were Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the data showed.
About ➥ https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en...-generation-1/

"The European Power Sector in 2020"
Report ➥ https://static.agora-energiewende.de...ector-2020.pdf