Why global warming would be good for us

[Harv]

But, it's energetically cheaper to just deliver electrons to a battery that to use electrons to convert elements into hydrocarbon chains.

It is interesting that you understand this.

 

[Borachio]

Well, you've caught me out. I don't really know either. It is incredibly easy to get a petrol engine to run on methane though. So it doesn't strike me as especially more difficult to do the same with hydrogen. (Though it may be vastly more difficult for all I know).

What's striking though is that storing gas in a tank is a remarkably simple technology and it's that kind of thing that's easily transferrable from petrol (I mean gasoline I suppose but I can't help myself) stations. Unlike recharging a battery. Which takes time. Or involves lifting out and replacing the whole weighty battery. And the lifetime of the battery isn't likely to be more than three years in any case. So, electrically driven cars, although it seems the easier and simpler option, may not turn out that way.

If you see what I mean.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is interesting that you understand this.

I actively follow the energy discussion as a layman. I think that cheap, abundant energy is a key component to ongoing human prosperity, and I think that fossil carbon addiction is a potential avenue by which human progress can be derailed.

 

[LoneRebel]

MURICA.

Methinks this is a pretty clear case of Poe's Law in action. Yawn. Anyway, if Russians are allowed to proclaim that global warming will be good for them (I guess they don't care about all the tropical countries), then why shouldn't Americans be allowed to do the same?

 

[Harv]

I actively follow the energy discussion as a layman. I think that cheap, abundant energy is a key component to ongoing human prosperity, and I think that fossil carbon addiction is a potential avenue by which human progress can be derailed.

So you are worried that our current economic boom, caused by the abundance of cheap carbon fuel, runs out of gas before we develop an alternative technology - and we go back to the stone age.

Whoever figures out how to turn body-fat into gasoline will become very rich.

There are a couple things wrong with those figures; primarly that using all the energy reaching the surface will take out reflection out of the picture and therefore lead to severe global warming (several dozens of degrees).

Uh, I did not follow this. How much is "several dozens of degrees?" Also, if we somehow used every watt that hits the Earth's surface without converting it back to heat, (which is impossible) wouldn't this drastically cool the Earth's surface? (to absolute zero - which again is impossible)

So, yes, I did not specify how much of the energy that reaches the Earth's surface can be converted to usable energy. I was giving a number to compare to current energy production.

Here is another number based on my flawed numbers:

127500 TJ/s - solar power reaching Earth's surface
2780 US Dollars per TJ (I converted 1 cent per kWh)
86400 seconds per day
365 days per year

11200 Trillion dollars. So if 1% of that is usable energy, that would be 112 Trillion dollars. It makes me think of a Civ4 quote:

I will make electricity so cheap only the rich will burn candles.

-Thomas Edison

 

[Borachio]

Uh, I did not follow this. How much is "several dozens of degrees?" Also, if we somehow used every watt that hits the Earth's surface without converting it back to heat, (which is impossible) wouldn't this drastically cool the Earth's surface? (to absolute zero - which again is impossible)

Well, no. I think you've forgotten the heat generated by the Earth's core.

There are three main sources:

(1) heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost;
(2) frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet; and
(3) heat from the decay of radioactive elements.
​

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-earths-core-so/

Still, there you go. How significant that might be in stopping the Earth's surface cooling to absolute zero, I wouldn't like to hazard.

 

[strijder20]

Uh, I did not follow this. How much is "several dozens of degrees?" Also, if we somehow used every watt that hits the Earth's surface without converting it back to heat, (which is impossible) wouldn't this drastically cool the Earth's surface? (to absolute zero - which again is impossible)

You can't use every watt without converting it back to heat - as you said, it is impossible. Much of the energy you'd absorb in solar panels and then use as electricity would end up as heat. Of the rest, a substantial amount would be movement and light, which would also end up as heat eventually. This means covering the earth in solar panels and using the electricity would be a much more efficient way to convert sunlight to heat than the current albedo.

Several dozens of degrees was a rough estimate; I suppose the Earth would warm somewhere between a hundred and two hundred degrees if we'd do that (convert all sunlight to heat).

 

[Borachio]

127500 TJ/s - solar power reaching Earth's surface
2780 US Dollars per TJ (I converted 1 cent per kWh)
86400 seconds per day
365 days per year

What's happening with your calculation, though?

The World's Energy consumption is currently standing at 150,000 Tera Watt Hours per Year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[8] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

That's an awful lot of energy, imo.

How do I get from EJ per year to Watt Hours per year?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, impossible except for energy consumed in the creation of projects that create a 'permanent' potential energy store, but yeah.

Of course, any energy used through fossil fuels has the same issue and will generate the same amount of heat. This is a major component of the 'Puppeteer' civilization in the Ringworld saga

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The Entire Opening Post

This is really some top trolling. Carefully teetering on the knife edge of plausibility. Full marks.

 

[Ajidica]

I do not deny that carbon-free technologies can be profitable. However, taxing corporations and then subsequently using that tax money to provide subsidies for otherwise insolvent 'green energy' is hurting our economy, as we'd be better off using the most profitable energy form.

Are you objecting to the tax, subsidy, or both?
Assuming the tax is well structured, it serves a valuable role in correcting a market failure caused by negative externalities. That is, since there is no market for disposing of waste in air, a negative externality emerges. Barring Star Trek level technology to somehow create a 'clean air market', taxation on emissions remains the most effective way to address that market failure. (Permits also works fine, so long as the permit market is perfectly competitive.)

Governments have since the advent of capitalism tried to limit the market freedom, to lock up resources with protectionism and to attain monopolies in certain sectors. Only a major crisis, which floods, hurricanes and droughts can provide, is able to substantially and immediately weaken government grasp over resources.

I dunno. I would say the evidence for that assertion is mixed at best.

I'm stating the facts. It is known that capital generates capital, and that therefore one requires capital in the first place to attain further wealth. Crisises like predicted will devastate the 'small capital' entrepreneurs in the third world; this allows the 'large capital' entrepreneurs, who are protected by the large scale of their wealth and the relative unaffectedness of their homes, to step in and further generate profits and increase efficiency.

However, you neglect to mention that many of the resourced used in production comes from the "Third World". Their loss of capital and ensuing disruptions would certainly cause the input costs for "large capital" firms to skyrocket. Nevermind the shocks caused by refugee crises as sea levels rise in low lying areas of Bangladesh and India.

My post isn't controversial; nothing I have said has been refuted so far, only cast in doubt for 'moral' reasons. I also did not use any numbers; I merely claim that relatively global warming is benefiting the West.

Not quite. What you are saying is that in the short run, a failure to address global climate change benefits more developed countries. However, long run, that doesn't work out.

 

[onejayhawk]

Hmm. The beauty of hydrogen, though, is that it's easy enough to convert existing internal combustion technology to use it, while the drawbacks of battery technology may prove intractable.

No. It isn't. The engine itself is simple enough, but safe fuel storage is difficult.

J

 

[Lohrenswald]

How do I get from EJ per year to Watt Hours per year?

One watt is one joule per second (unless I misremember horribly).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I hate to crash this party, but the primary source of hydrogen production is from fossil fuels. Producing it by electrolysis from water, which is the relevant technology when someone says "hey, H2O, there's hydrogen everywhere", consumes a whole lot of power. So switching internal combustion engines to hydrogen fuel doesn't really solve the problem even if it did work.

 

[CavLancer]

So who in your opinion does global cooling help/hurt?

 

[Borachio]

No. It isn't. The engine itself is simple enough, but safe fuel storage is difficult.

J

I don't know so much. It's pretty straight forward to compress hydrogen, like any other gas. And the dangers posed if you rupture the tank aren't significantly more than if you rupture a tank of petrol. Both are going to give you a bit of a bang, if there's a source of ignition. And there usually is in a road traffic accident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2840735/Honda-shows-new-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-Vehicle-sale-2016-looks-like-s-escaped-sci-fi-film.html

Still, that Honda is a fuel cell thingy, so what do I know? Maybe you're right after all.

 

[CavLancer]

The fuel cell is so the 1% can sell us water.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=home+made+hydrogen+car

Who's Killing the Hydrogen Car? I don't know if this is real but it would be nice if it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GDjVskYIs

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't know so much. It's pretty straight forward to compress hydrogen, like any other gas. And the dangers posed if you rupture the tank aren't significantly more than if you rupture a tank of petrol. Both are going to give you a bit of a bang, if there's a source of ignition. And there usually is in a road traffic accident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2840735/Honda-shows-new-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-Vehicle-sale-2016-looks-like-s-escaped-sci-fi-film.html

Still, that Honda is a fuel cell thingy, so what do I know? Maybe you're right after all.

It is easy to compress hydrogen, but hard to keep it that way. It is extremely slippery. A breach is much more dangerous than a spill. Since it is already a gas, the danger of explosion is orders of magnitude higher. It also produces an invisible flame. Lung searing is very possible.

Fuel cell electric cars are easy. There are two main issues. The first is the cost of the catalyst. Platinum is by far the best, but prohibitively expensive. Much research has been done to find a cheaper substitute and a more efficient interface configuration. The other big issue is a safe way to store the hydrogen. It is still in the test car stage.

J

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Ignoring the super-villain-theme of turning the climate into a weapon to weaken other countries - even if this worked out and the USA or the USA and Europe gained in relative strength - would they also gain in absolute strength?
Nowadays, the USA and Europe seem to depend on other countries doing economically well to do so themselves. So it is easy to see how even if it was true that they would be more dominant due to climate change, they could still overall loose.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's what I was saying about understanding 'comparative advantage' (which would probably take about 20 minutes of youtubing to grasp), the more wealthy your trade partners are, the more wealthy you end up being.