OP
Gale Hawkins
Super Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,268
- Location
- Murray, KY
- Tractor
- 1948 Allis Chambers Model B 1976 265 MF / 1983 JD 310B Backhoe / 1966 Ford 3000 Diesel / 1980 3600 Diesel
Energy expenses over time should go the same way as our long distance telephone expenses.That would have been really promising 30 years ago. I don't see how the infrastructure can be built out in time to do this generation any good. The chrome domes project we only have about a decade to stabilize atmospheric CO2 if we want to hold global temperature rise below 2.5 degrees C. We're already at 1.8.
I don't see it happening. EVs would be a great step, if we had a carbon neutral way of charging them. We don't. We have made incremental progress by converting coal power generation to natural gas, but every molecule of methane still has one carbon.
They have done some nice work on high temperature electrolysis. If solar panel prices keep dropping 25% a year, hydrogen may be a practical storage medium; electrolyze while the sun shines, feed hydrogen through turbines when it doesn't. I don't see nuclear or geothermal bailing us out any time soon. Wind is a nice paycheck for farmers where it's windy, but it's unreliable in the absence of long distance electrical transmission lines, which nobody is building.
It's hard to know where to place our bets. The critical property of energy is that it has to be cheap to maintain our standard of living in an industrial society. If energy expenses rise rapidly, it's going to make a mess out of the economy.
Below Gregg covers the 3 cycles that impact global temperature based on ice core data samples. Pay attention what occurs historical after every period of high CO2 levels.