Climate in the 21st Century

Maybe Elon will save humanity after all by lowering the cost of launching shit into space. This could only be a temporary stopgap solution to buy us time, but lower launch costs appear to increase its feasibility.

DIY-HP-LED said:

An Astronomer’s Solution to Global Warming

The technology developed for telescopes, it turns out, can harness solar power

www.smithsonianmag.com

How a giant space umbrella could stop global warming

Our rapidly warming world could cause serious problems for civilisation in the decades to come. But could a giant space umbrella help cool down our planet? Zaria Gorvett investigates.

www.bbc.com

Click to expand...

And how does this article where he talks about operating in Arizona, have anything to do with space based system?

DIY-HP-LED said:

Ask Ethan: Could We Just Build A 'Space Sunshade' To Counteract Global Warming?

The Earth is warming, and humans aren't doing nearly enough to combat it. Could partially blocking the sunlight be the solution?

www.forbes.com

Click to expand...

"However, both of these potential solutions have some drawbacks: they're very expensive and the solution is temporary. We have experience launching objects to L1, as the majority of our Sun-observing satellites are located there. But it's very difficult to send large quantities of mass to space, and that's what would be required here. If we considered the lighter proposal of a series of thin film circles, with each one just 1/5000th of an inch this and weighing just 1 gram, that would still add up to ~20 million tonnes of mass."

Whereas satellites launched to L4 or L5 will be in stable orbits that can last for aeons, satellites launched to L1, L2 or L3 are in quasi-stable orbits. Without any intervention, even with ideal orbital insertion, they will drift away and out of their ideal positions on timescales of just a few years. The only way to maintain them is to either:

• boost them, which requires outfitting them with self-propulsion technologies,
• service them, requiring maintenance launches to go up and re-adjust their orbits,
• or to simply replace them, meaning that we'd need to continuously launch new ones to replace the ones that drift away.

It would be a remarkable feat if we could counteract global climate change with a one-time investment in space, but due to the way gravitation works, even the idea of blocking sunlight before it arrives will require enormous ongoing investments in maintenance."

Your own article says it is pie in the sky.

husita said:

What can one small country do, when all is sabotaged by leading country-Germany, closing their nuclear plants and shifting to gas and even coal when needed. Greanpeace fight against nuclear energy in past 30 years seems to be the main reason we will not have enough clear energy sources in EU.
It´s time to face it, nothing can stop planet heating for 4-6°C average in two hundred years. There is no cheaper energy source than coal and oil for developing countries. What are we gonna say them-stop developing? All accesable fosil resources will be used, probably some methane hydrates as well. Mankind is addicted to fosil fuels and cheap energy, we have to be ready for changes about to come.

Click to expand...

maybe we could help them develop some green alternatives, give them low cost loans for solar and wind equipment, give them technical assistance...?

printer said:

And how does this article where he talks about operating in Arizona, have anything to do with space based system?



"However, both of these potential solutions have some drawbacks: they're very expensive and the solution is temporary. We have experience launching objects to L1, as the majority of our Sun-observing satellites are located there. But it's very difficult to send large quantities of mass to space, and that's what would be required here. If we considered the lighter proposal of a series of thin film circles, with each one just 1/5000th of an inch this and weighing just 1 gram, that would still add up to ~20 million tonnes of mass."

Whereas satellites launched to L4 or L5 will be in stable orbits that can last for aeons, satellites launched to L1, L2 or L3 are in quasi-stable orbits. Without any intervention, even with ideal orbital insertion, they will drift away and out of their ideal positions on timescales of just a few years. The only way to maintain them is to either:

• boost them, which requires outfitting them with self-propulsion technologies,
• service them, requiring maintenance launches to go up and re-adjust their orbits,
• or to simply replace them, meaning that we'd need to continuously launch new ones to replace the ones that drift away.

It would be a remarkable feat if we could counteract global climate change with a one-time investment in space, but due to the way gravitation works, even the idea of blocking sunlight before it arrives will require enormous ongoing investments in maintenance."

Your own article says it is pie in the sky.

Click to expand...

There are other solutions proposed and Angel has several, it is not my idea and has been proposed by several scientists. It would only be a stop gap measure IMO, if a feasible method was found. Keeping it at L1 and controlling it are engineering issues as would be the choice of methods. It is something that is being studied and might produce a temporary solution until we can reduce carbon and methane. I favor it more personally than fucking with the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight, but we might have to do something until we can lower carbon output and perhaps capture and sequester it. We might have to employ a variety of solutions and one of them could be reducing the solar energy warming the earth as we strive to lower carbon output. The way I see it the choices are to deflect it in space or reflect it from the atmosphere, if such a solution is employed.

DIY-HP-LED said:

There are other solutions proposed and Angel has several, it is not my idea and has been proposed by several scientists. It would only be a stop gap measure IMO, if a feasible method was found. Keeping it at L1 and controlling it are engineering issues as would be the choice of methods. It is something that is being studied and might produce a temporary solution until we can reduce carbon and methane. I favor it more personally than fucking with the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight, but we might have to do something until we can lower carbon output and perhaps capture and sequester it. We might have to employ a variety of solutions and one of them could be reducing the solar energy warming the earth as we strive to lower carbon output. The way I see it the choices are to deflect it in space or reflect it from the atmosphere, if such a solution is employed.

Click to expand...

Or drive less.

printer said:

Or drive less.

Click to expand...

It is a last resort IMO, but what we are doing might not be enough to arrest global warming sufficiently, but whatever we do, we need to be able to shut it off if it has unexpected undesirable effects, which is why I don't like the idea of fucking with atmospheric reflectivity. Perhaps the next generations of Elon's starlink satellites in low earth orbit could have large reflectors, there will end up being thousands of them. They could use the solar wind to maintain orbit as they orbited the earth. We are gonna end up with tens of thousands of them from different countries and companies in orbit anyway so perhaps they could do the job with a few meters of mylar on each one.

DIY-HP-LED said:

It is a last resort IMO, but what we are doing might not be enough to arrest global warming sufficiently, but whatever we do, we need to be able to shut it off if it has unexpected undesirable effects, which is why I don't like the idea of fucking with atmospheric reflectivity. Perhaps the next generations of Elon's starlink satellites in low earth orbit could have large reflectors, there will end up being thousands of them. They could use the solar wind to maintain orbit as they orbited the earth. We are gonna end up with tens of thousands of them from different countries and companies in orbit anyway so perhaps they could do the job with a few meters of mylar on each one.

Click to expand...

The article that you linked to said the area equivalent to the moon.

printer said:

The article that you linked to said the area equivalent to the moon.

Click to expand...

There are several proposed schemes some involve small reflectors and some giant ones, more no doubt will be proposed as the problems become more acute. I dunno how much more we can do or how fast we can do it, but it takes time to roll out EVs, renewables and energy storage, but it has to make economic sense before it happens. We have to have alternatives and can't go back to medieval peasantry, unless our global civilization collapses, but even then "back to the land" is not an option and neither are woodstoves for heating and cooking. It looks like we can have a green future, the technological solutions are either at hand or close at hand for much of it, but we might also have to buy time using other methods until we get there. Even if we went to zero carbon by next year, it might not be enough as we have blown through warming targets already and climate change is not a process that can be stopped on a dime, or even in a decade or two.

Some more on space-based mitigation of climate change. We are supposed to have a base on the moon in the next few years and perhaps making shit and launching it from there could be a solution, it is much cheaper to launch from the moon than earth. An electromagnetic mass driver could launch many tons into space from the moon rapidly for little cost once constructed. Mitigating climate change might end up being our main reason for having a base on the moon. We are supposed to go back in 2024, followed by a sustained presence on the Moon by 2028.

Lunar escape velocity is 2.4km/s or about 5,300 mph, so only a short mass driver up the side of a lunar mountain would be required to electrically launch a lot of mass off the lunar surface to a predetermined place in space where it could be intercepted like a long string of machine gun bullets. If it was at the lunar poles, it could operate continuously using solar power.


3.4: Space based sun-shades

Somewhat less attention has been paid to a space-based sun-shade. The most popular version of the idea, appears to be a version by Roger Angel proposing to deliver sun shades to the L1 Lagrange Point, a point which remains at a constant relative position in between the Earth and Sun as they orbit. Angel’s paper proposes three things:

These things are not a solution, at best, if feasible, they are a stop gap to buy us time, the solution is to get our environment back into balance and keep it that way.

DIY-HP-LED said:

These things are not a solution, at best, if feasible, they are a stop gap to buy us time, the solution is to get our environment back into balance and keep it that way.

In Case of Climate Emergency: Deploying Space Bubbles To Block Out the Sun

“Space Bubbles” – The Deflection of Solar Radiation Using Thin-Film Inflatable Bubble Rafts An interdisciplinary group of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is exploring a space-based solar shield to reduce incoming radiation on Earth’s surface—hence combatting climate change.

scitechdaily.com

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what we'll end up doing, but whatever it is will only be a stop gap measure, until we change our habits across almost all industries.
That is the only way to stop the wave we've started, that can and may wash us all away.

DIY-HP-LED said:

... the solution is to get our environment back into balance and keep it that way.

Click to expand...

I would like to see international authorities, maybe UN, to run an aquarium together for about 3 years. Then they could think of something more sophisticated like keeping planets environment in balance.


I´m not saying "do nothing, we are doomed" or "will be O.K.", I´m saying people of earth have so many different interests, so nothing realy worthfull will be done. Be ready for changes on individual level, do your part as much as you can and do not promote chiliasm.

Sativied said:

A common argument from the irrational side of the spectrum, far right.

Instead, how can one small country exercise influence on the rest if it doesn’t set a good example itself first. It would be like complaining about a neighbor’s trashy garden while using your own backyard as a garbage dump, i.e. hypocritical.

Plus, we’ve been brainwashed by a government commercial in the 90s, “a better environment starts with yourself”. Every little bit helps.

Entirely agree with your comment about Germany but then the circumstances changed and they have learned it was a dumb move that cost them more than they were trying to save. Instead of aiming for 100% renewables in 2050 they moved it to 2035. Germany is definitely not the one not playing ball.

You’re giving too much credit to Greenpeace and way too little to the anti-nuclear movement in Germany that led to their Green Party as well as the catastrophes in Chernobyl and Fukushima. NL will build two new ones before 2035 and despite my donations to greenpeace I do not oppose.

Click to expand...

Sorrry, don´t know what do you mean by far right. It´s so messy, american conzervatives, nazis, anarchocapitalists?

Yes, to set up a good example is the right way, is mass electromobility this right example? I don´t think so, it´s highly demanding on natural resources, copper for example and transportation is not a key thing in this all.

Antinuclear movement is far older than Fukusima and is even stronger in Austria. When Fukusima ocured, all EU plants had sefety checks and there was no reason to close any. It was political decision and not based on facts, but feelings. That´s just stupid.

husita said:

Sorrry, don´t know what do you mean by far right. It´s so messy, american conzervatives, nazis, anarchocapitalists?

Yes, to set up a good example is the right way, is mass electromobility this right example? I don´t think so, it´s highly demanding on natural resources, copper for example and transportation is not a key thing in this all.

Antinuclear movement is far older than Fukusima and is even stronger in Austria. When Fukusima ocured, all EU plants had sefety checks and there was no reason to close any. It was political decision and not based on facts, but feelings. That´s just stupid.

Click to expand...

Nothing messy about who and what is far right, especially if you understand the concept of context.

EVs requiring resources like anything else humans create is another argument typical from the rural and populistic far right. It’s like not giving up on mountain dew in favor of fruit juice cause there’s still sugar in that too. Irrational (read: dumb) and disqualifies them from participating in adult conversations about solving the problems that have to be solved.

Yes, the anti-nuclear movement is older than Fukushima - nobody claimed otherwise - it’s also older than greenpeace in europe.

Transport is 25% of CO2 emission in europe, thus not including nitrogen. It’s a key part of reducing emission levels, goal is 90% reduction on transport alone.

In the US transport is 29% of total emission and is the largest contributor.

Facts matter. Anything that uses fossil fuel while there are cleaner alternatives has to be addressed. Don’t let the impossible perfect stand in the way of the good.

I can see the right boycotting the grid in Texas! They are going solar and woke! Kerosene lamps will make a comeback because sacrifices have to be made for the "cause"!

The poor assholes can't shop, eat out at restaurants or drink most brands of beer, and now this! Boycott themselves right into the grave.

Sativied said:

Nothing messy about who and what is far right, especially if you understand the concept of context.

EVs requiring resources like anything else humans create is another argument typical from the rural and populistic far right. It’s like not giving up on mountain dew in favor of fruit juice cause there’s still sugar in that too. Irrational (read: dumb) and disqualifies them from participating in adult conversations about solving the problems that have to be solved.

Yes, the anti-nuclear movement is older than Fukushima - nobody claimed otherwise - it’s also older than greenpeace in europe.

Transport is 25% of CO2 emission in europe, thus not including nitrogen. It’s a key part of reducing emission levels, goal is 90% reduction on transport alone.

In the US transport is 29% of total emission and is the largest contributor.

Facts matter. Anything that uses fossil fuel while there are cleaner alternatives has to be addressed. Don’t let the impossible perfect stand in the way of the good.

Click to expand...

Far right is a sticker, for media in CZ it´s almost everything, neonazis, skinheds, even fascists: ). Left and right is useless concept.
EV requires 6 times more rare mineral metals, don´t care if it´s argument of rednecks, it´s just true and we have to deal with it. We both are from rich countries and will be using EV´s, but doesn´t seem it´s a solution for whole world.
Greenpeace have done lot of good, about nuclear energy they are just 30 years wrong, we could be much further, pitty. Not sure about GMO´s.
Actually surprised about share of transport emissions, thought its much less. In EU it´s about 1,87% of whole world emissions, which is quite a lot.

"Facts matter....Don’t let the impossible perfect stand in the way of the good" - agree.

Next car i will buy for my company will probably be EV, makes a good mix with fosil fueled cars. But I could not completely relly on EV in present state of technology. Looking forvard future.

Solar prices are falling even more and other countries are starting to make them too, then there are the recent breakthroughs in perovskite solar cells that increase their longevity, lower their costs and increase their efficiency. The only thing missing is cheap energy storage and that should arrive in a variety of forms pretty soon.

Prices falling as demand increases is unusual, it is often the other way around. Solar is the cheapest form of power generation now and it is about to get much cheaper. Solar can also take advantage of long-distance high voltage DC power transmission and cities on the east coast can be powered by solar farms in the Midwest during peak power demand in the early evening.


World's Largest Solar Manufacturer Is Fueling a Price War

(Bloomberg) -- The world’s largest solar manufacturer slashed prices for a key component as growing capacity in the sector intensifies cost competition.

Chinese company Longi Green Energy Technology Co. cut wafer prices by as much as 31% on Monday. Wafers are silicon squares that are wired up and pieced together to form solar panels.

The reduction comes after solar silicon prices have plunged by almost half since early February. A slew of new factories have ramped up production, ending a shortage of the material that disrupted the industry’s supply chain last year.

Longi President Li Zhenguo warned last week that aggressive expansion in the solar supply chain could lead to excess capacity that forces more than half the companies in the industry out of business in the next few years.

Longi shares fell as much as 2% in Shanghai on Tuesday. Shares of TCL Zhonghuan Renewable Energy Technology Co., its top competitor in the wafer space, were little changed in Shenzhen.