What are these abbreviations? Atm conc?
We’ve passed 350 ppm of carbon and that’s bad. 1.5c inceease is bad. I’m not going to list how bad, you can look that up. Why are you asking about other numbers?
Willing to bear what risk? Extinction? We are in the middle of the risk portion, we just haven’t realized it yet.
You are underestimating the problem with your use of the term “phase out”, if you do not consider the replacement “phase in” portion of the equation on a worldwide basis.
How will you convince the rest of the world to start replacing their current oil-based economy with a totally clean-energy-based economy?
Are we going to tell the oil-producing countries to stop drilling and pumping oil until it is ALL gone?
Everything must be done within 40 years (1/2 lifetime) or the world will collapse in chaos if we do not have an equally efficient worldwide industrial infrastructure to replace the old one.
Who is “you”. I don’t have power over Saudi Oil Barrons, so I can’t make any of this happen. We, the entire planet, has to work together and our track record on that ain’t great.
I said rise. Willing to bear what rise as in temp rise. Do you have a answer to that?
No, it is not. We have the worlds largest solar power operation in the world in CA. Built with a taxpayer loan of $1.6B. And a taxpayer grant of $500M. Tax credits of 30%. I am talking about the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System.
The system burns a lot of natural gas. Which the Federal government allows to be classified as solar energy.
The pollution problems are: Natural gas consumption. Bird deaths. Dust emissions. Pilots flight glare.
AI Overview – The electricity generated by the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is not considered “cheap” compared to other sources, with estimates placing its cost significantly higher than average, often ranging from $90 to $130 per megawatt hour, which is several times the cost of standard electricity in California.
Solar in California is nowhere near free.
Personally, my viewpoint is that atomic batteries are what you are looking for. They came around about 111 years ago. Used on the moon 55 years ago. I would bet that in the coming decade they will be looked at as a major source of future power possibilities. The time and work being spent on nuclear batteries is increasing and has my interest.
The replacement asap, or stop all industry completely now. Which do you think is the most practical?
Only the manufacture of solar panels requires the use of natural gas TODAY because of our industrial reliance on fossil fuels!
With sufficient solar energy all fossil fuels can be replaced.
Let me remind you of that potentially solar energy delivers more energy than all the fossil fuels used today.
Are solar panels worse for the environment than fossil fuels?
Solar panels excel in generating electricity with virtually no emissions, standing out as an eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. Their operation significantly reduces the carbon footprint and offsets a considerable amount of carbon emissions over their lifespan. Apr 17, 2024
Whats ASAP mean ? No more than 40 years?
Increase production of solar panels, thereby replacing the use of fossil energy.
40 years is all we have left of oil . If we have no replacement source of energy, then half the world will go dark every 12 hours alternately!
No more transportation of goods, no more functional large scale manufacturing (including the manufacture of solar panels).
Ever experienced a lengthy blackout such as is experienced after the recent hurricanes? Check it out, it is a real-world experience of being without energy for just a few weeks, let alone years.
p.s. Batteries is the key to storage. Apparently, abandoned mines and smelters make excellent large volume energy storage facilities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
California landfills are filling up with toxic solar panels - Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times - Solar panels face recycling challenge - Many are already winding up in landfills, where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.
Just printing or saying something can be done. Does not make it so. Solar energy accounted for roughly 5.5 percent of electricity generation worldwide in 2023.
In a business as usual scenario, global energy consumption is projected to reach 740 million terajoules by 2040, which is a 30% increase from 2018.
Global energy consumption grew faster than its historical trend of 2.2% in 2023.
According to the IEA, global solar energy generation from photovoltaic panels saw a significant rise in 2022, increasing by 26% compared to the previous year, representing around 4.5% of total global electricity generation, making it the third largest renewable electricity technology behind hydropower and wind power; this growth is considered very rapid and substantial.
Renewable energy is going to have a hard time just keeping up with energy growth. According to the United Nations, it’s unlikely that the world will reach net zero emissions by 2050. New IMF analysis of current countries’ global climate targets shows they would only deliver an 11 percent cut.
Last week China started making available new solar panels with a 28% energy conversion. Field testing at 21%. That’s great news.
My money is still on nuclear batteries. A break though on nuclear batteries would place all wind and solar production in the landfills.
Of course they are not. Our cleanest energy right now is geothermal energy. Nuclear batteries would be the second cleanest.
Nuclear batteries are more about a steady flow of renewable energy than storage of energy. They would have to be changed every 50 to 90 years right now. Expect that rise into the hundreds or thousands of years as science comes about.
This precisely why replacement is an existential priority. China has recognized this and will become oil independent much sooner than most countries.
> China’s total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000 GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country’s total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015.
Shall we keep fracking and keep pumping hazardous waste in the aquifers, then set underground explosions that make the earth porous so that these hazardous wastes permeate a greater area than what the earth itself restricts.
The process creates vast amounts of wastewater, emits greenhouse gases such as methane, releases toxic air pollutants and generates noise. Studies have shown these gas and oil operations can lead to loss of animal and plant habitats, species decline, migratory disruptions and land degradation.Mar 30, 2022
We are way behind China … can you imagine that?
As continents submerge, oil and gas will have to be locked in rock until nature releases the trapped petroleum. Like in the La Brea tar pits. Or fracking can release this petroleum under a controlled release. All fracking is shooting the side of the drilled hole so acid can start to eat a pathway for petroleum. Once there is room for steam to be pumped into the hole. The steam pressure does the fracking. It would be silly to do this in an aquifer because all you would get back is water. The steam heats the petroleum so it will flow. In an aquifer all the heat would be lost to the water.
Yes, we need to get moving.
Betavolt – Chinese
Atomic batteries are developed by Betavolt and are designed to be safe, environmentally friendly, and suitable for medical devices. They have no external radiation and can be used in pacemakers, artificial hearts, and cochleas. Note: The cochlea is the part of the inner ear involved in hearing.
1 Like
That’s the spirit!.. 
Is there a point you might get to some day?
Thats not what drives the action science says is required to avoid catastrophic GW. Yes we need current energy to transition but if you are allowing the phase out to occur over the next 40 without comment on the trajectory and the rate of phase out then temperature rise is unlimited and not a desired outcome of our action to minimise temp rise.
Reality is what drives the action. The most practical solution is to replace oil with green energy “as soon as possible”. And it has already begun, but unfortunately with strong opposition of Big Oil.
Is it a shall in terms of keeping temp rise below 2 degrees if not 1.5 ?
It is no longer up to us! You cannot control chaos. All we can do now is hope for the best.
You dont agree we can stop it?
According to the article ( 
), we are no longer in control other than minimize our use of fossil fuels as much as possible while trying to replace it.