Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HO
Posts
0
Comments
18
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • That's nice and makes a dent. 18,248,000 MWh/year so 49,994MWh per day. The batteries at this site are 3,287MWh, so they can store about 6.5% of the average daily Californian use. 875 megawatts peak power for maybe 5h per day is 437MWh almost 10% of CA daily consumption. And it's highest in summer, when the ACs are running, so that's nice. Please check my math! EIA

  • Two obvious things: China has 2-3 x the people. Maybe adjust to a per person basis? Or a per GDP ratio if you are so inclined. Also, most of the stuff for sale comes from China - so we just moved our emissions there. This is super hard to adjust for, but should be considered a bit.

  • I don't think anyone questions that humans will survive. It's just unlikely that the complex global supply chain that gives us complex tools like microchips etc will survive. And may be massive famine etc after just a few harvest failure, or after the grain can't go down the rivers to the sea any more. Naturally not for the very rich, you can probably buy a bag of rice at a price. It's not survival that's at stake, its civilization and all that.

  • Maybe for a long tail - but I think there were a few reports from other places that phaseout can happen faster than expected :) I am just worried that fossil prices drop because nobody buys them, making it super cheap again.

  • I suppose that's pretty much guaranteed. I am worried that the supply chains stop working before we get serious about climate repair. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the fossil fuel companies when the "proven resources" in the ground become worthless because there are barely any buyers anymore and borrowing against it is no longer possible. I don't know how much they do that - but it would have implications for the finance people.

  • Solution is a maybe an overstatement, but

    • destroy the methane. That's energetically favorable, so it can be done more easily. Makes some CO2 but it's 50x less bad that way.
    • get the carbon back out and stick it into the ground. We'll be on our way when the Mauna Loa CO2 curve bends and goes down for a year or two. That's energetically expensive, but we'll figure out a way (hopefully) to do it wherever we have solar overproduction.

    Trees are nice, but it's nowhere near enough to do that.