Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

markin wrote: »

With an IQ of a billion it would make a 100% efficient solar cell.

It won't be able to break the laws of physics assuming we are in base reality

I think the idea that it will just exponentially grow is most likely
It will convert all of the matter on earth into intelligence machines
Then the solar system then the galaxy and then nearby galaxies

This will be quick
The earth in a few years
The solar system in a few decades
The galaxy in about a million years

This exponential sounds ridiculous but biology is also exponential in the right conditions
Like how yeast is grown a few grams to a few tons thanks to exponentially multiplication of single cell organisms. Haha even humans we start off as two cells and become a few trillion cells over ~10 years

Dave_Fowler

Is there a way of putting an entire thread on ignore? I'm totally fed up of all the bickering and nonsense being put forth on what was a useful thread. The thread needs to be closed and some sense from all sides needs to be put forth.


PLEASE shut up all of you.


Dave F

GreatApe

https://youtu.be/8nt3edWLgIg

AI Sam Harris

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

International agreements to limit warming to 1.5 or even 2C above the preindustrial assume not just carbon neutrality but actively removing carbon from the atmosphere (net carbon negative emissions) later this century. Using technologies that either have yet to be invented or are of unknown practicality. Almost as reckless an assumption ad our simian friend's assumption Ai will be the panacea that saves us.

If Ai really becomes a reality it's just as plausible that it will be of little to no use or could be actively dystopian. I mean some naively predicted that technology such as computers would mean we'd have to work much shorter hours... Ai could just as easily be used to extract more coal or make the deforestation of Amazonia more efficient. Or it.may decide humanity is the problem.

Amazing that we see such faith in something for which is there is so little evidence and such "skepticism" in a science that has accumulated mountains of evidence!

Yep. In short, last year the IPCC announced that to meet the target of (not exceeding) +1.5C by 2100, the World needs to halve emissions by 2030, go carbon neutral by 2050, and go carbon negative from 2050-2100.

At the moment annual World emissions have not quite peaked, though they did almost stall round 2014-2016. So we need to stop increasing them, and then halve that level in the next decade.

That's an incredibly tough target, and will require action from all over the World. Luckily, the economics are now on our side, with RE, and almost RE + storage matching or beating the costs of FF even in some places without the addition of externality costs.

Also transport is all but solved, as BEV's are now roughly cost competitive with ICE's, and given the relatively short lives of ICE's that transition can take place at a net zero cost too.

Heating is harder, but all of the technology already exists, be it insulation, heat pumps, or bio-gas, so again the issue is to start transitioning asap.

Overall, it's all doable, but essential that we move as fast as we can, as soon as we can.

That's why I'm passionate about RE, hopeful for the future, and pushback at all the denials and negative spin. We know what we need to do, and if the World governments shift policies enough, then we can do it.

Martyn1981

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

Is there a way of putting an entire thread on ignore? I'm totally fed up of all the bickering and nonsense being put forth on what was a useful thread. The thread needs to be closed and some sense from all sides needs to be put forth.


PLEASE shut up all of you.


Dave F

I'm sorry Dave, but with the thread, AGW, renewables, and myself being attacked on here, then I have to pushback, but I really wish I didn't.

I hope that those that don't believe in AGW, or falsely claim that the costs are too high, or want to support the FF industries/status quo will now please respect this thread for what it is, and take their negativity to an appropriate thread/board, as those views are neither green nor ethical.

We need to act, we need green and ethical energy deployments and progress, and talking about/celebrating their arrival is what this thread was created for - not anti-RE/AGW propaganda, including false claims about the cost of action or the need for action.

Martyn1981

Interesting Fully Charged episode, mostly about Rob's new TM3.

But the start covers BNP Paribas' report saying that "We conclude that the economics of oil for gasoline and diesel vehicles versus wind and solar-powered EV's are now in relentless and irreversible decline, with far reaching implications for both policymakers and the oil majors."

The good news is that around 70% of auto investment is now going into EV research. But the bad news is that the FF companies are only investing around 1-3% of their investments into R&D of clean technologies, whilst around 80% is going into new oil fields, test drilling, etc..

Tesla Model 3 RHD, Oil and Batteries | Fully Charged

PS - He also covers the recent powercut, and explains how batteries helped.

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

Nobody knows what will happen when AI arrives hence why it is often called the singularity

Everything from near instant extermination (or worse yet deliberate intentional continuous torture) on one end to utopia on the other end

I'm not sure what will happen to humans but I agree with ray kurzweil and many other scientists who assume this AI will just expand exponentially. That is to say it will bring alive all the matter on the planet then the solar system then the galaxy. Very rapidly. In effect an intelligence explosion.

This does sound ridiculous and far fetched but the majority of scientists believe in it including and especially Elon Musk


Personally I don't think humanity will last beyond this century, but I think what replaces us may well call itself 'human' But it will be as distant from us as we are from the single cell organisms we evolved from 3.5 billion years ago

I think you've spent too much time with your head close to a nuclear reactor!:D

Machines generally have an 'off' switch....

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry Dave, but with the thread, AGW, renewables, and myself being attacked on here, then I have to pushback, but I really wish I didn't.

Absolutely no need for you - or indeed your 'opponents' - to respond to posts with which you disagree !

Could prospective posters just read the thread title and observe strictly the rule that it's for discussing news events that have happened or been published within the last two weeks.

I don't need anyone else's (different) opinions to sully this topic with irrelevant posts. I'm quite capable of working out for myself whether or not a post is useful or relevant and can ignore ones that aren't.

JKenH

I had not heard of this until I saw this article on the Cleantechnica website. It seems worthy of investigation but this article suggests several negatives and that the technology is ill advised. At least the article brought the subject to my attention.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/22/bill-gates-is-throwing-away-money-on-ill-advised-non-solutions-to-global-warming/


A Guardian article from earlier in the year suggested the risks had been overstated.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/solar-geoengineering-climate-change-new-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

JKenH

“Earth's climate is changing, and we must decide what to do about it. Existing climate models all predict further warming, but for all we currently know, this trend could range from modest and manageable to an existential threat. In face of such large uncertainty it is difficult to agree on a course of action. For this reason, we propose the formation of an international initiative for high resolution climate models with the aim of providing more reliable long-term predictions.
Understanding whether climate change will be catastrophic for humanity or merely an inconvenience requires that the community takes a much more collaborative approach to climate model development than is currently the case.”




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-need-an-international-center-for-climate-modeling/