Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

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

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

There is no difference between a machine and a human we are all made up of just atoms

We call machines machines only because so far they have no will and are not 'alive' but they will be and within my lifetime

This is the general scientific consensus, are you an AI denier

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

“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/

Climate change will be a trivial net positive or negative for humans

We already have the technology to directly cool the earth by reflecting more sunshine out we don't do this because we don't want a cooler earth.

If mart wants to do his bit he should just install a few mirrors in his garden south facing about 30 degrees. He could probably DIY this it would cost very little and last longer than his lifetime. Every little helps...

Reflecting sunlight back into space would be a rapid solution and cost not much
Reducing FF usage would be a very slow solution if at all

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

There is no difference between a machine and a human we are all made up of just atoms

We call machines machines only because so far they have no will and are not 'alive' but they will be and within my lifetime

This is the general scientific consensus, are you an AI denier

Machines are logical whereas mammals are illogical & random.....that's what makes us different.

I think I'll be an AI denier.

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

I agree with ray kurzweil and many other scientists ... the majority of scientists believe in it including and especially Elon Musk

Ray Kurzweil is not a scientist, he is an inventor and "futurist". He has no qualifications (scientific or otherwise) beyond undergraduate level. Elon Musk is not a scientist, he is an entrepreneur, investor and engineer. He began a PhD but never finished it. If your "scientific consensus" is made up of people like this, it is very different from the scientific consensus on the ongoing climate emergency, which is overwhelmingly supported by the actual qualified scientists.

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

Machines are logical whereas mammals are illogical & random.....that's what makes us different.

I think I'll be an AI denier.

Your not alone most the general public wouldn't believe in AI possibly either

But it's the consensus among scientists

Hexane

Let's pretend we don't get human AI but instead have dumb AI say equivalent of a rat

... or a bear?

It will convert all of the matter on earth into intelligence machines. Then the solar system then the galaxy and then nearby galaxies

Have you played the game "Universal Paperclips"? Very much this sort of thing.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry Dave,

... I'm afraid I can't do that? Such a lovely coincidence when we were talking about a potentially problematic AI.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

One way to separate out some of the off-topic material would be to have a separate meta thread, whose purpose would be to discuss things like:

1. what material is on-topic for this thread
2. the motivations of those posting in this thread
3. whether it is appropriate to speculate about the motivations of those posting in this thread
4. how many other accounts people posting in this thread have used or are using
5. whether it is appropriate to speculate about how many other accounts people posting in this thread have used or are using
6. whether posts from those who don't believe in AGW are appropriate on this forum at all
7. how posters should or should not react to continued posts from those who don't believe in AGW
8. whether it is appropriate to encourage others to put posters on ignore
9. whether posts from those who believe that the costs of dealing with AGW are too high, are appropriate on this forum or this thread
10. whether some posters on this thread or forum are engaged in a campaign
11. whether it is appropriate to claim that some posters on this thread or forum are engaged in a campaign
12. and so on

Of course, to be any use, people (on each of at least three sides of whatever arguments) would need to be willing to post on such a thread rather than here... so... how do people feel about that?

I think we also need another separate thread just to talk about the bear AI and its relevance to AGW and whether attempted mitigation of AGW is needed.

1961Nick wrote: »

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

Skynet did not appreciate attempts to switch it off, and that's where the problems began. The substantial simian doesn't seem to have an off switch either, nor even a "post one thing at a time not the same thing in three separate posts" switch.

GreatApe wrote:

There is no difference between a machine and a human we are all made up of just atoms

You should read Roger Penrose's book The Emperor's New Mind (and its sequels), where he argues that in fact this is not the case, on the grounds that human intelligence is partly dependent on certain quantum effects, which machines do not yet possess.

JKenH

The technology is being developed to enable this to be rolled out on a large scale with the byproduct being synthetic fuel.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/08/16/David-Keith-Carbon-Removal-Moonshot/

JKenH

If VW doesn't take out Tesla, someone else should

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/23/vw-doesnt-take-tesla-someone-else-should/

Martyn1981

Boring warning, nothing here particularly interesting, but I then realised that collectively they made for a snapshot of the growing off-shore wind industry around the World:-

Offshore wind supply event to be held in Inverness

More than 100 supply chain companies will gather in Inverness to discuss upcoming work opportunities for offshore wind projects.

Scandinavia’s biggest offshore wind farm is officially open

The largest offshore wind farm in Scandinavia is officially open. In a ceremony Thursday, state-owned Swedish energy firm Vattenfall inaugurated the Horns Rev 3 facility, which is located in the North Sea, off Denmark’s west coast.

Horns Rev 3 consists of 49 turbines which stand 187 meters tall. If the turbines’ foundations are taken into account, they each weigh nearly 1,500 tonnes.

The facility has a capacity of 407 megawatts (MW), which Vattenfall says is enough to cover the yearly electricity consumption of around 425,000 Danish homes.

The first foundations for Horns Rev 3 were laid in October 2017, and it began to send electricity to consumers at the end of 2018.

First major US offshore wind farm delayed by government

The Trump administration cast the fate of the nation’s first major offshore wind farm into doubt by extending an environmental review for the $2.8 billion Vineyard Wind project off Massachusetts.

The Interior Department has ordered an additional study of the farm, proposed by Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in an interview with Bloomberg News Friday. The project, which has drawn opposition from fishermen and coastal communities, had been scheduled to be operational by early 2022. The developers have warned that regulatory delays could put it in jeopardy.

China offshore wind bid under $100/MWh in first price contest

China’s debut offshore wind procurement round to include price competition prompted a lowest bid that would take the sector below $100/MWh for the first time in the country, Recharge understands.

The national record-low offshore wind price of 620 yuan/MWh ($87.8/MWh) was a bid by China Longyuan, the wind development arm of the world’s largest utility China Energy Investment Corp., during the auction for the 200MW Fengxian Phase 1 project in Hangzhou bay off Shanghai.

Martyn1981

Scotland continues to lead the charge:

Ban petrol and diesel cars from Scottish cities [by 2030], says coalition

The group, which includes the University of Edinburgh, the Energy Saving Trust and the landowners’ body Scottish Land and Estates, has produced a 12-point plan that recommends:

• A ban on petrol and diesel-powered cars in all city centres by 2030

• Establishing four green, low-carbon city investment deals

• A £100m fund to decarbonise farming

• Regional land use plans to maximise the countryside’s role in cutting CO2 emissions

• A public information campaign to promote climate-friendly, lower meat and dairy diets

The UK government expects to be chosen as a co-host of next year’s COP26 global climate talks. It has recommended Glasgow hosts the summit later in the year, adding to pressure on both the Scottish and UK governments to intensify their efforts on the climate crisis.