I am a person who has worked at least a quarter of a century on the issue of 'energy in various aspects and, therefore, know the things with great clarity. I would like to express some concepts too quickly because time is short. The first observation is that the Earth's climate has always changed. Today we think (in a sense, probably falsely) that if we do nothing and if we keep CO2 under control, the Earth's climate will remain unchanged. This is absolutely not true.
I recall that during the 'last million years the Earth was dominated by periods of glaciation in which the temperature was minus 10 degrees, except for very short periods in which c' is the temperature that is to today. L 'last one was 10,000 years ago, when it started with the climate change' agriculture, development and so on, which is the basis of our entire civilization today.
Over the last 2,000 years, for example, the temperature of the Earth has changed profoundly. In Roman times, Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants to come to Italy. Today we could not come, because the temperature of the Earth is less than it was in Roman times. So, now the elephants could not cross the area where you have gone. C 'was a period, in the Middle Ages, in which there has been a little ice age; around the 'year 1000 c' is a temperature increase similar to that of Roman times. Recall that in Roman times, the temperature was a degree and a half higher than that of today; Then c 'was a mini-ice age during the 1500-1600 period. For example, the Vikings have had enormous problems of survival because of this mini-ice age,
POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION
If we stay in the period of the last 100 years, there have been substantial climate change which occurred well before the 'anthropogenic effect, the' greenhouse effect and so on. For example, in the forties c 'it has been a substantial change. The presence of 'man has probably introduced more changes. Do not forget that when I was born, the Earth's population was 3.7 times less than that of today. In my life, the primary energy consumption increased 11 times.As for the behavior of the planet, this has been very strange and contradictory effects. I recall that from 2000 to 2014 the earth's temperature has not increased: it decreased by 0.2 degrees and we have observed over the last 15 years no climate change of a certain size.
The temperature is mounted until 2000: since that time we remained constant, in fact we went down to 0.2 degrees. I look at the facts.The fact is that the average temperature of the Earth over the past 15 years has not increased but decreased.
EXAMPLE USA
Despite this, we are facing a very dramatic situation: CO2 emissions are increasing exponentially. Among the various solutions of 'IPCC prevails business as usual solution. It is the highest of all solution indicates that, indeed, thanks to the development of China and other countries in the developing world, the 'increase in CO2 emissions is happening very rapidly. Emissions are increasing in such a way that, in my opinion, all the hopes we have of reducing energy consumption by policy actions and other, are contradicted by the fact that today climate change CO2 an exponential increase without showing a turnaround ; He is growing freely.
I should mention that the 'only country in the world managed to maintain and reduce CO2 emissions is the United States: no l' Europe, not China, but the United States. Why? C 'has been the development of natural gas, which is now basically replacing the CO2 emissions from coal. We recall also that of 'cost electricity in America is twice the Europe' s cost. Why? The consumption of fine chemicals in Europe is deficient and permanently collapse because fundamentally in America are developing technologies thanks to an important environmental technology development, which really allowed us to change things. This gives a clear message:
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
We look at the situation in America (where c 'is a real progress in the technological edge that creates business, jobs) and we look at the European situation. In my opinion, there 's a huge difference: the solutions coming from renewable energies with technological developments in the field of natural gas are located in an extremely difficult situation because now the cost of natural gas in America is a fifth of that in Europe. In Europe, the cost of renewable energy is higher than that of natural gas. Therefore, we must realize that the technological solution depends on what you want to do.
I'm developing a program that, in my opinion, could be studied with a lot more attention from our country: to transform natural gas and output it without CO2 emissions. The natural gas is made of CH4, ie four hydrogens and a carbon. You can turn this natural gas, spontaneously, black carbon and hydrogen. This graphite, being a solid material, does not represent CO2 production. So you can now use natural gas, of which there are absolutely incredible resources. I am not referring so much to the shale gas which, in my opinion, is a questionable solution, but especially to those who are called clathrates. Ladies, I would ask how many of you know what a clathrate. Nobody? That is the question. It is a very serious problem.
My personal opinion is that you can carry the program through the 'technological innovation and development of new ideas. The program is to avoid CO2 emissions by using natural gas without CO2 emissions.We are doing experiments showing that indeed the thing you can do.Because no one will even care? I'd like to know it.
Carlo Rubbia
https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/scienze---tech/13440953/cambiamento-climatico-carlo-rubbia-premio-nobel-terra-ultimi-15-anni.html
No comments:
Post a Comment