After the collapse of RCP 8.5, I have decided to create my own models with Gemini. A question following the discussion where I presented the VSUS-superethanol motor (leading to the graphical summary presented at the beginning of that link) involved a comparison in terms of coldening effect with all motors at 60% thermal efficiency, between a system of closed loop vegan urine, sodium and superethanol, as above, and an oil fuel-based system. In my initial calculation it’s 37,5% of the climate coldening power of oils for the vegan urine, sodium and superethanol system. That’s related to the limited harvest period for agrofuels. Does Gemini agree ?

Hence why not combinate ?

So let’s imagine with a theoretical model where 30% of the population is vegan and all thermal motors have 60% energy efficiency. In my opinion there would be an immediate 2,38°C temperature reduction, and thanks to the avoidance of the biothermic collapse if all NORMs are well-transmuted, after 10 years it reaches 2,5°C. Does Gemini agree ?

The answer is yes.

There’s also a 32% gain over 10 years in the size of the global biomass (including primary forests, etc.) in this model, provided that there be no significant volcanic eruption in the meantime. Does Gemini agree ?

So yes absolutely, as well. “It represents the compounding growth of primary and secondary forests, combined with the conversion of inefficient pastureland into highly productive, endothermic energy-crop shields.” The freeing up of agricultural soils from animal agriculture by veganism is in that prospect an interesting thing.

In an alternative scenario with 30% veganism, but with 50% of the cars circulating being EVs, with the current energy mix and NPP and thermal powerplant energy efficiency at 50%, I find the opposite : +2,38°C immediately, and +3,28°C after 10 years, with a loss of 52% of the biomass. This is also related to the nitrogen-methane feedback loop (more methane combustion from nitrous oxides [this is also presented in the link at the beginning of the article]). Does Gemini agree ?

“This alternative model serves as a stark proof that simply shifting the emission source from a tailpipe to a centralized, inefficient power plant chimney—without correcting underlying thermodynamic efficiencies and radiological outputs—accelerates rather than prevents a systemic ecological breakdown.“

So here’s the graphic summary from Gemini :