human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 30 of 111
Quote:SIX most of the power generation plants in CA are either natural gas fired boilers or natural gas fired turbines, but MORE energy comes from solar and wind. CA (and NV, NM, AZ) would be the natural choice for solar bc the sun shines most of the time. CA also imports hydro from the NW via a huge DC line called the Pacific DC Intertie.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:You didn't have to repeat yourself. . . There is a huge gap in your understanding that is tedious for me to try changing. The fossil fuel industry does NOT require many workers in order to serve 100% of Americans while the green energy industry requires an enormous number of workers to serve a few Americans. The closest analogy is the number of farmers in 1860 compared to farming in 2022. 50% of Americans were farmers long ago and now it is 1%. With the addition of some labor-saving technology, a lot of farmers became unemployed as farmers. The same thing will happen when green energy gets more labor-saving technology. The number of employees will decrease sharply and they will have to go back to work at low paying jobs with McDonald's and Burger King.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Get fucked Leftists.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Labor-saving technology?
How about you get some technology that actually works and still isn't in the stage of plausible but still science fiction?
California had to tell the few people who had coal burning cars not to charge them during the day and everybody else to keep their A/C at 78 degrees just a few weeks ago.
Forget labor-saving technology. Hell... forget that your "clean" energy from the manufacturing of the batteries to the electric that charges them are dirtier than fossil fuels.
How the fuck are you going to power 30 million of these things in one state alone?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
Anyway, there are NO coal fired plants in CA!
https://www.electricrate.com/data-center/electricity-sources-by-state/
california/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Coal-fired electric cars are a meme. This seems to be a somewhat popular meme concept despite it basically being fake news.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, there are NO coal fired plants in CA!
https://www.google.com/search?q=coal+fired+electric+cars+meme
Is Coal-Powered Energy Charging These Electric Cars?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coal-powered-electric-cars/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are 230 coal fired power plants in the USA that provide electricity to a public grid (not counting any private power plants for specific companies).
15 PA
14 TX, IN (TEXAS???)
12 IL, IA
10 MO, NE
9 WV, KY
8 FL, NC (FLORIDA???)
7 WY
6 CO, MI, ND, OH, OK, LA (COLORADO???)
etc
I expected to see coal fired power in the coal states, but... Texas? Florida? Colorado???
Anyway, if you attempt to implement EVs in the above states, there's a very good chance they will be at least partly coal-fired. So whether EVs are net environmentally positive or not depends on where they're charged. And also grid efficiency, bc whether EVs create more CO2 per mile than efficient gasoline vehicles depends not just in the fuel used but also on such things as grid efficiency and charging efficiency. By my calculation an efficient gasoline powered vehicle and an EV are within a couple of percentage points of each other in terms of efficiency so it doesn't take much to flip the ranking.
If you really want to save on CO2 you would simply ban ginormous gas-guzzlers from sale and switch to methane- powered vehicles. But if you were really serious you would also ban private jets and scale back our military operations drastically, subsidize farmers to increase soil carbon*, manage forests better, improve home energy efficiency, prevent sprawl, and plant a lot of urban trees to reduce heat domes.* And if you wanted to do a little social engineering and boost small family farms you could cap the subsidy at a maximum dollar amount, so that smaller farms would get a higher percentage than larger farms.
Basically, if you're REALLY concerned about climate change, what you need to do is look at the areas of greatest potential reduction with ALL options on the table- no sacred cows, no government giveaways- and also estimate the greatest "bang per buck", usually expressed as $/ton of CO2.
Conservation measures -NOT doing things- NOT allowing private jets and NOT selling gas guzzlers, NOT steaming/flying our military all around the globe, and NOT manufacturing weapons/munitions don't cost anything and probably have the greatest potential reductions. Planting city trees doesn't cost much either, and if you reduce city temps by 10-15F you might save as much on AC as if you embarked on an extensive home renovation program. It requires pretty detailed and region-specific calculations with ALL options on the table. Some heavily forested low-population areas for example might benefit more from forest management while older populated areas might benefit from from better grid efficiency. There's no "one size fits all" solution.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since I'm not getting any argument on my post, I guess we all agree.
So either we turn the discusion to ACTUAL options, with estimates of potetial costs and possible reductions.... yanno, for
regenerative farming, for instance, the potential absorption of CO2 per acre and the subsidy you're willing to pay, where it stacks up in the ranking of $/ton of CO2 and impact (total tons of CO2) and other potential benefits and costs (improved tilth, improved water quality due to less erosion, fewer weeds, higher seed costs, more difficultly with planting) or
scaled back military - number of flights and CO2 saved per flight (FWIW that fuel consumption is damn hard to find! but the dollar cost is zero) number of ship-miles and diesel saved (again, hard to find! but the dollar cost is zero)
THERE ARE NO MAGIC SOLUTIONS! IT'S NOT LIKE WINDPOWER! OR SOLAR! IS GOING TO SAVE US ALL
OR we turn the discussion as to whether this is even necessary
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You might be mistaken.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
THERE ARE NO MAGIC SOLUTIONS! IT'S NOT LIKE WINDPOWER! OR SOLAR! IS GOING TO SAVE US ALL
Switching to renewable energy could save trillions - study
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world as much as $12tn (£10.2tn) by 2050, an Oxford University study says.
The report said it was wrong and pessimistic to claim that moving quickly towards cleaner energy sources was expensive.
The researchers say that going green now makes economic sense because of the falling cost of renewables.
"Even if you're a climate denier, you should be on board with what we're advocating," Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News.
"Our central conclusion is that we should go full speed ahead with the green energy transition because it's going to save us money," he said.
More at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62892013
Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition
Published:September 13, 2022
• Future energy system costs are estimated for three different scenarios
• A rapid green energy transition will likely result in trillions of net savings
• Energy models should be updated to reflect high probability of low-cost renewables
More at https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND you have got to stop looking at things in terms of money. Just bc we've gotten more cost-efficient at something doesn't mean it saves energy/CO2. Stop being a money-grubber, start being an engineer, and keep your eye on the actual problem you're trying to solve instead of some conflated factor.
A MERE FIVE YEARS AGO...
Quote:
Solar Panels Near Break-Even Point
A new study examines the question of when photovoltaic modules settle their 'carbon debt' and become clean energy producers
It takes a lot of energy to produce a solar panel. Much of the electricity used to melt the silicon used in PV modules comes from generating plants that burn fossil fuels — and that has skeptics doubting solar panels are a plus for the environment
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-panels-near-break-e
ven-point. When we installed solar panels I assumed that they were at, or past, the CO2 breakeven point. OTOH, solar panels, like EV cars, are probably only marginally better than their fossil fuel competitors in terms of CO2 emissions (per KWh or per mile driven).
I wouldn't assume that they're light years ahead unless I see some credible data.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like Argonne did the EV v gasoline breakeven point for me.
Tesla 3 v Toyota Corolla (33 mpg)
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-
emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They are aware that building PV panels will emit CO2 and they put a price on those emissions.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND you have got to stop looking at things in terms of money. Just bc we've gotten more cost-efficient at something doesn't mean it saves energy/CO2. Stop being a money-grubber, start being an engineer, and keep your eye on the actual problem you're trying to solve instead of some conflated factor.
A MERE FIVE YEARS AGO...Quote:
Solar Panels Near Break-Even Point
A new study examines the question of when photovoltaic modules settle their 'carbon debt' and become clean energy producers
It takes a lot of energy to produce a solar panel. Much of the electricity used to melt the silicon used in PV modules comes from generating plants that burn fossil fuels — and that has skeptics doubting solar panels are a plus for the environment
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/solar-panels-near-break-e
ven-point. When we installed solar panels I assumed that they were at, or past, the CO2 breakeven point. OTOH, solar panels, like EV cars, are probably only marginally better than their fossil fuel competitors in terms of CO2 emissions (per KWh or per mile driven).
I wouldn't assume that they're light years ahead unless I see some credible data.
We want to emphasize that our results indicate that a rapid green energy transition is likely to be beneficial, even if climate change were not a problem. When climate change is taken into account, the benefits of the Fast Transition become overwhelming. A common simplified method for estimating economic damages due to climate change is to apply a social cost of carbon (SCC) to emissions. The range of proposed values is vast, but just as an example, at a discount rate of 5%, assuming SCC values in the range $30-300/tC02 (rising at 3% per year) yields total expected Fast Transition savings, up to 2070, of $31-$255 trillion. At a lower discount rate of 1.4%, the range of expected savings is $88-$775 trillion. Thus, the benefits of the Fast Transition are likely much larger than the energy system cost savings evaluated in this study.
That is from page 19 of the 193-page long report.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Based on a series of assumptions, the data showed that a Tesla Model 3 in the United States, for example, would need to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla. Lifetime vehicle miles traveled: 173,151.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like Argonne did the EV v gasoline breakeven point for me.
Tesla 3 v Toyota Corolla (33 mpg)
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-
emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
The beauty of a new green energy system, for a Capitalist, is that it is built right next to the old dirty energy system. Both systems are up and running and gouging all the customers by setting prices as high as the market will bear. The sci-fiction TV show The Expanse showed how that works with an air market. Everybody needs air in outer space and the air price goes up month after month so that the workers in outer space can never save money. The air company takes all their cash. Breathing air companies don't exist, yet, but green energy companies can do the same as oil and gas companies have done and the results will be just as beautiful as on The Expanse -- War in the asteroid belt against the owners (who live on Earth) of the breathing air companies. The Belters, as they are called on the Expanse, were dropping asteroids onto Earth to show their displeasure with the wonderful and profitable capitalist system. When the green energy system gets up and running, there will be many Earthers, just like Belters, who will be angry at the cost of energy, just as Belters were angry at the cost of air. Don't take deep breaths. It is too expensive.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. While arguments for a rapid green transition cite benefits such as the avoidance of climate damages, reduced air pollution, and lower energy price volatility (Document S1 section “Additional benefits from the Fast Transition”), these benefits are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of the transition. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener, healthier, and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper. Updating expectations to better align with historical evidence could fundamentally change the debate about climate policy and dramatically accelerate progress to decarbonize energy systems around the world.
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME