Slashdot Mirror
The World Set a New Record For Renewable Power in 2017, But Emissions Are Still Rising (qz.com)
In 2017, the world deployed an ever-expanding amount of solar and wind power, setting a new record for renewable-power capacity added to the grid. From a report: In fact, the money spent on renewable installations was more than twice the sum spent on nuclear and fossil-fuel power, according to the annual Global Status Report published by renewables policy group REN21. Over the past 10 years, global installed renewable-power capacity, which includes hydropower, has doubled.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
The great thing about wind and solar is that the fuel is free.
Good luck competing against that with commodities which must be dug up and piped or shipped.
Take all proven reserves and extrapolate the new finds, add 25% for extraction methods. All of this will become C02 or methane. No matter how much one tries not to, there will be burning of fossil fuels. since lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is longer than the time it will be reuired to burn it all you now know how much CO2 will be in the atmosphere. We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean. The real question is are there any positive feedback effects? such as the acidity of the ocean causing a fall off in it's absorption, the build up of oil films decrasing the flux of CO2 into the oceans, the metltng of the tundra releasing methane?
And finally there's the one big one we already have the in sedimentary layers to guide us: forests die, release carbon, and the heat kills more forests. Oddly many people think that is the origin of hysteresis that causes the iceage cylce. It's not proven but the theory says ice ages are triggered by global warming transporting more water to the cold regions.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So how does this square with this?
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Show just a complex topic this is, I guess, and that coordinated action is required at a truly global level if we are to effectively tackle climate change.
However, given our recent track-record on that, and tackling other man-made disasters like war, I'm not holding my breath.
Most of it is probably bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (and the rest - youtube videos, porn and other "cloud entertainment services").
Gonna have a surplus of energy once they figure out how to harness the power of all the hot air put out by the AGW folks.
You will be using fossil fuel your entire lives. Get over it.
I agree. But it's not an all or nothing proposition.
We can keep pushing for renewables or non-fossil fuels as much as we can to slow the growth of fossil consumption or even get it to a NET negative growth.
Yes, the FACT of life is that power needs to be continuous and waiting for the Sun to shine or the Wind to blow for electricity is unacceptable in the modern age.
However, we can keep pushing to eliminate polluting 18th Century technology whenever we can.
This IS where companies like Tesla can make a difference. Free Markets Baby!! And it's happening!!
And sorry folks, but people's opinions ARE part of the Free markets. Whether it's fossil fuels are bad or GM crops - it's all the free markets! Get over it indeed!
A cynic might say the world needs a massive recession or war -- carbon emissions actually went down in the 2008-9 recession.
...The world set a new record for number of people living on it.
But they have to be high enough to start ratcheting down demand for fossil fuels and causing a switch to alternatives.
Government leaders need to have more brains and courage to implement that.
And populations need to be better educated (in systems thinking, how the dots connect, basic science and why it is more valid than random opinion) so that they begin choosing rational, well-informed, physically effective policy.
There are enough effective alternatives now for many applications that a carbon tax should no longer be punitive, if mixed with incentives to switch.
European-level carbon taxes would be a good starting point, but we have to go further than that. Sweden: USD $131/tonne, Switzerland $86, Norway $52
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Conclusion 1: Increases in renewable energy are either not enough to compensate for total increase in demand or are being wasted
Conclusion 2: Energy usage across ALL energy production sectors in increasing
Neither conclusion is particularly surprising or enlightening.
Is this a science site or is this CNN? (Yeah, I know that the quality of this site has gone way down. I'm just lamenting the change).
It's like being surprised that total population is still rising even though birth rates are plummeting.
Solar power is growing at exponential rates. And, just because last year set a record doesn't mean that fossil fuels did not also increase.
What we do know is - if this rate of growth continues for another 30-40 years we will be living in a world which does not consume fossil fuels. (Yes there will still be some use of fossil fuels.) And, of course, there will still be need for oil for plastics, medicine, etc...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
While I applaud the concept of electric vehicles for their emissions-reducing capability, the impact they actually have on greenhouse gas emissions are probably far less than would be assumed. The electricity to recharge them is still mostly generated from coal-fired power plants, so even if the cars themselves aren't emitting as much carbon dioxide, the eplants providing the power for them are.
Also, as the summary states: "The money spent on renewable installations in 2017 was more than twice the sum spent on nuclear and fossil-fuel power." Well, that stands to reason considering nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants are already firmly established, so the fact that more money was spent on installing new wind and solar isn't as impressive as it may seem from the wording of the summary.
These articles require more context. For example, hydro-electric plants generate 7.5% of the total electrical production in the U.S., wind generates 6.3%, and solar power still provides only about 1.3%. So, clean energy only represents about 15% of electrical production. Nuclear could also be considered "clean energy," and it produces 20% of energy. But, coal-fired power plants still produce 30% of America's power and natural gas plants provide 32%. So, fossil fuels still provide the majority of America's electricity.
We have the technology. What's needed now are stiffer regulations forcing the shuttering of coal- and gas-fired power plants in favor of wind, solar and hydro-electric energy, and yes, nuclear. The U.S. could be leading the world in renewable technology development and sales; unfortunately, the political atmosphere has changed as such that we'll probably have to continue kicking that can down the road for a while longer.
I admit that my flowers are growing great with all of this extra COUPLE of PARTS PER MILLION of carbon dioxide as the temperature plummets. I admin the roses are a rising and the temp is great outside.
"World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels."
World demand increased by 2.1%, resulting in carbon emissions rising by 1.7%, so that means that new renewable energy only contributed 0.4%? We are truly on the verge of eliminating fossil fuels completely!
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
They produce little carbon pollution and other particulates but they are decidedly NOT clean. Nuclear waste is the very definition of not clean. Manageable maybe but not clean and certainly dangerous.
It's not just as simple as the number of renewable energy sources used, or total output from those sources, you have to look at the total amount of energy that went into producing that renewable generation source. Solar panels with efficiency better than 10% require a slew of rare earth minerals. A large amount of fossil fuels go into the mining, and then the refining of those minerals. Then there is the mining and refining of the metals and conductors used. Then there is the fuel for the transportation.
When these renewable generation sources arrive, they are sitting at a large deficit in the amount of energy used from non-renewable sources in order to produce it. I'll need to go find the source, so please treat this as unverified, but I have read more than once that large wind turbines will be at an energy deficit for nearly 20 years before they are able to reach a net positive in terms of energy produced vs spent in production and transportation. If renewable energy sources could be used to produce renewable energy generation sources, then we'd have something good to go on, however some forms, like the smelting of metals and minerals it takes an enormous amount of electricity to be able to effectively do this on the scale needed to produce these sources.
It's not popular but when we reach the point of not being able to extract enough non-renewable sources to meet demand we're going to have to adapt to using less energy.
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
High-level waste is compact and mostly solid -- shield it, store it, and don't freak out about it.
Tell that to the folks who used to live near Fukushima. Or Chernobyl. Nuclear power is very safe... until it isn't. Nuclear waste is mostly manageable but incredibly toxic and nobody wants it nearby.
Far better than pumping tons of pollutants into the air from burning fossil fools.
Probably true but definitely not without problems. And people are a lot less scared of fossil fuels even if they shouldn't be.
Here in Ontario emissions from power generation have been going up despite the government going mad with wind and solar. Yes, the remaining coal plants have been shut down -- and the nukes (60% of power) and hydroelectric have been dialed back to provide space on the grid to accommodate the mandated 'first to the grid' rule for this stuff. But to fill in the fluctuations and sags in wind they have also been aggressively adding gas turbines -- so overall emissions are rising. Meanwhile, the overall winds are slowing falling year over year as the climate changes. So ultimately, unless this trend towards less wind and more cloud changes.. the joke is on them (and us). And they still need to build tens of thousands of wind turbines to even hope to cover what the traditional generation produces.
There was a reason our ancestors abandoned running their society on wind... guess we will rediscover why. Meanwhile, all this gas-fired generation is doing nothing to offset rising GHG.
The sound of 8 billion farts being released.
Whatever "cost" our warped market places on "fuel free" generators, ultimately they are made of stuff that must come out the ground, and that has a real environmental cost. In the case of materials intensive renewable generators, it also places a limit on scalability.
For reference, see The Effects Of Trump's Steel Tariffs On Red State Energy:
"Solar needs 1,600 tons of steel per MW, wind energy needs over 400 tons of steel, while gas and nuclear need only 4 and 40 tons, respectively."
the energy and burocrazy needed to to keep track on how renewables aren't eating into the bottom line of the alternative is probably just about what the renewables will supply ...
it is STILL a curiously st0pid uphill battle to use renewables for the average person.
one example from just a week ago:
there's a new hybrid from a not-here-advertised manufacturer and manufactured in THAILAND (thus "affordable" due to exempt of import tax) and it is NOT a plug-in hybrid.
read that AGAIN: it is NOT a plug-in. that means, it has a battery and gasoline engine but it cannot be connected to a grid-wall-plug co-powered by a solar panel.
every drop of electron in the car is STILL originated from burning oil (unless you got to jump onto the MOVING newly bought car from a train or a horse or such, your NET energy source is OIL, when picking it up from the dealer).
having waited for a long time, maybe hopes for the benefit of the hybrid were too high; the air-con is totally a must have for this humid and hot country and drains the battery something fierce at the over 3min long read lights.
as it stands, my expenses for the hybrid just seem to benefit the diminishing exhaust plumes on which the myriad motorcyclists co-waiting at the red-light seem to thrive (not).
a disaster (if not for the radar assisted cruise control and much better undercarriage and suspension) overall.
please keep fighting for the quick-queue (and hopefull approval) for all things burocrazy concerning government and renewables!
The emissions from making concrete are insane, and building 40 to 100 story towers on the West Coast and in China creates a lot of emissions, even if the new buildings are designed to self-power (solar/wind/heatreuse) and are vastly more efficient than the old 1-2 story single story buildings.
It's the upfront cost. That plus methane leaks due to gas fracking.
Even fabricating solar panels and wind turbines is intensive on the emissions scale at the front end, but they last for 20-100 years with minor repairs (blades for wind, new solar panels work even as they lose a small percentage of power production over the decades).
Think of how it was before we put gasoline vapor traps at gas stations - a lot of the gasoline went up in vapor in the atmosphere. As we improve the tech, and do this at scale, we get more efficient.
The capital must flow.
Renewables make the thoughts speed, the fingers type, it is through renewables alone that we control the future.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
America will never abandon the coal steamers and paddlewheels, Britain's navy will always be paramount due to coal, The hamlets and small farm villages of America will always use kerosene for lighting and heating, and whale oil and balleen stays for girdles will never be replaced.
Oh. Wait.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
we're still burning more coal. In fact we burn more now than all of the 18th century. ANd we literally ran out of whale oil.
so what is your point?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If we switched to GaAs-based or CdTe based solar panel technologies, you might have had a point. But silicon cells? Nothing really dangerous about them.,
You don't need direct Sun light. Solar panels can generate around 80% of peak during dismal overcast days.
No.
Solar panels do still work on cloudy days, but nothing like 80%. Here's a typical graph of power production on a partly-cloudy day, notice the dips in output when clouds block the sun: power indeed doesn't go down to zero, but it does drop significantly:
http://uk-solarpanels.blogspot.com/2012/05/solar-panels-low-peak-output.html
or this one; https://www.transgrid.com.au/n...
The steady CO/CO2 increase plus the mysterious plume of ozone damaging CFCs wafting out of China, exact source yet undetermined, will ensure more damaging climate change in the short and medium terms. But to claudicate now will ensure ruin for our future generations.
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste."
Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water.
copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires!
trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above).
and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste." Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water. copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires! trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above). and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
Can you not read? I never said I was scared of chemicals used in PV tech. And, BTW, most of those chemicals are still used, they are just used in lesser amounts. Why are you scared of nuclear waste? You, nor anyone else with no business near it, are never likely to get anywhere near it. Can you say that for other toxic wastes that you don't fret about?
We cannot reduce greenhouse gasses significantly without new nuclear. We have known that for more than 5 decades. Renewables can't even keep up with bitcoin, let alone power our grid 24/7.
Thankfully a company based in Oregon, http://www.nuscalepower.com/ , just completed phase 1 NRC review ahead of schedule. Their reactor is a type of small modular reactor. It can be built on an assembly line like an airplane and then shipped anywhere in the world. The economics of scale will reduce the cost significantly(for both operator and consumer). It is meltdown proof. Meaning even if you tried to cause a meltdown you would fail. Their first plant will be in Idaho for an Utah energy company.
Governments of the world need to stop 'encouraging' people to have more kids. The reason we keep using more power is that more people keep popping up. Duh!
Seriously, the single worst source of Co2 is coal, with the second worst being cargo ships. The reason is that most power plants are going to be kept going for a minimum of 30 years and up to 60 years. China is now building plants all over the world and these will not be shut down until 2060 at the earliest, if not 2080. Keep in mind that these are more coal plants than the entire west has today. And even at it's best, these will emit out at 2-3x co2 what a Nat gas plant does. And that does not include the rest of their pollution such as lead, Mercury, uranium, etc. Until we stop adding new coal and Nat gas plants, things will only get worse. This is why America really needs to tax all of our consumed goods/services based on where the worst part comes from. To do this, we need to add oco3 sat to precisely measure co2 flow in/out of nations. Then normalize based on emissions / $ GDP. If every nation and business knows that the world's largest importer will have an increasing tax based on co2, then both will clean up. In addition, no nation will want to add fossil fuel plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Except per person America uses more coal powered electricity than China. So you will just end up taxing yourselves for being the dirtiest.
You really just need to be more like the rest of the world and use less electricity.
Cut back to the 1st world average and shut off all your coal in one go.
Don't worry, you will still be entitled to more electricity than Chinese and Indian people.
You already know Americans produce more CO2 from coal powered electricity than Chinese people.
Chinese coal plants produced 3,573 MT of CO2 in 2017 American coal plants produced 1,056 MT of CO2 in 2017
Per person America (less than 1/4 China's population) produces more CO2 from coal plants than China does...much more...OOPS.
Then on top of that America is the biggest user of natural gas. And America too, is the far biggest oil user.
It's no wonder your CO2 emissions are so much more than every one elses.
Hey, if states are the worst at emissions per $GDP, then fine. Hit the products/services with their parts/service, with the highest tax. That is the whole idea. OTOH, per capita is worthless, except to idiots.
Oh so you don't really care about CO2, you're just a protectionist like Trump.
no, he's pointing out the chemicals used in PV production can be turned into being safe and usable compared to nuclear waste. Here's an interesting link for you to read about to recycling PV panels and how much of a PV panel is recycled. https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/b... As a shortcut, 96% of materials can be reused for producing new solar panels
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Can you not read?
Actually I think it's more that you cannot write given you refuted a point with a cite, then agreed the cite isn't a problem, and now complained that no one can follow you.
Can you not read?
Actually I think it's more that you cannot write given you refuted a point with a cite, then agreed the cite isn't a problem, and now complained that no one can follow you.
I never said the cite was "a problem". It doesn't need to be a problem to be true.
However, I will admit I don't know that particular guy. Energie SA is a French utility-- I tend to know the scientists and engineers, not the utility managers. But it does make sense to pay some attention to the utilities, since they're the ones distributing power.
So, I'll concede half a point: some people, although not the ones I know, are looking toward 1 cent per kW-ht.
I will also note that the statement was "below $10-megawatt hour (1/kWh) in the sunniest climates by 2025."
What I had said was:
Cost per kilowatt hour is very location dependent, by the way. Is that a prediction of 1 cent per kilowatt hour in the Australian desert? Or in Norway?
the answer is "the sunniest climates", so: Australian desert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
Can you not read? I never said I was scared of chemicals used in PV tech.
The assertion was that chemicals used in photovoltaic panel production produced dangerous waste. They don't.
Really, it's not a problem.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.) And, BTW, most of those chemicals are still used, they are just used in lesser amounts.
Not the particular ones named in the article, no. Nitrogen trifluoride is an interesting gas (although not one I'm "scared" of)-- but not one used in solar array production. It's more a chemical used in integrated circuit and microelectronics production, not commercial production solar arrays..
Why are you scared of nuclear waste? You, nor anyone else with no business near it, are never likely to get anywhere near it. Can you say that for other toxic wastes that you don't fret about?
I'm not particularly scared by nuclear waste. I'm annoyed by nuclear waste, since it is useful material that should be reprocessed and used, but I'm not particularly scared by it, unless you don't deal with it correctly.
You mean the folks that received between 1 and 15 mSv for the inhabitants of the affected areas?
No I mean the mass evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people, billions of dollars in damage, loss of homes, an estimated 1600 deaths due to the poorly managed evacuations (mostly elderly), and decades of cleanup that resulted. It was a mess and that should surprise no one. You HAVE to account for how people are going to react in the case of even a potential radiation event. People aren't rational and even when the ultimate physical damage turns out to be not that bad you can't assume that is the case during a containment failure event. Nuclear power is quite safe... until it isn't. And then it is extremely not safe. And it is VERY expensive when even the potential of a major failure occurs.
Not to mention that we are failing and continue to fail to adequately address the waste problem. Both high level and low level. NIMBY is a real thing and it's hard to tell people they shouldn't be worried about radioactive waste even if that is actually true in fact. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a proponent of nuclear power. I just think we need to be realistic about both the positive and negative aspects of it.
I sympathise with people living near those disaster areas, but the risks are rather overblown.
No the risks are not at all overblown. And even if they were people's reactions to them are predictably irrational. Nobody is going to sit around calmly when there has been a natural disaster combined with a potential nuclear meltdown.
Death toll from Chernobyl is about 4000. Fukushima is at zero last I checked.
Lots of people died at Fukashima but most of them died (est 1600) due to the chaotic evacuation that ensued. A death is a death and those would not have occurred if not for the power plant failure so it's perfectly appropriate to tie them to the Fukashima event. The evacuation was necessary because you can't wait around to see if the radiation gets too high.
People used to be afraid of solar eclipses. Now they are bette informed. Maybe we need the same with nuclear.
There is a huge difference. Solar eclipses demonstrably present no actual danger. Nuclear power plants demonstrably present a very real danger. No amount of education will change that fact.
The very fact that you can only mention a few specific accidents, despite thousands of nuclear power plants in active use around the world, should tell you something about how safe it actually is.
Sigh... you are missing the point. MOST of the time it is safe. But when it isn't safe it is REALLY not safe. Low frequency high consequence. It's like a volcanic eruption. Doesn't happen often but when it does it is a huge problem and makes a gigantic and expensive mess. And because the possibility of failure is not zero eventually there WILL be a large disaster. There is absolutely no reason to believe another Chernobyl size or worse disaster will not happen again. It should be expected as inevitable. Probably not the same failure mode but there is no lack of potential failure modes to choose from with fission plants.
Which is what made the tone of your reply so confusing.
It had no 'tone'. It was a simple statement. At no point in it did I say I had a problem with that waste. Some folks sure don't like me bringing up those points though.
Everything has a tone. Communication extends far beyond the words that get put into some little box on an online form and people who blame the reader for the misunderstanding fundamentally fail to understand the point of communication.
But just as an example let me show you where the tone of your message fitted in:
sjbe: Nuclear not clean (negative)
you: Solar panels not clean (negative) Solar panels limited life (negative) Prefer nuclear (positive)
XXong: Solar panels are clean (positive) except for solder which makes it similar to every other device (positive)
you: Not worried about solar (neutral). Proivded a reference link to chemicals while saying the parent didn't know what was in panels (negative and agressive). Said you're not worried about any of the things you just painted in a negative way (positive).
That post was highly confusing in tone.
XXong: breaks down some of the chemicals (aggressive positive)
you: personal attack claiming GP didn't read (highly agressive negative), pointed out that you never said you were scared of chemicals (neutral), questioning why the parent is afraid of nuclear (which is interesting in context because the parent never said he was afraid of nuclear and only ever mentioned nuclear waste in positive light as a foudnational support to the cleanliness of solar waste)
And then this side discussion started.
Overall the entire conversation was very difficult to follow and your first reply about chemicals was confusing as hell to parse given the context of the conversation up until that point. Having a tone is not good or bad, it's just the underlying nature of the reply and doesn't detract from a conversation. But having inconsistent tones make it confusing to follow an arguement (and by extension often actually is the start of many arguements).
I know the field. If you're going to be scared by PV production chemicals, you should be scared by nuclear waste. If you're not scared by nuclear waste, you shouldn't be scared by PV production either. Pick a level of scaredness and stick with it.
As I said, I'm not particularly "scared" of nuclear waste, I'm annoyed by it. Nuclear waste is not dealt with well. There should be no such thing as low-level nuclear waste; the "low level" stuff should be processed to remove and concentrate the actual radioactive elements, which should be then separated out and used. And storing used fuel at the bottom of swimming pools that have a pretty blue Cherenkov glow that nobody sees because they are guarded 24/7-- that is just plain silly.
As I said, I would be scared of it if it were not dealt with correctly, but at the moment (at least in the US), there isn't a whole lot of dumping of high-level radioactive waste in neighborhoods, so the fact that the US doesn't have a clue what to do with it isn't scary, just annoying. There's a lot of things that I'd be scared of when they are not dealt with correctly. If you want something to be realistically scared of, about 150 million tons of ammonia are used as fertilizer per year. Now, ammonia really is something to be scared of-- it's both reactive and poisonous. All that ammonia really should scare you.
Not sure of the tone of that post, but it certainly is confusing. Particularly when it comes to having a point. Any 'tone' you impart is mostly of your own making. I can't provide you with one nor select what you choose to perceive. That you continue to get bent even after I said I had no implications is also perplexing. I guess you just want to assign that to me. Whatever.
I know the field. If you're going to be scared by PV production chemicals, you should be scared by nuclear waste. If you're not scared by nuclear waste, you shouldn't be scared by PV production either. Pick a level of scaredness and stick with it.
As I said, I'm not particularly "scared" of nuclear waste, I'm annoyed by it. Nuclear waste is not dealt with well. There should be no such thing as low-level nuclear waste; the "low level" stuff should be processed to remove and concentrate the actual radioactive elements, which should be then separated out and used. And storing used fuel at the bottom of swimming pools that have a pretty blue Cherenkov glow that nobody sees because they are guarded 24/7-- that is just plain silly.
As I said, I would be scared of it if it were not dealt with correctly, but at the moment (at least in the US), there isn't a whole lot of dumping of high-level radioactive waste in neighborhoods, so the fact that the US doesn't have a clue what to do with it isn't scary, just annoying. There's a lot of things that I'd be scared of when they are not dealt with correctly. If you want something to be realistically scared of, about 150 million tons of ammonia are used as fertilizer per year. Now, ammonia really is something to be scared of-- it's both reactive and poisonous. All that ammonia really should scare you.
Those 'annoyances' you mention are quite minor. Low level nuclear waste is essentially safe as is, it is not posing any risk at all to anyone in any practical sense. I think you just want to be annoyed by it. Fuel pools make perfect sense as place to store fuel prior to casking. Not sure why you think it is silly.
I suppose all waste is annoying.
Personally, I understand that everything has a trade off. The waste from PV manufacture, or any other thing we produce is a fact of life. Same for nuclear. So many people choose to complain about nuclear waste, typically with great ignorance as to its actual risk, but don't even think about the many other toxic items we handle every day and are much closer to impacting our lives. Its quite telling that if one dares to mention PV waste, it sets off the reactions we see here.
The benefits of nuclear certainly are worthy of a bit of 'annoyance'. Meanwhile, just like with everything else, we can continue to improve.
Particularly when it comes to having a point.
The point was that there is more to communication than throwing words out there and expecting people to understand you.
Any 'tone' you impart is mostly of your own making. I can't provide you with one nor select what you choose to perceive.
That my friend is where you are very wrong. There are multiple ways of saying exactly the same thing in ways that can be taken completely differently. The tone is entirely within your control as the person communicating. The difference betwen positive negative and the level of aggression isn't even good or bad (though sometimes it can be seen as appropriate or inappropriate, not that any of it happened here). However in order to further a discussion it does have to be consistent.
That you continue to get bent even after I said I had no implications is also perplexing.
I'm not bent at all. I'm not even part of the original conversation. Just providing some critique on debate which needlessly caused tension where none existed. My post is advice as is. You can take it or leave it. I have zero skin in the game either way. It shouldn't be perplexing that a 3rd party offers friendly advice. That is really all this is. But if you're not interested in talking then I'll happily leave it be.
Do you have a point about the waste discussion? I'm really not interested in your discussion of tones.
I believe in renewables... ...regardless the advances to date...
In fact I have a peltham wheel from the stream on my property providing my home and shops with power...
Water is by far more continuous a supply for power than wind or solar
And for certain... ...who think renewables are better or free ... ....there are substantive costs to renewables... .... ...in China...
I have no idea what planet the people are from
As was mentioned a few times
And for the others from "Planet-Not-Earth"...who somehow think renewables are cleaner and have this image of green lush hillsides as a consequence of them
Look up the environmental damage done so far from the industrial waste from the manufacture of solar and wind equipment
For those who believe that the " green industry" ...is green... ...from the other side of the planet.
Its a lie.
Its a fraud.
Its marketing to sucker you to assuage ennviro-guilt from driving your 2+ SUV's, while eating food that was imported at a staggering environmental cost
The "green lie" about how clean it is to produce the product ...is quietly kept away from the limelight.
No different than the environmentally friendly "green" bamboo fabric fad... ...the damage done chemically...in waste alone is terrible.
The processing for your bamboo fabrics
Gotta get rid of the fraud and lie of the process first....
before calling something "green" or "good for the environment and planet"
Clearly you are having reading troubles this clearly shows way over 2 billion tons of CO2 for oil, but less than 1.5 billion tons for coal (less than natural gas even).
Oil is obviously the bigger number, so oil is obviously the bigger polluter.
I'll ignore your other lies for now, explain how the above is wrong if you think you can.
Why didn't you just say so then rather than arguing with me.
Man you suck at communicating :-P
Now is your chance Windy to show you aren't a liar. Where did you get those numbers from? Your ass like all the other times?
Half of the numbers are obvious lies, or you are getting them from very unreliable sources, show us so we can avoid them in the future.
If you are unable this time as well, it just shows again that the very unreliable source is you.
Capacity factor for both countries coal plants are basically the same if you had bothered to look. Although why you think it's relevant to anything is also strange.
Why didn't you just say so then rather than arguing with me.
Man you suck at communicating :-P
Sorry for not ignoring you.
Oil has much heavier use than the rest so of course it is at top.
So Oil has more use does it and that's why its total is bigger. Where have I heard that argument before?
I know, China has more people, that's why it's total is bigger.
America's coal plants ran at 90% load
America's coal plants only run in the low 50's
Too many numbers for you to understand so here is a pretty picture to make it easy for you. Figure 2 on page 3 is what you want to look at.
Since 2008, the utilization of the coal fleet has declined by almost 30 percent to an average capacity factor of 53 percent.
Since 2008 (as far back as the graph goes) it's never been above even 75%, so why did you lie and say it's 90%
Capacity factor is virtually irrelevant to the amount of coal used or the CO2 produced, so god knows why you had to lie about it or even mention it at all.
Compulsive lairs gonna compulsive lie I guess.
But you still didn't show where you got your "wrong" information.
Did you just make it up, or is your source lying to you? Let us know which is lying so we can avoid them, you or your source?
And how about the next lie? 80% of Chinese electricity isn't coal.
Since you are admitting to your lies, how about these few as well?
And that's not even your biggest lie of claiming everyone else is a liar.
CHina has 1.2TW of coal plants running at 60% load factor, while BOTH America and Europe are at .25 TW running ~90-95% load. Note that this means that Europe and America can NOT increase their emissions from coal without building new plants.
Look it's the same lie as before, when will you use it again? since you didn't learn from last few times you were called on it.
China's gov choosing to build new coals plants and continue using more than 85%coal for electricity.
Another repeated lie. This one you use a lot.
China's emissions AND COAL use continue to set RECORDS,
Nope, peaked in 2013 and you know it did.
Hmm. Ok. Why did china's coal production, consumption, and CO2 increase over 5% in 2017,
No it was less than 1% closer to 1/2
You even tried to claim America's GDP growth was the highest (it was the lowest)
Finally, you speak of GDP growth.
Here is America [tradingeconomics.com]
Here is China [tradingeconomics.com]
Here is EU [tradingeconomics.com]
Out of all 3, America is doing the best. Should we be allowed to grow our CO2 just because our GDP is going up faster?
You even had to work your Musky fanboism into your lies.
Starting next year, the new tesla trucks will actually drop our CO2 by 2-5% EACH YEAR. That is how much of an impact that truck will make. Yes, 5000 new Tesla trucks EACH YEAR will reduce CO2 FURTHER than 500,000 new model 3s EACH YEAR.
Clearly absurd.