Slashdot Mirror
New Study Finds Incredibly High Carbon Pollution Costs -- Especially For the US and India (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A new study led by UC San Diego's Katharine Ricke published in Nature Climate Change found that not only is the global social cost of carbon dramatically higher than the federal estimate ($37 per ton) -- probably between $177 and $805 per ton, most likely $417 -- but that the cost to America is around $50 per ton. That's the second-highest in the world behind India's $90, and is also higher than the current federal estimate for the global social cost of carbon. That's a remarkable conclusion worth repeating. Ricke's team found that the cost of carbon pollution to just the United States is probably higher than its government's current estimate of costs to the entire world. And the actual global cost is more than 10 times higher than the federal estimate.
[The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli] asked Ricke to describe her team's approach in this study: To calculate social cost of carbon, you need to answer four questions in sequence:
1. How would the economy change with no climate change (including GHG emissions)?
2. How does the Earth system respond to emissions of carbon dioxide?
3. How does the economy respond to changes in the Earth system?
4. How should we value losses today vs. in (for example) 100 years?
The team answered these questions using four "modules": a socio-economic module to answer the first question, a climate module to address the second, a damages module to investigate the third, and a discounting module to tackle the fourth.
That study detailed the relationship between a country's average temperature and its per capita GDP, finding a sweet spot around 13C (55F). That's the optimal temperature for human economic productivity. Economies in countries with lower average temperatures like Canada and Russia would benefit from additional warming, but it would slow economic growth for nations closer to the equator with hotter temperatures. The United States is currently right near the peak temperature, whereas many European countries like Germany, the UK, and France are 3-5C cooler, and a bit below the ideal economic temperature. So, continued global warming is worse for the US economy than Europe's.
[The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli] asked Ricke to describe her team's approach in this study: To calculate social cost of carbon, you need to answer four questions in sequence:
1. How would the economy change with no climate change (including GHG emissions)?
2. How does the Earth system respond to emissions of carbon dioxide?
3. How does the economy respond to changes in the Earth system?
4. How should we value losses today vs. in (for example) 100 years?
The team answered these questions using four "modules": a socio-economic module to answer the first question, a climate module to address the second, a damages module to investigate the third, and a discounting module to tackle the fourth.
That study detailed the relationship between a country's average temperature and its per capita GDP, finding a sweet spot around 13C (55F). That's the optimal temperature for human economic productivity. Economies in countries with lower average temperatures like Canada and Russia would benefit from additional warming, but it would slow economic growth for nations closer to the equator with hotter temperatures. The United States is currently right near the peak temperature, whereas many European countries like Germany, the UK, and France are 3-5C cooler, and a bit below the ideal economic temperature. So, continued global warming is worse for the US economy than Europe's.
and I still need gas to get to work. Would I like a public transportation system? You bet. Am I going to get one with the level of corruption in my country? Hell no.
What's frustrating is the folks demanding a "free market" solution to the problem. Maybe there will be one like there was for getting lead out of gas. After decades and decades of damage done to people's health and well being (and if crime statistics are to be believed our entire nation). What I'm saying is the free market is _slow_. I'll be dead before it fixes things. Probably from Lung cancer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They are making so many cause and effect assumptions here it is just mind-blowing..
1. The Earth is warming.
2. We are probably the major cause.
3. Our actions are certainly the only knob we can control.
4. It is reckless to change how the only life supporting planet you got works, particularly if you have no viable plan to undo the mess once it gets too far.
5. At minimum we need to compute the cost of action vs the cost of inaction to society, which seems to be what the study does.
Look, I know we've built our societies on CO2 belching cars and CO2 diarrhetic energy production but it's a real problem that we need to fix. We have the technology to build carbon capture systems remove CO2 from the air with 1000x the efficacy of trees (per square meter) but it needs to be built and maintained. Therefore it seems only logical that there be a tax on all the things that produce CO2 so that money can be used to capture it. Obviously, this will make lower and non-polluting products far more attractive as they will be cheaper.
The solution is known and it's extremely frustrating that there is a total lack of will to implement it.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Ask a farmer if temperatures affect yield.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Ask a farmer if temperatures affect yield.
Well here in Australia this so-called climate change is having absolutely no effect on farmers at all! No wait ...
So it’s come down 11.5% over 10 years. That’s a great start but what about the other 88.5%? Given that the reduction is largely due to switching to gas for power and warmer winters, it might be hard to continue the reductions. And nuking China would cause the retaliatory nuking of the US, so probably not a good idea. The subsequent nuclear winter would cool the earth, but it’s a pretty messy way to geoengineer the climate...
Joel Salatin: "Nature's P&L statement day of reckoning..." http://bit.ly/1frMP4H
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
By now we should all be familiar with the Hockey Stick Controversy
Under the "Continuing research" section of the above link, emphasis mine:
Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.
In cartoon format:
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...
And a free-market reaction to the above, with other considerations: an alternative energy consumption and production paradigm seems to be gaining traction, which seems to be related in some way to recent discussions about melting glaciers and sea level rise.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Yes, warm countries are on average less economically successful. That doesn't imply that warming will make a country less successful.
Singapore is right in the tropics, sweltering year round, and is extremely successful. So is Hong Kong, which has only a slightly more tolerable climate. So is Israel, which is in a desert region. In the US, ever since the invention of air conditioning it's been the warm areas, not the cool ones, which have the most economic growth. In both the US and China, the cold regions currently form a stagnating "rust belt".
The reasons why, in other places, economic growth is inversely correlated with temperature, are probably due to history and culture, factors that won't suddenly change if a place warms up.
California farmer or flyover state hayseed farmer?
Temperature affects both.
Higher temperatures can put a California almond farmer out of business.
Higher temperatures will extend the growing season and increase yields for a North Dakota wheat farmer.
Temperature matters.
US NUMBERS FOR CO2 HAVE BEEN FALLING FOR MANY YEARS!!!!!!
When do you expect them to hit zero, with things going they way they are ?
Keep in mind that natural gas replacing coal is just a one time picking of low hanging fruit.
If US numbers were climbing then you could maybe argue the US should do its part to cut back. But US numbers are going down. We're doing our part. And that's before you account for all the carbon sink qualities of US territory.
By your reasoning above, a gruesome analogy would be that you would prefer murder by throwing someone off a cliff because it takes orders of magnitude longer to die than simply shooting someone in the head with a gun.
So... Enough. Go whine to China or possibly Europe who's numbers UNLIKE US NUMBERS are not going down.
Look it up.
I looked, and this is what I found:
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Maybe global climate change is caused by humans, maybe it's not, but regardless, it does seem to be occurring. So slowing down behavior that is known to be environmentally destructive is good, but patting oneself on the back for a reduction that seems to be a drop in the bucket may be a bit premature.
Maybe you can talk Trump into easing economic sanctions in his little trade war with China based on adoption of environmentally friendly policies and products. Oh, wait... nevermind.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Underrated post! May sound stupid but I got halfway through the summary confused before I realized they meant CO2, not Carbon.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
May sound stupid but I got halfway through the summary confused before I realized they meant CO2, not Carbon.
It doesn't sound stupid (as in intellectually disabled), but it's very clear you have not been paying attention for the past decade or two. 'Carbon' in this context, as a short hand for atmospheric carbon in the form of C02 and CH4 is by now very well established. Nor was that the point OP was attempting to make.
>"When do you expect them to hit zero, with things going they way they are ?"
With or without crashing the economy? That is the first question to ask, and a very important one. If it is artificially pushed too hard, then we will completely lose the ability to change at all. Solutions that work AND that make economic sense will be those implemented all on their own, without much resistance. Look at LED lighting for an example of a huge win.
Then consider that market forces have been moving on the problem for a long time. Efficiency of energy consumption has improved tremendously and zero-carbon energy production has been ramping up year after year. Things can only happen so fast.
Indeed - and in fact, prevailing weather has an effect on shopping habits. Apparently, we're not so keen to go shopping when it's blowing a gale outside, nor do we like it when it's too hot.
So in fact, GDP is very much linked to temperature. Sure, maybe not all of it, but it has a noticeable effect on it.
This is a poignant quote from WIndfall which is a book about how people are preparing to make money from climate change:
“It’s a message that says, ‘Yes, forty years from now or a hundred years from now, in 2100, things will be really bad—that’s why you shouldn’t use your energy today.’ If people won’t get that if they have unprotected sex today and it’ll kill you in a few years, why should this other message get across any better? It’s morally bankrupt for the pope to say abstinence only for people to fight HIV—it kills people to say that—and I think that’s a worse sin than fucking."
I will believe Australia is taking global warming seriously when they start building nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output per energy produced than any energy source we have currently with a possible exception for hydroelectric. Nuclear power is also the safest energy source we have, as measured by deaths per energy produced. Any other problems anyone might raise are nothing compared to global warming, assuming that there is in fact man made global warming.
cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
Problems of cost are nothing, because as is pointed out there are costs to continued use of coal. Problems of nuclear waste are nothing, because the waste is contained and localized compared to CO2 which goes everywhere. We know how to deal with waste effectively, put it in a container and keep an eye on it. Presumably in the future we can extract many of the valuable materials from this waste for use in industry and medicine, something we do a limited amount already.
I find it quite contradictory to both complain so vociferously of global warming while having a ban on the use of a technology that has demonstrated a very effective ability to reduce this warming. Go to hell, Australia. Your entire economy is based on the mining of coal and uranium. You burn the coal and export the uranium. You want us in the USA to reduce our CO2? You first! Be an example for the rest of the world. You built up a bunch of wind and then found out it can't work without a big fucking battery to keep the grid stable. You know what would also keep the grid stable? And actually produce energy? Nuclear power plants. Go build your windmills but also build some nuclear power. If you believe global warming will leave your nation desolate then you need to have an "all the above" energy plan, and "all the above" includes nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Higher temperatures will extend the growing season and increase yields for a North Dakota wheat farmer.
Extend the growing season, yes. But decrease rainfall. Will that increase yields? Nope. Also, in the middle of the growing season you'll get temperatures that actually retard growth, since plants shut down at high temps to protect themselves (largely to retain water by reducing respiration.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why do they need to hit zero?
Zero is not enough. The plan set out in the Paris Accord assumes that we'll go beyond zero and begin taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
so where exactly along this long line of production do you expect to emit a negative value to overcome nature
It's not that we need to "overcome nature", it's that we need to overcome history. We've already put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and because the natural processes that remove it are very slow the only way to get the climate back into a normal [*] state and stop the warming effect (much less reverse the warming that has already occurred) is to lower the present CO2 levels faster than nature will do it for us. This assumes we don't use other geo-engineering techniques to reduce warming.
Unless we start photosynthesizing ourselves, we'll naturally emit.
Not unless we eat coal. Sure, when you eat an apple you end up combining a portion of the carbon in the apple with atmospheric oxygen, then emitting the result as CO2. But the carbon came from CO2 in the atmosphere, absorbed by the apple tree. Human (and other animal) CO2 emissions are part of a cyclical process that doesn't make a significant net change in atmospheric CO2. What does make a change is digging up long-sequestered hydrocarbons, burning them to release energy and dumping that carbon into the atmosphere.
[*] "Normal" is a funny word here. There is no such thing as a "normal" Earth climate. The planet's climate changes all the time. Usually -- but not always -- over very long timeframes relative to human perception, but still, it's always changing. All of recorded human history has occurred in a brief warm period of the Quaternary Ice Age. But the point is that we know and like it the way it has been, and in fact we want it to stay this way forever (or at least for a very long time). We don't want it to get hotter and force us to move massive chunks of our population and figure out how to change our food production approaches, which is what we're currently facing. We also don't want it to get much colder. Luckily, we have now proven that we can "engineer" a warming climate, so we can ensure that we never have to deal with colder temperatures. We did it by accident, but we could do it again on purpose if needed. Now we need to figure out how to stop warming, and perhaps even cool the planet a bit. Thus, we can halt the natural fluctuations of the planetary climate forever and lock it permanently in the state that we want it; the one we call "normal".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If global warming from CO2 production is a problem then we need to consider all solutions to reduce CO2 production. As it is right now, today, nuclear power produced the least CO2 for the most energy. As it is right now nuclear power is by far the safest energy source we have.
Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
Anyone that both desires to reduce CO2 immediately and ban the future development of nuclear power is placing us all into an impossible situation. It's possible to both reduce CO2 and not use nuclear power but that means (as shown by the source I linked to above) much more mining of ores for the production of steel, concrete, glass, copper, aluminum, and so many more raw materials. This comes with costs, in money, lives, and standard of living.
Any problems with nuclear power is local, very local, as in limited to the borders of the power plant and the mines. Releases of material beyond these borders are rare, minute, and can be addressed. Issues of CO2 spreading will be global in nature. Any costs of nuclear power must be balanced with the reduced costs of CO2 output it would produce in replacing coal and natural gas.
Wind and solar involve considerable material costs, far more than nuclear. They also have costs in lives from industrial accidents, far less than any from nuclear power per energy produced. Wind and solar are also unreliable and expensive, which when addressing the unreliability means increasing the costs. There may be places where wind and solar are really cheap, and where pumped hydro storage is also cheap, but these places are rare. Suitable sites for nuclear power, especially fourth generation nuclear, are not rare.
I do not believe global warming to be a problem but I will concede that point if it means we get cheap, reliable, and safe nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
They don't calculate the cost of action, that cost is going to be industry specific and the curve will be exponential to the reduction percentage. What percentage of people are you comfortable putting below the cost of living in order to reduce CO2 emissions?
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Warmer air tends to hold moisture better, doesn't it? And what about increased CO2 increasing plant growth?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
if any of them mine bitcoins they should be slapped. If their answer is using less energy to reduce output, then wasting it on useless hash algorithms seems rather hypocritical. Something like a few percent of the entire world consumption is attributed to crytocurrency mining. In one day more KWH are wasted on mining that the entire island of Puerto Rico consumes in a year (pre hurricane levels)
Well, Obama already destroyed Appalachian economies, and the bigoted progressives jeered at the victims.
Not quite. Nuclear cannot respond quickly enough to account for fluctuations in wind power.
Neither can coal, and yet Australia burns a lot of coal. As does Germany, another country brought up as an example of the "success" of wind power.
For that, you need spinning reserve, like a hydro dam or a natural gas turbine. Nuclear is a possible solution but has societal tradeoffs that other energy technologies do not have.
Everything has trade offs. Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 produced per energy produced of any energy source we have today. Nuclear power is far safer than even wind and solar. What trade offs are there that go with this? Well, there's the easily addressed waste to be disposed of. This is a far easier problem than the waste from solar power, and perhaps even the waste from wind power.
Nuclear power needs reserve like wind and solar but because nuclear power is so reliable the levels of reserve needed is far less. In fact a fleet of nuclear power plants can be a spinning reserve for the other nuclear power plants in the fleet. They can increase and decrease power quite quickly in small amounts, which when spread over many power plants can mean a considerable level of spinning reserve. Add this to technologies like batteries and pumped hydro storage that people bring up for reserves on wind and solar means nuclear power is just as viable as wind and solar in meeting our energy needs.
All problems with nuclear power are far more easily solved than any problems with wind and solar. In fact the same energy storage technologies used to address the problems with wind and solar are directly applicable to nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Fracking destroyed those economies. Cheaper natural gas replaced cheap coal. It was the market at work, not Obama.
More news from Captain Obvious. Everyone knows by now that every time we burn a gallon of gas, we damage the environment. Is the damage worth it? Sometimes yes. Can the damage be mitigated? Sometimes yes.
We don't inherit the earth, we borrow it from our descendants. We have no have right to incur a debt that our descendants must pay. People need to understand that environmental damage is stealing from our descendants.
Unfortunately, humanity has not evolved yet a healthy form of government that the protects everyone's right - including the rights of those yet to exist. Human nature is stubborn, but the first step is to admit we have a problem with our governments.
Greed is the root of all evil.
So America deserves zero credit for doing the right thing. Got it. Wanna tell me why we should continue to do so in the future, considering we'll get nothing for it?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Get off the nuclear obsession! How can there be so many unpaid trolls for nuclear power?? It is not the solution to all our problems! It is a SIDE SHOW that you debate along with all the other issues but in the USA, the moron masses are just now starting to slightly admit global warming exists and have moved on to the next phase in the P.R. playbook in saying "it's not our fault." It doesn't even make much sense in this context but they adapted it from the playbook; liability doesn't matter with physics/reality.
The NEXT phase in the P.R. handbook is "we're powerless to change it, so why bother?" and "It's too late to do anything." The cope-with depression phase, where they get you to give up; maybe even finally take the blame, maybe even take the blame for stalling until it is too late... but you can't change the past and the way things are so just let them continue and do nothing... don't even really punish them because it's not going to fix anything.
These are the REAL big problems. You can add nuclear into the debate when people are actually making efforts to prevent and solve the problems but instead these side shows serve to fragment, confuse their opposition, and create doubts.
We do not need to waste investment in OLD nuclear power tech. Yes, I'm including these new uranium reactor designs that are really still just revisions of the old. If there were ACTUALLY new ideas to use, then build some prototypes already! That's not working... know why? Because nothing comes out profitable without government losing money on it! INCLUDING existing plants! Obviously, new is expensive but they can't say it'll come down in price enough to jump onboard in any meaningful way!
Solar and Wind was always known it WOULD come down in price; it's being backed without hardly any subsidies now (at least nothing compared to the others.) Battery tech we know will come down too.... By the time you build a new plant -- which takes a decade-- grid batteries will easily work to scale at a lower price (meaning one could begin doing that; I'm not saying that we will have everything in place in a decade.) Maybe fusion is cracked in 5 years... but you'd already begun building 10 nuclear plants that are halfway built... at $1billion each... assuming you got them going on schedule... the 2 Obama started and funded should be done today. Neither made it. hello? reality. yeah if pigs could fly and popular opinion and politics were ideal... maybe they could be done in 1 year for $50 in your alternative reality...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
because it's going to be empty for about 10-20 years while people switch over. It's not an over night thing. People's lives are built around cars. It takes decades to change it. If you build it they will come, but they'll come _slowly_. You have to convince the American Taxpayer to spend billions on public transport that's going to be almost completely unused for a couple of decades. Good luck with that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because from where I'm sitting at it's not. The free market has nothing to do with our transportation system. Our roads were built with tax payer dollars, oil is secured with our military and it's production heavily subsidized. Even the suburbs are heavily subsidized (the expensive part of prepping the land, running gas, water & electric is all done by the gov't. That's the big reason housing isn't affordable anymore, we stopped doing that in the late 90s).
The difference is that public transport isn't nearly as big a cash cow for mega corps as our system of roads.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Now I know, some of the rest of us now do too.
BTW, I am not against practical nuclear power and I'm heavily pro-research.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It is 'typical' of most economic reports. The numbers are basically made up.
Yeah. Only the economic reports proving that caring about the environment will ruin the economy have the right numbers.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Don't worry, it's just temporary like income tax. Soon as we're done paying for WW2, we'll get rid of the tax, we swear!
Mind the frickin' laser...
It has the capacity to hold more moisture, meaning it can also cause more evaporation.
horror vacui
Im trying to figure out how $50 and $90 falls between $177 and $805. They state a range and then say the second highest country in the world only costs 1/4 of that, and the highest country is only half the lowest value of this range.
wasn't there a way to turn coal into oil? I asked because at one time Gasoline was a possible fuel source for hydrogen powered cars. Its full of hydrogen. Instead of buring it the hydrogen was stripped out, by the car, and fed to the combustion chamber. IF they can do that with gas, then, in theory, they should be able to do that with coal.
>"In just 4hours enough NEW bitmining machines are added to the equation to undermine every milliwatt-hour of energy saved over the last decade from my LED bulbs. "
Well, that is not only true, but very frustrating. At least you know you did what you could, and it will help YOUR energy bill to boot. I agree with you that the whole bitmining thing really is a huge mess.... I imagine the only thing that could help deal with it is to make it uneconomical by constantly step-raising the pricing on such users. But how to do that without penalizing those who really need the energy for USEFUL things, like cooling their building, charging their cars, or running production lines that make stuff? Life is complicated. We really need working/safe/plentiful fusion power.
im waiting to see if that solid-state lithium battery that doesnt require slow charging makes it to market. Rapid charging batteries will overcome one of the largest hindrances to electric vehicles. Price being the other one. Show me a car that is less than $30,000, can go more than 300 miles on a single charge, can be fully recharged inside of 5 minutes, and still looks like a car people want to drive and take trips in(not some bicycle frame or something barely counting) and the problem will solve itself. EV acceleration is pretty good so you dont get that rice-burning, barely get out of its own way, sluggishness that tiny (1.4L) 4-cylinder engines get.
all the fuel savings from switching to LEDs was offset by all the goddamn bitcoin mining
Warmer air tends to hold moisture better, doesn't it?
Yeah, that's why it's alway raining in deserts - it's warmer there after all.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
US numbers are down and consistently down.
Look around the world, very few countries anywhere in the world can make the same claim.
Bitch at them. We're not the problem.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You crazy Americans need to get over your love affair with coal.
Dam your rivers. Build your nuclear plants. Supplement both with solar and wind arrays. Stop listening to your NIMBY's. Use modern technology for goodness sake.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Yes, the trend in US CO2 emissions is declining. The net emissions of CO2 from the US is still massively positive.
Agreed, many other countries do not have a declining trend. Yet. They have no way to invest in battery gigafactories, or solar cell manufacturing, or high-tech clean energies. They are simply trying to thrive,or just survive, with what they have. We lead, the rest of the world follows. Or would you suggesting we abdicate technical leadership in technologies to mitigate global climate change to the Chinese?
The last time I checked, global sea levels are shared by pretty much every nation that matters (sorry Switzerland, nothing personal :), thus climate change is a shared problem, so the bitching should probably be evenly distributed.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
So, you're in support of nuclear power?
Because we could do that to solve some of the problem.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And minorities have less education and are hired less often. It's not racism, it's the market.
Maybe you were just being sarcastic and this was your point, but minorities have less education because of the willful sacking of our education system... along racist lines.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, you're in support of nuclear power?
Because we could do that to solve some of the problem.
So, you're in support of wind and solar? Because they work just as well to solve the problem, but they can built faster and more cheaply even when the cost of storage is accounted for. Surely if you're falling back on the "pragmatism" argument you can agree that we should go with the most pragmatic options, that is to say what we can achieve most rapidly and with the greatest cost benefit — and that is wind and solar power, not nuclear.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First, nice to know you care more about your anti nuclear position than you do about boiling the earth with CO2.
Second, renewables are not ready for rollout in the developing world and on that basis alone fail to solve the problem. Nuclear with some security concerns addressed could do that. It is why you see this tech happening in China and India but renewables are not economical and thus are not invested in to any great extent in these countries.
Third, the developed world can deploy renewables at great expense. The advocates of these technologies are often create unrealistic projections which ironically retard adoption. If they were more honest about how this stuff worked there would be less anxity in its introduction. But they're cultists and can't be reached with reason.
Fourth, whilst the developing world CAN deploy this tech nuclear still makes more sense for the developed world which doesn't have the security concerns of the developing world and can rapidly address its energy needs via this technology.
So sure... I'm totally for renewables in moderation along with other effective technologies deployed sensibly.
IF you're not willing to be sensible on the matter though then you've more or less outed yourself as not really caring about CO2 emissions. Nuclear can address this issue. Renewables cannot.
Resist nuclear and you're as much to blame for the CO2 emissions as the Saudi oil fields.
*shrugs*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Im trying to figure out how $50 and $90 falls between $177 and $805. They state a range and then say the second highest country in the world only costs 1/4 of that, and the highest country is only half the lowest value of this range.
What's so hard to understand. The range is for the global (=total) cost, the two smaller are just for the US and India alone. How is that hard to understand - unless you admit you have no idea what you are talking about and are in no way qualified to enter a discussion about the costs of climate change.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
First, nice to know you care more about your pro-nuclear position than you do about providing solutions that help people more than by just lining the pockets of big energy companies.
Renewable energy in developing Countries.
and specifically, in India.
IF you're not willing to be sensible on the matter though then you've more or less outed yourself as not really caring about CO2 or overall long term environmental costs, and you are instead focusing entirely on your own little pet project and myopic view of the world.
Solar grid parity, a growing trend.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Renewables cannot do that and even what little they can do is at best highly uneconomical.
The real world economics that I've hinted at in an earlier reply contradicts your statement.
Your god is a lie and I will not drink your koolaid. ;-)
I have no god, only theories and testable data, including economic data.
Lots and lots of data.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
I asked you to point at what you were vaguely suggesting existed... but which you still haven't actually brought forward.
I could as easily say you're wrong and cite: www.google.com
Kindly point at what specifically you're referring to so it can be audited. Whilst some people feel that being vague has rhetorical value in that it is hard to know if someone is wrong and very hard to prove someone wrong when they are very vague... it also renders your argument effectively incoherent.
I say for the second post in a row to you, what specifically are you citing? Or shall I just refute your position with my link of www.google.com?
As to the phase out of nuclear power, it is mostly political. You can see it is not being phased out in China or Russia or other places where your cult has no particular sway.
As to you having no god, you've a very clear ideological paradigm that is the controlling factor in your stance on these issues. Memetically, there is no distinction between a classical religion and an ideological framework of that nature.
Thus... you do have a god... it is just a really boring one.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
First, nice to know you care more about your anti nuclear position than you do about boiling the earth with CO2.
I care about not harming the biosphere with CO2 or nuclear power, and I reject your false dichotomy.
Second, renewables are not ready for rollout in the developing world and on that basis alone fail to solve the problem.
Who told you that, and why are you repeating it? Distributed renewables make much more sense in the developing world than exorbitantly expensive capital-intensive projects like nuclear plants, not least because their lack of political instability makes them vulnerable to attack.
Third, the developed world can deploy renewables at great expense. The advocates of these technologies are often create unrealistic projections which ironically retard adoption.
Unrealistic projects? You mean like "too cheap to meter"? You mean like the decommissioning of literally every nuclear power plant ever?
Fourth, whilst the developing world CAN deploy this tech nuclear still makes more sense for the developed world which doesn't have the security concerns of the developing world and can rapidly address its energy needs via this technology.
Well no, no it doesn't. It's cheaper to put in solar or wind plus storage, and they don't leave you with nuclear waste.
So sure... I'm totally for renewables in moderation along with other effective technologies deployed sensibly.
No, you aren't. You're just full of shit. Everything you said about renewables was a lie. I conclude that you're lying about supporting them, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem is that you're not going to get CO2 emissions significantly down absent nuclear power.
And anti nuclear activism of which you've apparently completely fallen for is a good litmus test for ideological zealotry on environmental issues.
Nuclear power is actually very safe with most of the problems being extreme outlier contexts. The Chernobyl for example was a very old reactor design that had its safeties intentionally turned off. It was a worst case scenario. It was effectively sabotage some some insane soviet engineers.
The other incidents have had negligible environmental consequences on top of being very old reactor designs as well.
We have much better reactor designs now. We don't need to have huge reactors. We can create fail safe designs that cannot melt down or crack their casings.
Your renewables are hardly better environmentally if you consider other pollutants. The solar and wind options are increasingly requiring batteries... which tends to mean heavy metals... and the electronics often demand lots of rare earths. Lithium is quite a bit rarer than is petroleum.
What is more, there are land use issues with your applications. As it typical, you will slavishly advocate large solar and wind farms because that fits into the public works fraud schemes that seem to always go along with these things. This is despite the fact that on site solar and wind is dramatically more efficient. Dumping solar and wind into the general grid is inefficient when the power is defuse, can be sourced at site of use, and there are huge inefficiencies to shifting between DC and AC to say nothing of transmission loss.
You're basically one of those sad people that signs a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide at an environmental rally.
Grow up. This mindless zealotry might have cowed the baby boomer generation but that weakness wanes every day.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your renewables are hardly better environmentally if you consider other pollutants.
What? Yes they are. They are drastically better.
The solar and wind options are increasingly requiring batteries... which tends to mean heavy metals...
The amounts of heavy metals have been decreasing, and the metals are aggressively recycled from batteries.
and the electronics often demand lots of rare earths.
No, they don't. Rare earths are used in minuscule quantities.
Lithium is quite a bit rarer than is petroleum.
Lithium doesn't increase global warming, and can be processed from seawater.
What is more, there are land use issues with your applications.
Name them.
on site solar and wind is dramatically more efficient.
No, it isn't. It's slightly more efficient, and even that only when the point of consumption is also an ideal point of production.
Dumping solar and wind into the general grid is inefficient when the power is defuse,
The word you're apparently looking for is "diffuse", which means in this context "spread around". But that's precisely why you need spread-out solar or wind farms... because all the power isn't in one place. Of course, oil wells are also spread around, because all of the oil isn't in one place. Coal mines are also spread around, for the same reason. And uranium comes from the least concentrated ores we mine, so it's also spread around. That's why uranium mining produces massive strip mines, which are also spread around. And the tailings from these mines leach, which spreads the pollution around.
can be sourced at site of use,
No, it often really can't.
and there are huge inefficiencies to shifting between DC and AC to say nothing of transmission loss.
There were before MPPT. Now there aren't. And transmission loss is less than 3% in this country, right now. If we install more distributed power, then it will be closer to the points of use than it is now, not further away.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Want a battery factory in your neighborhood or do you want to walk that bullshit back?
There is a reason most of this stuff is manufactured in places with lax to no environmental regulation.
Which is ironic because you guys seem so keen on the environment... and yet you rely on China and India basically not applying any of those ethics to produce your products with any kind of economy.
And to make things funnier... they power the factories to do this with Coal and Nuclear. You'd think a solar power panel company would be swimming in their own cheap solar. But they're not. Same with wind... how many wind mill factories are powered by wind power? What is the argument here? No sun or wind in china? Anywhere? They could install some solar and wind elsewhere in china and be carbon neutral for the plant.
They're not for some reason... Weird, huh?
Tells all you need to know.
I almost got baited into putting links in here... you almost got me. You haven't posted any links... so I'm not going to either.
As one Californian to another, know that I've had more than my fill of conversations with enviro-cultists.
I "ACTUALLY" care about the environment. I'd like for us to track emissions and environmental compliance of all imports. I'd like us to stop shutting down relatively environmentally friendly US production on environmental grounds only to have much dirtier production started in another country.
I'd like to de-politicize environmental policy by not using it as a political bludgeon by one political faction against another. We all breath the same air, we all drink the same water, we all eat the same food. Whatever your political tribe, we all care about the environment.
As to being a rabid AGW guy... It is obviously dramatically over hyped. As I made clear in my first post, the news is full of these stupid articles every day blaming every weather event, flu, etc on global warming. You've seen them too, don't lie.
That being the case, the media has no credibility on the matter and neither do many of the advocacy groups that push those articles for propaganda.
If the position hadn't been over stated, if debate had been welcomed, if contradiction and correction were accepted... then a legitimate discussion could occur on the matter. But every suggestion that such a thing occur is met with hostility.
So there won't be a discussion. We'll just power politics at each other ON THAT ISSUE until you again appreciate that you MUST tolerate debate. If you don't, then that doesn't mean opposition submits it just means you are robbed of the opportunity to discuss the issue.
But that is merely one environmental issue. We can talk about GMO, we can talk about deforestation. I even want to save the whales. ;-D
Also, correcting one of my typos in an internet thread doesn't make you seem intellectually superior or myself inferior... it just reads at petty. FYI. Just so you know.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Want a battery factory in your neighborhood or do you want to walk that bullshit back?
Of course I do. I want there to be more of them all over the place, so that we can move forward with effective technology. Fact is, though, nobody would put one in my neighborhood anyway. I live on the coast.
There is a reason most of this stuff is manufactured in places with lax to no environmental regulation.
Right, that's why Tesla built their battery factory in the USA. Wait, what? True, our environmental protections are being dismantled, but the factory went up before Trump.
As one Californian to another, know that I've had more than my fill of conversations with enviro-cultists.
So what? What does that prove, or even indicate?
I "ACTUALLY" care about the environment.
I'm glad you put that in quotes since you actually don't give a fuck.
And to make things funnier... they power the factories to do this with Coal and Nuclear. You'd think a solar power panel company would be swimming in their own cheap solar. But they're not.
You would think that if you were a total moron who has no idea of how anything works, but I'm not. They are in business to make money. They sell the panels to whoever will pay the most for them. They are getting that coal energy cheaply so they will keep using it to make panels. On the other hand, every panel installed represents a greener energy mix. Every time they sell a panel and it gets hooked up to the grid, the entire world's balance is shifted towards renewables. It's not their fault those panels aren't being installed where they will contribute to the creation of more panels. That's not their business.
I'd like us to stop shutting down relatively environmentally friendly US production on environmental grounds only to have much dirtier production started in another country.
I agree with that to an extent. However, I don't care where the panels are made, so long as they are made and installed. Once they're installed somewhere, they're providing a benefit somewhere.
As to being a rabid AGW guy... It is obviously dramatically over hyped.
Hockey stick motherfucker, have you seen it?
As I made clear in my first post, the news is full of these stupid articles every day blaming every weather event, flu, etc on global warming. You've seen them too, don't lie.
You are the liar here. They are blaming the severity of these events on global warming, and you're deliberately mischaracterizing their reports because you're a disingenuous douchebag. We know you're smart enough to understand what you've read, but you're willfully refusing to do so, which is why you're a douchebag.
That being the case, the media has no credibility on the matter
You shot your credibility wad telling lies about the media, you don't get to weigh in on their level of credibility while you're actively lying about them.
If the position hadn't been over stated,
The media has been consistently understating the situation, not overstating it. Stop lying.
if debate had been welcomed, if contradiction and correction were accepted...
Your lies are unwelcome. Crying about how your lies are unwelcome won't change the fact that they are lies, and won't make them any more welcome.
So there won't be a discussion. We'll just power politics at each other ON THAT ISSUE until you again appreciate that you MUST tolerate debate.
You're not interested in debate, only hand waving until people get tired of trying to debate you while you're ignoring facts and twisting words. No one is interested in tolerating that. Tolerance of abuse is not tolerance, it
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"