What is so sad is that my post was downvoted while being completely true and correct.
Sadly, people don't want to hear it and so they downvote things that are unpleasant, which is why progress isn't being made, because there is no meaningful conversation happening.
People simply ignore things that are not to their liking, so you end up with people talking past each other rather than with each other.
It can be done, if enough governments have the political will to do so
Yes, and we can go to Mars in 10 years, if we have the political will to do so.
Neither is going to happen.:(
---
What I will say is that a lot of the people concerned over global warming are going after it all wrong. Taxing carbon and telling people to turn off their AC isn't the solution.
Coming up with clean power that honestly costs less than dirty power will fix the problem naturally.
That is where the effort should be focused, because the others are doomed to fail because we have 200+ nations in this world, but all share the same air.
The slashdot knee-jerk response is "Install Linux". But it might actually be time to have that conversation.
The time to have that conversation was back when Windows ME was launched, or even Windows XP.
We are way, way past that point now. For all the "OMG M$ is the evilz!" nonsense, Windows 10 is one of the nicest Windows launches they have had. It takes much of what was great about 7 and combines the improvements from 8 and puts them together.
Linux might have had a chance 15 years ago to take a decent share of the desktop market. That ship has sailed...
It does cost $35K when you need a 10kw system to make a noticeable difference to your power bill.
It shouldn't, but it does.
Oh sure, I could put 2kw up there, but that wouldn't offset my AC use, much less anything else.
---
But all that misses the point... Me putting up solar or not putting up solar won't change the outcome.
Too many people are fighting the battle without winning the war. All that really matters is the total CO2 put into the air. How it gets there and by whom matters not.
The rate of solar installs, wind installs, etc. are not remotely enough to change the end game. They are off by an order of magnitude or more...
You misunderstand... I'm willing to change if the change is reasonable...
Some people are NOT willing to change no matter what because they either don't care, don't understand, or think it is a trick...
You have more of an uphill battle than you even know because of that...
When my cost of install of solar gets down to about $25K, give or take, I'll put it on. Right now I have not been able to find anyone who will install a 10kw system for that price, $35K is about as close as I've gotten. It is marginal at $25K, but I'll do it there. $35K is just silly.
Some people wouldn't do it even if it was $15K, and THAT would be a good deal.
Yes, it does require the government to step in... Except, there is the thing... it would take ALL the governments stepping in.
Just the US or just the EU can't do anything about this, unless they can get China, India, Brazil, Russia, and a whole lot of other nations on board.
Oh sure, they are all playing lip service, and will make some efforts, but until you're able to make real cuts, that is all it is, lip service.
---
Keep in mind that most governments require at least some consent of the governed. If the people of the US for example elect leaders who don't do anything about this, then perhaps the people don't want anything done. Or at least aren't willing to pay for it.
Do not misunderstand me, I see that there is a risk and a challenge here. I just also understand that humans are... not likely to address this in the time-frame that it sounds like it will require.
Have you considered that a whole lot of people STILL won't change even if that does happen?
It is a mistake to think that the average person in India, Kansas, or Russia, cares about what happens to Florida, or is willing to make personal sacrifices to help anyone in Florida.
Your contribution might be almost unrecordable on a chart but it will contribute.
That is a perfectly example of an academic argument that doesn't hold up when applied to real life.
My contribution doesn't move the needle by enough to make a difference in the outcome, but it DOES make a difference to my pocketbook. I'm harming myself while not helping everyone else by enough for it to count for anything.
No one has asked you to do that. If you were smart you would do the responsible thing and add solar panels to your roof to reduce your carbon footprint, but we both know you're not smart..
Nuclear energy is not going to solve our problems. It is obscenely expensive - far more expensive than wind or solar. This is true both for construction costs, maintenance costs, total lifetime costs, and also costs per final delivered kWh. Nuclear is only feasible for a very specific set of scenarios - scenarios where you have a large population or industry center located in an area that is poor in renewable energy sources. And even then, only as an augmentative power source to renewable energy, not as a sole source of power.
It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
The current market conditions for nuclear power are not reflective of what they could be, in another environment.
That isn't true at all, nor is it a reasonable or fair thing to say...
All you're doing is shutting down any meaningful communication...
Example... I recently spent over $400 buying LED bulbs for my house... My existing bulbs "worked just fine", so why do it? Because I'll make back the cost of those bulbs in what I consider to be a reasonable time frame, while lowering my carbon footprint.
That is a win, win. There is no reason that most bulbs shouldn't be replaced with LED, even those that work fine today. There are perhaps the edge cases, a few exceptions, but most household bulbs should be replaced, they are much, much cheaper to run, even if more expensive up front.
---
I'm willing to pay a bit more up front if it saves me in the long run. The issue with a lot of clean tech today is "the long run" is just too long. Solar and EV cars are good examples of that. When the price becomes more reasonable, I'll be more interested.
So you are saying you will feed you ego prior to ensuring your own existence
My existence will continue on exactly the same way no matter what I do.
Have a problem with something deal with it and don't pretend you are dealing with it by wishing for other people to create a solution that very well might occur far too late or never.
My own actions will make zero difference to the outcome. Only the actions of a majority of people on this planet are going to really matter.
The only way to get a majority of people to change their behavior is to make it cheaper to be clean than dirty, and you can't do it via taxes, since that isn't worldwide.
---
I get it, you don't like to hear it, you don't want to hear it, you are desperatly hoping it somehow is otherwise. But it isn't, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can do something about it.
I'm just being realistic about the situation, rather than living in fantasy land. I'm totally on board that the planet shouldn't keep polluting, but the solution won't be found in new taxes or telling people to live in caves.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
That may all be true, but there is a difference between understanding a problem and having any way to do anything about it.
This is where this all falls apart, because while this might be priority one to you or to some people, it is priority number 47 to the average person.
Is it important? Sure... So is saving the polar bears, but the average person isn't going to give up their way of life to save them. Thinking they will holds back the real solutions.
...but I'm still not going to turn off my AC, stop driving my truck, or move into a smaller house.
The only real solution is going to be figuring out how to provide power cleanly for less money than doing it dirty.
Anything else is just an illusion, it won't be used by enough people to matter. You need to provide people a reason to change, and telling them to pay more money to save planet Earth isn't going to be it.
I'm all for clean power, to a point... but when it is less reliable and costs more money than the existing options, you just aren't going to get anywhere.
Actually its quite simple. The cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide produced along with the energy.
That sure sounds simple, but you know that isn't going to happen...
We just don't like where these numbers lead and no one wants to penalize their country by acting responsible while everyone else just pollutes the world to their economic advantage.
At the end of the day, none of this matters unless you figure out how to apply it to the whole world, because only half of the planet doing it right doesn't really help.
NG and coal only cost less if they are able to externalize the cost of the pollution they produce including the cost of anthropogenic global warming from the greenhouse gases they emit. If they're going to stand on their own that cost has to be included.
Maybe, that is a debatable point...
AGW is still not settled (it really isn't, if it was, there wouldn't be debates about it). There is no doubt that the climate is getting warmer, but you can't tell me what percentage is caused by mankind.
Putting that issue aside, the question then becomes, what is that cost? Any price you put on it is simply made up.
Then you also need to do the same, add in the cost of producing the solar panels and wind turbines, which isn't very green either. Probably less than coal and gas of course.
Finally, you can talk about costs and environment all you like (and you should, those are important)... but equally important is having reliable 24/7 power that is on all the time without concern of time of day use. What I have not yet heard is how we could have a 100% solar/wind power grid and still have reliable 24/7 power. If that conversation was had more often, I think more people would be open to the concept.
Control of your major appliances through smart meters is a way of adjusting the demand when necessary.
And this is where that dream goes sideways...
I have no interest in the grid, or someone else, deciding when my washer and dryer run, when my hot water is on or off, etc.
The cost to power them today is trivial, I'm not interested in giving up what I have, which is reliable 24/7 power that allows me to turn on anything I want, any time I want.
Ask any mother with kids who has 5 loads of laundry to do on Monday during the day while the kids are at school, and she'll tell you the same thing.
Here is how it works. You buy an electric car and keep it plugged in. You charge it when energy costs are low, and SELL electricity back to the grid when rates are high.
My power rates are the same, 24/7.
And there are more electric cars being built every day.
Yes, but the number is a rounding error and will remain so for a long time. Longer than we'd want to wait for such a system.
Slashdot Mirror
What is so sad is that my post was downvoted while being completely true and correct.
Sadly, people don't want to hear it and so they downvote things that are unpleasant, which is why progress isn't being made, because there is no meaningful conversation happening.
People simply ignore things that are not to their liking, so you end up with people talking past each other rather than with each other.
It can be done, if enough governments have the political will to do so
Yes, and we can go to Mars in 10 years, if we have the political will to do so.
Neither is going to happen. :(
---
What I will say is that a lot of the people concerned over global warming are going after it all wrong. Taxing carbon and telling people to turn off their AC isn't the solution.
Coming up with clean power that honestly costs less than dirty power will fix the problem naturally.
That is where the effort should be focused, because the others are doomed to fail because we have 200+ nations in this world, but all share the same air.
Sure... but that also isn't going to happen any time soon, and when it does it may well take another world war to make happen...
Not endorsing it, just reflecting on human nature...
Of course, which is why we shouldn't elect either one of them...
I don't like Sanders, I think his ideas are not realistic...
However I'd take him in a new york min over Clinton...
The slashdot knee-jerk response is "Install Linux". But it might actually be time to have that conversation.
The time to have that conversation was back when Windows ME was launched, or even Windows XP.
We are way, way past that point now. For all the "OMG M$ is the evilz!" nonsense, Windows 10 is one of the nicest Windows launches they have had. It takes much of what was great about 7 and combines the improvements from 8 and puts them together.
Linux might have had a chance 15 years ago to take a decent share of the desktop market. That ship has sailed...
It does cost $35K when you need a 10kw system to make a noticeable difference to your power bill.
It shouldn't, but it does.
Oh sure, I could put 2kw up there, but that wouldn't offset my AC use, much less anything else.
---
But all that misses the point... Me putting up solar or not putting up solar won't change the outcome.
Too many people are fighting the battle without winning the war. All that really matters is the total CO2 put into the air. How it gets there and by whom matters not.
The rate of solar installs, wind installs, etc. are not remotely enough to change the end game. They are off by an order of magnitude or more...
You misunderstand... I'm willing to change if the change is reasonable...
Some people are NOT willing to change no matter what because they either don't care, don't understand, or think it is a trick...
You have more of an uphill battle than you even know because of that...
When my cost of install of solar gets down to about $25K, give or take, I'll put it on. Right now I have not been able to find anyone who will install a 10kw system for that price, $35K is about as close as I've gotten. It is marginal at $25K, but I'll do it there. $35K is just silly.
Some people wouldn't do it even if it was $15K, and THAT would be a good deal.
Yes, it does require the government to step in... Except, there is the thing... it would take ALL the governments stepping in.
Just the US or just the EU can't do anything about this, unless they can get China, India, Brazil, Russia, and a whole lot of other nations on board.
Oh sure, they are all playing lip service, and will make some efforts, but until you're able to make real cuts, that is all it is, lip service.
---
Keep in mind that most governments require at least some consent of the governed. If the people of the US for example elect leaders who don't do anything about this, then perhaps the people don't want anything done. Or at least aren't willing to pay for it.
Do not misunderstand me, I see that there is a risk and a challenge here. I just also understand that humans are... not likely to address this in the time-frame that it sounds like it will require.
Have you considered that a whole lot of people STILL won't change even if that does happen?
It is a mistake to think that the average person in India, Kansas, or Russia, cares about what happens to Florida, or is willing to make personal sacrifices to help anyone in Florida.
Your contribution might be almost unrecordable on a chart but it will contribute.
That is a perfectly example of an academic argument that doesn't hold up when applied to real life.
My contribution doesn't move the needle by enough to make a difference in the outcome, but it DOES make a difference to my pocketbook. I'm harming myself while not helping everyone else by enough for it to count for anything.
No one has asked you to do that. If you were smart you would do the responsible thing and add solar panels to your roof to reduce your carbon footprint, but we both know you're not smart..
For $35,000? What planet do you live on?
Nuclear energy is not going to solve our problems. It is obscenely expensive - far more expensive than wind or solar. This is true both for construction costs, maintenance costs, total lifetime costs, and also costs per final delivered kWh. Nuclear is only feasible for a very specific set of scenarios - scenarios where you have a large population or industry center located in an area that is poor in renewable energy sources. And even then, only as an augmentative power source to renewable energy, not as a sole source of power.
It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
The current market conditions for nuclear power are not reflective of what they could be, in another environment.
That isn't true at all, nor is it a reasonable or fair thing to say...
All you're doing is shutting down any meaningful communication...
Example... I recently spent over $400 buying LED bulbs for my house... My existing bulbs "worked just fine", so why do it? Because I'll make back the cost of those bulbs in what I consider to be a reasonable time frame, while lowering my carbon footprint.
That is a win, win. There is no reason that most bulbs shouldn't be replaced with LED, even those that work fine today. There are perhaps the edge cases, a few exceptions, but most household bulbs should be replaced, they are much, much cheaper to run, even if more expensive up front.
---
I'm willing to pay a bit more up front if it saves me in the long run. The issue with a lot of clean tech today is "the long run" is just too long. Solar and EV cars are good examples of that. When the price becomes more reasonable, I'll be more interested.
So you are saying you will feed you ego prior to ensuring your own existence
My existence will continue on exactly the same way no matter what I do.
Have a problem with something deal with it and don't pretend you are dealing with it by wishing for other people to create a solution that very well might occur far too late or never.
My own actions will make zero difference to the outcome. Only the actions of a majority of people on this planet are going to really matter.
The only way to get a majority of people to change their behavior is to make it cheaper to be clean than dirty, and you can't do it via taxes, since that isn't worldwide.
---
I get it, you don't like to hear it, you don't want to hear it, you are desperatly hoping it somehow is otherwise. But it isn't, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can do something about it.
I'm just being realistic about the situation, rather than living in fantasy land. I'm totally on board that the planet shouldn't keep polluting, but the solution won't be found in new taxes or telling people to live in caves.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
That may all be true, but there is a difference between understanding a problem and having any way to do anything about it.
This is where this all falls apart, because while this might be priority one to you or to some people, it is priority number 47 to the average person.
Is it important? Sure... So is saving the polar bears, but the average person isn't going to give up their way of life to save them. Thinking they will holds back the real solutions.
...but I'm still not going to turn off my AC, stop driving my truck, or move into a smaller house.
The only real solution is going to be figuring out how to provide power cleanly for less money than doing it dirty.
Anything else is just an illusion, it won't be used by enough people to matter. You need to provide people a reason to change, and telling them to pay more money to save planet Earth isn't going to be it.
I'm all for clean power, to a point... but when it is less reliable and costs more money than the existing options, you just aren't going to get anywhere.
Actually its quite simple. The cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide produced along with the energy.
That sure sounds simple, but you know that isn't going to happen...
We just don't like where these numbers lead and no one wants to penalize their country by acting responsible while everyone else just pollutes the world to their economic advantage.
At the end of the day, none of this matters unless you figure out how to apply it to the whole world, because only half of the planet doing it right doesn't really help.
Right, but that of course is the problem...
Until we're willing to make those hard choices, this is all just noise...
Are you sure that is how it works... where *I* live...
Maybe I should have been more specific...
Risk management principles say that if there's a possibility of higher risk it's worth spending more to try and avoid it.
I would agree with that...
But the question then becomes... how much more?
That becomes a political issue, not a science issue...
NG and coal only cost less if they are able to externalize the cost of the pollution they produce including the cost of anthropogenic global warming from the greenhouse gases they emit. If they're going to stand on their own that cost has to be included.
Maybe, that is a debatable point...
AGW is still not settled (it really isn't, if it was, there wouldn't be debates about it). There is no doubt that the climate is getting warmer, but you can't tell me what percentage is caused by mankind.
Putting that issue aside, the question then becomes, what is that cost? Any price you put on it is simply made up.
Then you also need to do the same, add in the cost of producing the solar panels and wind turbines, which isn't very green either. Probably less than coal and gas of course.
Finally, you can talk about costs and environment all you like (and you should, those are important)... but equally important is having reliable 24/7 power that is on all the time without concern of time of day use. What I have not yet heard is how we could have a 100% solar/wind power grid and still have reliable 24/7 power. If that conversation was had more often, I think more people would be open to the concept.
Control of your major appliances through smart meters is a way of adjusting the demand when necessary.
And this is where that dream goes sideways...
I have no interest in the grid, or someone else, deciding when my washer and dryer run, when my hot water is on or off, etc.
The cost to power them today is trivial, I'm not interested in giving up what I have, which is reliable 24/7 power that allows me to turn on anything I want, any time I want.
Ask any mother with kids who has 5 loads of laundry to do on Monday during the day while the kids are at school, and she'll tell you the same thing.
Your power rates shouldn't be the same 24/7 since the electric utility pays a vastly different rate for power depending on supply and demand.
Are you so sure about that?
^ That of course requires that South Dakota is connected to Arizona...
The whole nation isn't one power grid. Texas is the simple example, being almost, but not quite totally cut off from the rest of the nation...
Here is how it works. You buy an electric car and keep it plugged in. You charge it when energy costs are low, and SELL electricity back to the grid when rates are high.
My power rates are the same, 24/7.
And there are more electric cars being built every day.
Yes, but the number is a rounding error and will remain so for a long time. Longer than we'd want to wait for such a system.