I'm curious... say we wanted to keep the level of CO2 in the atmosphere constant at its current level. What level of carbon emissions would we need to have? (Or, to put it another way, what is the natural "Carbon sink rate" of the Earth?)
From what I have read, we would have to cut our emission by half to hold at current levels, and that assumes that the trees and oceans can continue to absorb at the rate they have been, which is questionable.
If you wanted a margin for error, I'd suggest cutting by 75% to be safe.
So SOME fossil fuels could be used, but they would largely all be oil since we won't replace all the cars in the world for a long time, even if we wanted to. And a few classic cars could still be driven in small numbers.
Electricity generation isn't the only source of man-made CO2 emissions, so I'd suggest coal and natural gas have to go outright to get there.
800 ppm is a bigger problem than 700 ppm, and 700 ppm is a bigger problem than 600, 500 or 400. Obviously, we can't stop using fossil fuel right now. The best we can do is use less of it. That'll buy us some more time to work on the new challenges.
While that is all true, I would question if it makes any difference beyond a given point...
Does it matter if the freight train hits your car doing 30 mph instead of 60 mph?
If you've ever followed my posts, you'll know I'm a climate change skeptic, I'm not convinced that we are the problem. But I'm also willing to be wrong in that viewpoint, I do not hold the exclusive right to be correct in my views.
If I am wrong, then we need to do a 90 degree turn and take drastic action.
Can we start cutting our fossil fuel use tomorrow? Sure, but it will take huge, massive, international commitments to do it on the scale of WWII to do it. We will have to pour our national resources into this in a way that hasn't been done since then.
Imagine for a minute what it would take to make a world wide commitment to shut down 100% of all fossil fuel power within 30 years. A few small measures aren't going to do it, it will have to become priority one, and not just in the US or Europe, but worldwide.
How about we look for solutions rather than assume that everything will be exactly like it is now
Because those solutions you suggested are not likely to happen given the current state of public opinion, money, and politics...
What will it take to change it? Honestly, I don't think anything will change, people don't like change and don't plan very far in the future...
I live in Texas, we get nearly 50% of our power from natural gas, about 1/3 from coal, about 15% from nuclear, and the rest from "other. That isn't likely to change any time soon.
This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.
If it's that critical, it's not going to come from amazon. You'll have a service provider on call.
Perhaps, and a company should have spares on-site... but things happen and stuff gets missed and not every company is big enough to have it all on hand...
This will help someone... It just might not be you...
I just paid for next day delivery last night from Amazon... for a part for my toilet tank that broke.
It was Thursday night, about 7pm, when I noticed the toilet wasn't filling up.
Can I run over to Home Depot? Sure, but that takes time and I had kids to get into bed and work to do.
So Amazon charged me $5 to have it here this morning (Friday, showed up about 10am) and I have it fixed.
$5 to have my toilet fixed in less than 24 hours and I didn't have to take 30 min to go to Home Depot?
Bargain!
---
Note: I don't do it often, I usually take standard shipping, I'm not in a rush on most items, but when it is needed, I don't mind paying, what service! Overnight shipping for $5!
If we build enough nuclear plants to shut down all our coal plants(we'll need to build about 200 of them), we'll have building them nailed down to pretty much routine. At which point we can get the BRIC nations adopting them as well.
Dude, just because something isn't a '100%' solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't still go for it if it provides worthy benefits.
I agree that if we made building nuke plants a normal thing, we'd get better at it and the technology would improve.
But lets be honest, public opinion is not on nuclear's side.
Another point to consider is that while we could lead by example, the question becomes would the change come in time to matter. Getting public opinion turned around and getting several thousand nuclear plants built world wide would take many decades, if not the rest of this century. By that point, CO2 will have passed 550 PPM and it won't matter anymore...
As for something being worth "going for" if it doesn't provide a 100% solution, I answered that in another post. I'll give another example...
Lets say you're flying across the Atlantic, you have 1,000 gallons of fuel and the trip needs 1,000 gallons of fuel, you'll JUST MAKE IT if everything goes right. 1/3 off the way across, you discover the winds are not in your favor and you'll now be 100 gallons of fuel short.
What do you do? You turn around, you can no longer make it. It is a binary result, you either have enough or you don't, hoping that you can almost make it or that things will get better or that maybe if you just fly REALLY well it will work out.
You know what? Many ferry pilots of small aircraft flying to Hawaii have crashed, sometimes within sight of the islands, because they pushed the limits too far.
---
Does it matter if the CO2 levels in 2100 are 550 PPM, 545 PPM, or 555 PPM? I would suggest that it doesn't, not really. If we spend our resources trying to get them from 550 PPM down to 545 PPM, or even 540 PPM, that completely misses the point...
They just passed 400 PPM two months ago. If that is the safe level, then anything in the mid 550s is bad, holding it down a bit doesn't matter if you're way, way past the red line.
---
Let me turn this around and ask you a question:
"What would it take for CO2 levels to stop rising... today...?" As in, stay at 400 PPM and not rise any further? We are currently added 2 PPM per year, so something major would have to change.
Also, remember my mentioning using retired EV batteries? If you have enough of those to have one in 'every' house, it logically leads that there needs to be an EV in 'every' house.
We're going to end up adopting to the 'new world' no matter what, but we can at least try to limit the damage, and I hate coal for the pollution it emits that kills people more than I hate the CO2 it produces.
I am not at all convinced we'll have an EV in every house. EV batteries are not remotely clean, they are just made in China were we currently ignore the pollution of their production.
As for limiting the damage, if you spend all your money and resources trying to limit the damage by a little bit, you'll have nothing left to plan for the new world.
Simple example:
You're on a small Pacific island, there is a big storm coming, so you want to prepare. You put sand bags out on the beach, you board up your house, you move stuff to higher land, you dig trenches around your property to give water somewhere else to go besides your home...
You also decide, just in case, to build a boat as an escape plan, in case the storm is too big. But because you spent so much time putting out sand bags, digging trenches, etc. you didn't get the boat done, or didn't stock it with enough food.
So the storm comes and it turns out to be a massive typhoon that washes over the whole island. Your boat isn't enough to get you to the main land, and all your prevention efforts were completely wasted and ineffective.
Had you just written the house off and put everything into building the boat, you would have survived.
---
What is the moral of that story? Changing what is coming by 2%, or 5%, or even 20%, isn't going to actually change what is coming. It is a binary result, either the island is wiped out or it isn't. Putting half our money into trying to stop it is a waste, instead prepare for it since we can't stop it at this point.
You did read my post, right? You didn't just skim it? 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, 20% other(hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, etc...) doesn't leave any coal being burned for electricity. I can live with it being burned to create steel and such.
Yes, but that isn't going to happen...
Nuclear has so much popular opinion against it, it just isn't going to get any traction. China and Russia are building some, but not enough.
Please keep in mind, I'm not saying it is a bad idea, I'd love it... but the reality of popular opinion, political support, and where the money is, says that just isn't going to happen...
China plans to build 50 coal gasification plants in less populated northwestern parts of the country, using the gas produced to generate electricity in the more populated areas, where smog is prevalent. Two coal gasification pilot plants have been built, three more are under construction, and 16 have been approved for construction, while the rest are in various planning stages.
Coal gasification produces more carbon dioxide than a traditional coal plant. According to a study by Duke University, synthetic natural gas emits seven times more greenhouse gases than natural gas, and almost twice as much carbon dioxide as a coal plant.
There are other concerns besides CO2, China is dealing with massive pollution, one of the ways is they are building these far from population centers. But they make TONS of CO2.
The overall point is that we have to address CO2 from a planet point of view, not a nations point of view. And THAT is even LESS likely to happen.
I wouldn't consider 10 as 'slightly less' than 15 in most contexts. I also don't know what you're trying to teach or demonstrate to me, seeing as how: 1. Power demand is leveling off in the USA, per household use is decreasing, and the rate of growth for number of households is also slowing. 2. If you're going to go from 10TWh to 15TWh, that means that you have to build a ton of new power plants, and the EPA has made building new coal plants even more uneconomical than new nuclear.
You are correct that the growth rate in the US is slowing... it hasn't stopped, just slowing...
I'm trying to point out that percentages can lie, it sounds really good to go to 20% solar, until you look at the total number. If your total number goes up by 50%, then you aren't making progress, you're falling behind.
New coal plants aren't being built because natural gas has become cheap. We are still increasing our power production levels, but we're doing it with natural gas. Solar remains a rounding error, wind is doing ok however and will keep growing slowly.
---
It is also worth noting that the USA is not the world. China is a problem, as are many other nations...
In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.
And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.
---
The point is, it doesn't matter how many more megawatts of solar/wind/hydro you bring on if you're still bringing on more coal.
For that matter, it wouldn't matter if we STOP building new coal, we have to shut down the ones we have, or CO2 will keep going up.
Yes it would. It wouldn't be a complete solution, but at that point it's getting there. My 'ideal' non carbon power mix is 20% solar, 20% wind, 40% nuclear, and 20% 'other' including hydro.
Every coal plant we shut down is lives saved, that much less CO2 for global warming.
Consider that 80% of a really big number is more than 100% of a slightly less big number.
Example (totally made up numbers for easy math):
Today, we're making 10 terawatts of power using 100% coal. This puts 100 gigatons of CO2 into the air.
In 20 years, we're making 15 terawatts of power using 80% coal and 20% solar. This puts 120 gigatons of CO2 into the air.
This is not an improvement, even though solar now accounts for 20% of our total power output.
Until it flips around to 80% solar, 20% coal, and assuming that we don't triple our energy use in the next 50 years, it won't make a lick of difference. Keep in mind this doesn't take into account oil burned for transport.
---
Assume for a minute that the climate change people are right and that we're putting too much CO2 into the air. If that is correct, then we are so far from a solution, it might be easier and cheaper to adapt to the new world that is coming than to try and stop it. We would almost have to go cold turkey tomorrow, either shutting down half our power plants, or we'd need the biggest nuclear construction project you can imagine.
The efforts being made don't change the outcome by enough to matter.
It is worth pointing out that at the current growth rate of CO2 emissions in the BRIC nations, the US and EU could cut our emissions to ZERO tomorrow, and within 20 years it wouldn't matter because BRIC all by themselves would replace what we were putting out.
You have to get the whole world to change, or it doesn't matter, as CO2 will just keep rising.
If they're that antsy over their TV, they buy a bigger battery pack and/or hook a generator into the system. You just don't get how 'greenies' think.
I'm not thinking about "greenies" at all... I'm thinking about normal people, John and Jane Q. Public... i.e. the 80% of the middle of the pack of Americans to whom this is not priority one...
Do they care about the environment? Sure, of course... to a point... it is #17 on their list of crap to care about today, so it matters, but only until it starts costing them money, then they care a whole lot less.
---
Let me put this another way... until you can come up with something better than coal and natural gas to provide post, John and Jane Q. Public are not going to change... until THEY change, nothing is going to happen to CO2 emissions except continue to go up.
So this is all hot air (no pun intended) until a solution is found that doesn't involve batteries, complex timing requirements, or having the TV go off due to a lack of solar or wind power during prime time.
You REALLY want to see some riots? Try having the TVs go out during NASCAR or Monday Night Football... tens of millions of American's won't give two hoots about the environment then...
As someone wiser than me once said... "I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing".
The average American doesn't care *enough* to make the kinds of changes that are needed using current technology and budgets. The only real solution is to find a replacement for coal and natural gas that doesn't require all these compromises. Solar and wind have too many issues attached to them, people want reliable power 24/7/365 and they want it for a reasonable price.
Nuclear has issues, I would be remiss to not admit it has issues... but at the end of the day, it is the only power source I can see replacing coal and natural gas. That being said, I don't think it is going to happen, I think it simply has too much opposition from people who reply with emotion rather than logic, so nuclear isn't likely to happen.
So what WILL happen? I think 20 years from now we will get perhaps twice as much power today from solar/wind/water, but the bulk of power will continue to come from coal and natural gas. I think there is a decent chance that remains true in 50 years as well, when we see CO2 levels pass 500 PPM and still no one is going to care that much.
The "greenies", as you put it, will be still pitching a fit, and not getting anywhere.
---
Well, there's always the threat that congress will pass a carbon tax, that would cause your electric bill to shoot up.
While that is true, I just don't see it happening... Congress critters like to stay in power and that would be a quick way to get voted out...
Still, the biggest problem with solar is cost. Not so much the panels today, but the complete system. Install costs have to come down, and panels are getting relatively cheap. Much more and they'll be cheaper than shingles!
Yes, the panel cost is now less than 1/3 of the total install cost. You could give the panels away for free and solar would still not be a great investment.
But that misses the point. Even if you DID give away solar and even if solar DID become 20% of the total power generation, it would make no difference to the outcome of climate change.
If you aren't willing to shut down the existing coal plants and if you aren't able to get EVERYONE ELSE to shut theirs down, then it doesn't matter what we do. The outcome is likely to be the same, or close to it.
---
If man made climate change is real, then we're screwed because the bulk of the world's population is not willing to do what it takes to stop it, or even slow it down.
Well that's nice that you think the cars would be cleaned top to bottom like that... of course, it would take more than 5-10 min to do that, more like an hour to do it properly...
You clearly have different standards of "clean" than I do, and that's ok.
Yeah, I just don't get that attitude. Well, when you own a Lambo or a vintage car or something that's special, yes I get that. But "this Honda Civic is mine, it's so special from the other 20 mio. that came off the same production line" - sorry, I don't get that.
My truck isn't "special" in that it is any different than the thousand others that came off the production line, they are all the same.
The seat is where I left it, the music is where I left it, the booster seats for my 2 kids are where I left them. It hasn't had someone eating thai food in it that left a smell.
You can claim they clean it all you want, it never really gets "clean". Perhaps your standards are lower, and that is fine. I find it to be disgusting, just like I find airplane seats to be disgusting (and I know flight attendants from my flying days, they'll tell you stories, and they never get cleaned properly every day).
I have no interest in sitting in a car that someone else might have just been in who has a cold and coughed all over it.
The whole idea is DOA for millions of people. Maybe you like it and that is fine, but to say that it is the future of cars, that is just stupid.
Well, more like maybe 15 or 20. Presumably they would be cleaned out every day or as needed, whichever is more frequent.
Really? You think a 5-10 min clean is going to make it "like new"?
You have people who are big, people who are small, people who smell different, people who eat in the car, people who smoke when they shouldn't, people who have kids who throw up, etc.
Such a service *might* be ok for primarily young single people who live in the urban core and have a lot of time on their hands, and have all their relatives and friends living in the urban core, because they can take the bus everywhere when a car isn't available, and if they need to go to IKEA to pick up something bigger, maybe they can wait an hour or two for a suitable vehicle to become available. But as a parent who just entered my 30s, I can't afford to be waiting around on cars. The kids can't wait to go to IKEA for two hours... that might interfere with nap time. Or one of them gets sick at school and I need to go immediately pick them up, etc. And I have almost no relatives in the urban core... they are in the suburbs or rural areas where these cars won't be. In short, like most people, I need a dependable car that is available on my schedule, not the other way around.
^ This, a thousand times this...
My truck sits about 22 hours a day... sometimes more... some people see that as a "waste", and perhaps in an absolute sense, it is...
But it is actually doing something... it is waiting for me, it is ready with 5 seconds notice, 24/7 to take me anywhere I need to go, right now...
The seats are where I left them, my music collection is always there, the booster seats for my 2 younger children are always in it, etc.
I drive every day, usually 3 or 4 different times a day. Millions and millions of people are just like me. I have to own a car, my entire city and way of life depends on it.
---
Side note: Even the courts get it, if you lose your licence due to traffic violations or other issues, Judges here will usually issue you a permit to drive to work/school/etc. because you HAVE to. Even if you get a DWI, there is simply no other way to get around, so you still have to be able to drive. People will drive anyway, so this sets some stricter rules rather than turning everyone into a criminal.
I'll finish by repeating what I said in my very first post: The main problem with solar power is the cost.
Yep... which is why there are 270,000 people in Plano, TX with only 175 installs of residential solar, it makes no economic sense.
The only people doing it are those who value something other than money. Which is fine, more power to them... but you'll never get mass adoption until it makes sense with the money.
---
As a side note, nuclear appears to have the same problem, but for different reasons. It appears that nuclear simply costs too much due to various reasons. It *shouldn't*, but it does and that may not change in the near future.
1. Your cooperative* is meaner than mine. Mine will allow you to 'carry a balance'. If you go on vacation or something for a month and end up going negative, you 'donate' the power to the coop.
Meh, I think the fact that they do net metering at all is nice... I honestly don't think it is fair to the power company.
It would benefit me, but any long term deal has to be fair to both sides. I wouldn't like net metering if I was a power company.
And 20% of installs would have to translate to '20% of customers install 100% net power generation'. In many areas they only really shoot for 50-80%, especially in California where you're charged progressively more the more kWh you consume. So if you're like you and use more than average, you can be faced with a bill like this: First 800 kWh: $.10 Next 400:.15 Next 400:.20 Last 166:.30
That cost structure makes no sense, it is entirely politically motivated.
What difference does it make if you have 2 houses, each drawing 800 kWh, vs. 1 house drawing 1,600 kWh? The load is the same, the demand is the same.
The idea that you pay more as you use more strikes me as silly, it should be the other way around. As you use more, it should cost less. The base infrastructure has to be paid for, the utilitly needs X employees per installation location and area. If you use more power, they can spread those costs over more kWh so the price per should be less, not more.
It is completely backwards to how it should work.
As a bonus, some of them get installs with a couple batteries that can also act as standby power - if the grid cuts out standard inverters turn off, these cut the connection to the grid like a generator transfer switch would(for line safety and such for the electric company), and intelligently manage power availability and demand. So if you set it up that way, if it's cloudy out and the batteries aren't strong enough, you might find your TV cutting off to keep your fridge running. But at least your fridge is running... (Remember my grandparents and their average of 3 days of power outage a year).
To be frank, I don't think you're going to get very many people interested in a system where the TV cuts off because the battery can't power everything.
If you really want to get a lot of people to change, you have to offer something better. We use coal and natural gas because they are currently the "best" solution. Offer a "better" solution and people will flock to it of their own accord.
Solar is currently only a "good" solution when faced with the combined artificial incentives of overpriced power and subsidized panel installs. Well heck, I can make ANYTHING look good if I'm allowed to edit the market conditions to favor product X.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious... say we wanted to keep the level of CO2 in the atmosphere constant at its current level. What level of carbon emissions would we need to have? (Or, to put it another way, what is the natural "Carbon sink rate" of the Earth?)
From what I have read, we would have to cut our emission by half to hold at current levels, and that assumes that the trees and oceans can continue to absorb at the rate they have been, which is questionable.
If you wanted a margin for error, I'd suggest cutting by 75% to be safe.
So SOME fossil fuels could be used, but they would largely all be oil since we won't replace all the cars in the world for a long time, even if we wanted to. And a few classic cars could still be driven in small numbers.
Electricity generation isn't the only source of man-made CO2 emissions, so I'd suggest coal and natural gas have to go outright to get there.
800 ppm is a bigger problem than 700 ppm, and 700 ppm is a bigger problem than 600, 500 or 400. Obviously, we can't stop using fossil fuel right now. The best we can do is use less of it. That'll buy us some more time to work on the new challenges.
While that is all true, I would question if it makes any difference beyond a given point...
Does it matter if the freight train hits your car doing 30 mph instead of 60 mph?
If you've ever followed my posts, you'll know I'm a climate change skeptic, I'm not convinced that we are the problem. But I'm also willing to be wrong in that viewpoint, I do not hold the exclusive right to be correct in my views.
If I am wrong, then we need to do a 90 degree turn and take drastic action.
Can we start cutting our fossil fuel use tomorrow? Sure, but it will take huge, massive, international commitments to do it on the scale of WWII to do it. We will have to pour our national resources into this in a way that hasn't been done since then.
Imagine for a minute what it would take to make a world wide commitment to shut down 100% of all fossil fuel power within 30 years. A few small measures aren't going to do it, it will have to become priority one, and not just in the US or Europe, but worldwide.
If CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be, then we need to stop using coal and natural gas.
If it isn't, then it doesn't matter how much we burn.
Name one instance in history where the weather has been bad over the entire area of either US grid (east or west) at the same time.
The US power grid does not send power all over the US, most power is used locally.
Could it be changed to be a national power grid? Sure. Is that likely to happen? No.
How about we look for solutions rather than assume that everything will be exactly like it is now
Because those solutions you suggested are not likely to happen given the current state of public opinion, money, and politics...
What will it take to change it? Honestly, I don't think anything will change, people don't like change and don't plan very far in the future...
I live in Texas, we get nearly 50% of our power from natural gas, about 1/3 from coal, about 15% from nuclear, and the rest from "other. That isn't likely to change any time soon.
This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.
Essentially solar energy activists aren't out to throw away all coal or fossil fuel plants
They should be... if you believe that CO2 is a problem, if man made climate change is a real threat, then we need to stop using coal and natural gas.
Of course if you don't think that CO2 is a real problem, then burn away...
If we don't stop using fossil fuels at the rate we currently are, then CO2 will just keep building up in the air.
Either Climate Change is a man made problem or it isn't. 500 PPM CO2 is a problem or it isn't.
If it isn't, then why bother changing anything?
If it is, then we have to take drastic measures to avoid it, and that includes shutting down most fossil fuel power plants.
It is a not a problem that lends itself to half way solutions.
If it's that critical, it's not going to come from amazon. You'll have a service provider on call.
Perhaps, and a company should have spares on-site... but things happen and stuff gets missed and not every company is big enough to have it all on hand...
This will help someone... It just might not be you...
I just paid for next day delivery last night from Amazon... for a part for my toilet tank that broke.
It was Thursday night, about 7pm, when I noticed the toilet wasn't filling up.
Can I run over to Home Depot? Sure, but that takes time and I had kids to get into bed and work to do.
So Amazon charged me $5 to have it here this morning (Friday, showed up about 10am) and I have it fixed.
$5 to have my toilet fixed in less than 24 hours and I didn't have to take 30 min to go to Home Depot?
Bargain!
---
Note: I don't do it often, I usually take standard shipping, I'm not in a rush on most items, but when it is needed, I don't mind paying, what service! Overnight shipping for $5!
So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long, and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?
Or is it to put solar all over the Earth and have a massive world wide power grid to move power to where it is needed?
I suppose either is technically possible, I just don't think either is likely to happen.
If we build enough nuclear plants to shut down all our coal plants(we'll need to build about 200 of them), we'll have building them nailed down to pretty much routine. At which point we can get the BRIC nations adopting them as well.
Dude, just because something isn't a '100%' solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't still go for it if it provides worthy benefits.
I agree that if we made building nuke plants a normal thing, we'd get better at it and the technology would improve.
But lets be honest, public opinion is not on nuclear's side.
Another point to consider is that while we could lead by example, the question becomes would the change come in time to matter. Getting public opinion turned around and getting several thousand nuclear plants built world wide would take many decades, if not the rest of this century. By that point, CO2 will have passed 550 PPM and it won't matter anymore...
As for something being worth "going for" if it doesn't provide a 100% solution, I answered that in another post. I'll give another example...
Lets say you're flying across the Atlantic, you have 1,000 gallons of fuel and the trip needs 1,000 gallons of fuel, you'll JUST MAKE IT if everything goes right. 1/3 off the way across, you discover the winds are not in your favor and you'll now be 100 gallons of fuel short.
What do you do? You turn around, you can no longer make it. It is a binary result, you either have enough or you don't, hoping that you can almost make it or that things will get better or that maybe if you just fly REALLY well it will work out.
You know what? Many ferry pilots of small aircraft flying to Hawaii have crashed, sometimes within sight of the islands, because they pushed the limits too far.
---
Does it matter if the CO2 levels in 2100 are 550 PPM, 545 PPM, or 555 PPM? I would suggest that it doesn't, not really. If we spend our resources trying to get them from 550 PPM down to 545 PPM, or even 540 PPM, that completely misses the point...
They just passed 400 PPM two months ago. If that is the safe level, then anything in the mid 550s is bad, holding it down a bit doesn't matter if you're way, way past the red line.
---
Let me turn this around and ask you a question:
"What would it take for CO2 levels to stop rising... today...?" As in, stay at 400 PPM and not rise any further? We are currently added 2 PPM per year, so something major would have to change.
What would you do to make that happen?
Also, remember my mentioning using retired EV batteries? If you have enough of those to have one in 'every' house, it logically leads that there needs to be an EV in 'every' house.
We're going to end up adopting to the 'new world' no matter what, but we can at least try to limit the damage, and I hate coal for the pollution it emits that kills people more than I hate the CO2 it produces.
I am not at all convinced we'll have an EV in every house. EV batteries are not remotely clean, they are just made in China were we currently ignore the pollution of their production.
As for limiting the damage, if you spend all your money and resources trying to limit the damage by a little bit, you'll have nothing left to plan for the new world.
Simple example:
You're on a small Pacific island, there is a big storm coming, so you want to prepare. You put sand bags out on the beach, you board up your house, you move stuff to higher land, you dig trenches around your property to give water somewhere else to go besides your home...
You also decide, just in case, to build a boat as an escape plan, in case the storm is too big. But because you spent so much time putting out sand bags, digging trenches, etc. you didn't get the boat done, or didn't stock it with enough food.
So the storm comes and it turns out to be a massive typhoon that washes over the whole island. Your boat isn't enough to get you to the main land, and all your prevention efforts were completely wasted and ineffective.
Had you just written the house off and put everything into building the boat, you would have survived.
---
What is the moral of that story? Changing what is coming by 2%, or 5%, or even 20%, isn't going to actually change what is coming. It is a binary result, either the island is wiped out or it isn't. Putting half our money into trying to stop it is a waste, instead prepare for it since we can't stop it at this point.
You did read my post, right? You didn't just skim it? 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, 20% other(hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, etc...) doesn't leave any coal being burned for electricity. I can live with it being burned to create steel and such.
Yes, but that isn't going to happen...
Nuclear has so much popular opinion against it, it just isn't going to get any traction. China and Russia are building some, but not enough.
Please keep in mind, I'm not saying it is a bad idea, I'd love it... but the reality of popular opinion, political support, and where the money is, says that just isn't going to happen...
http://instituteforenergyresea...
China plans to build 50 coal gasification plants in less populated northwestern parts of the country, using the gas produced to generate electricity in the more populated areas, where smog is prevalent. Two coal gasification pilot plants have been built, three more are under construction, and 16 have been approved for construction, while the rest are in various planning stages.
Coal gasification produces more carbon dioxide than a traditional coal plant. According to a study by Duke University, synthetic natural gas emits seven times more greenhouse gases than natural gas, and almost twice as much carbon dioxide as a coal plant.
There are other concerns besides CO2, China is dealing with massive pollution, one of the ways is they are building these far from population centers. But they make TONS of CO2.
The overall point is that we have to address CO2 from a planet point of view, not a nations point of view. And THAT is even LESS likely to happen.
I wouldn't consider 10 as 'slightly less' than 15 in most contexts. I also don't know what you're trying to teach or demonstrate to me, seeing as how:
1. Power demand is leveling off in the USA, per household use is decreasing, and the rate of growth for number of households is also slowing.
2. If you're going to go from 10TWh to 15TWh, that means that you have to build a ton of new power plants, and the EPA has made building new coal plants even more uneconomical than new nuclear.
You are correct that the growth rate in the US is slowing... it hasn't stopped, just slowing...
I'm trying to point out that percentages can lie, it sounds really good to go to 20% solar, until you look at the total number. If your total number goes up by 50%, then you aren't making progress, you're falling behind.
New coal plants aren't being built because natural gas has become cheap. We are still increasing our power production levels, but we're doing it with natural gas. Solar remains a rounding error, wind is doing ok however and will keep growing slowly.
---
It is also worth noting that the USA is not the world. China is a problem, as are many other nations...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.
And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.
---
The point is, it doesn't matter how many more megawatts of solar/wind/hydro you bring on if you're still bringing on more coal.
For that matter, it wouldn't matter if we STOP building new coal, we have to shut down the ones we have, or CO2 will keep going up.
Yes it would. It wouldn't be a complete solution, but at that point it's getting there. My 'ideal' non carbon power mix is 20% solar, 20% wind, 40% nuclear, and 20% 'other' including hydro.
Every coal plant we shut down is lives saved, that much less CO2 for global warming.
Consider that 80% of a really big number is more than 100% of a slightly less big number.
Example (totally made up numbers for easy math):
Today, we're making 10 terawatts of power using 100% coal. This puts 100 gigatons of CO2 into the air.
In 20 years, we're making 15 terawatts of power using 80% coal and 20% solar. This puts 120 gigatons of CO2 into the air.
This is not an improvement, even though solar now accounts for 20% of our total power output.
Until it flips around to 80% solar, 20% coal, and assuming that we don't triple our energy use in the next 50 years, it won't make a lick of difference. Keep in mind this doesn't take into account oil burned for transport.
---
Assume for a minute that the climate change people are right and that we're putting too much CO2 into the air. If that is correct, then we are so far from a solution, it might be easier and cheaper to adapt to the new world that is coming than to try and stop it. We would almost have to go cold turkey tomorrow, either shutting down half our power plants, or we'd need the biggest nuclear construction project you can imagine.
The efforts being made don't change the outcome by enough to matter.
It is worth pointing out that at the current growth rate of CO2 emissions in the BRIC nations, the US and EU could cut our emissions to ZERO tomorrow, and within 20 years it wouldn't matter because BRIC all by themselves would replace what we were putting out.
You have to get the whole world to change, or it doesn't matter, as CO2 will just keep rising.
If they're that antsy over their TV, they buy a bigger battery pack and/or hook a generator into the system. You just don't get how 'greenies' think.
I'm not thinking about "greenies" at all... I'm thinking about normal people, John and Jane Q. Public... i.e. the 80% of the middle of the pack of Americans to whom this is not priority one...
Do they care about the environment? Sure, of course... to a point... it is #17 on their list of crap to care about today, so it matters, but only until it starts costing them money, then they care a whole lot less.
---
Let me put this another way... until you can come up with something better than coal and natural gas to provide post, John and Jane Q. Public are not going to change... until THEY change, nothing is going to happen to CO2 emissions except continue to go up.
So this is all hot air (no pun intended) until a solution is found that doesn't involve batteries, complex timing requirements, or having the TV go off due to a lack of solar or wind power during prime time.
You REALLY want to see some riots? Try having the TVs go out during NASCAR or Monday Night Football... tens of millions of American's won't give two hoots about the environment then...
As someone wiser than me once said... "I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing".
The average American doesn't care *enough* to make the kinds of changes that are needed using current technology and budgets. The only real solution is to find a replacement for coal and natural gas that doesn't require all these compromises. Solar and wind have too many issues attached to them, people want reliable power 24/7/365 and they want it for a reasonable price.
Nuclear has issues, I would be remiss to not admit it has issues... but at the end of the day, it is the only power source I can see replacing coal and natural gas. That being said, I don't think it is going to happen, I think it simply has too much opposition from people who reply with emotion rather than logic, so nuclear isn't likely to happen.
So what WILL happen? I think 20 years from now we will get perhaps twice as much power today from solar/wind/water, but the bulk of power will continue to come from coal and natural gas. I think there is a decent chance that remains true in 50 years as well, when we see CO2 levels pass 500 PPM and still no one is going to care that much.
The "greenies", as you put it, will be still pitching a fit, and not getting anywhere.
---
Well, there's always the threat that congress will pass a carbon tax, that would cause your electric bill to shoot up.
While that is true, I just don't see it happening... Congress critters like to stay in power and that would be a quick way to get voted out...
Still, the biggest problem with solar is cost. Not so much the panels today, but the complete system. Install costs have to come down, and panels are getting relatively cheap. Much more and they'll be cheaper than shingles!
Yes, the panel cost is now less than 1/3 of the total install cost. You could give the panels away for free and solar would still not be a great investment.
But that misses the point. Even if you DID give away solar and even if solar DID become 20% of the total power generation, it would make no difference to the outcome of climate change.
If you aren't willing to shut down the existing coal plants and if you aren't able to get EVERYONE ELSE to shut theirs down, then it doesn't matter what we do. The outcome is likely to be the same, or close to it.
---
If man made climate change is real, then we're screwed because the bulk of the world's population is not willing to do what it takes to stop it, or even slow it down.
Well that's nice that you think the cars would be cleaned top to bottom like that... of course, it would take more than 5-10 min to do that, more like an hour to do it properly...
You clearly have different standards of "clean" than I do, and that's ok.
Yes, but the point I was replying to was the viewpoint that it is "too dangerous" to "allow" people to fly cars around.
If it is, then we shouldn't let them fly anything at all, not even a little bit.
It is the viewpoint that everything has to be bubblewrap safe or we won't try. What if we had given up on the moon after the Apollo 1 fire?
Really, we are all so terrified of death that we don't really seem to live anymore...
Yes, because you wouldn't allow people to fly small airplanes, now would you?
Oh, wait...
What kind of stupid world are we coming to where this nonsense makes any sense to anyone?
Nonsense, the two have nothing to do with each other...
Why can't I own my own self-driving car?
---
I'm perfectly happy with the idea of self-driving cars, I am NOT happy with the idea of SHARING them.
Yeah, I just don't get that attitude. Well, when you own a Lambo or a vintage car or something that's special, yes I get that. But "this Honda Civic is mine, it's so special from the other 20 mio. that came off the same production line" - sorry, I don't get that.
My truck isn't "special" in that it is any different than the thousand others that came off the production line, they are all the same.
The seat is where I left it, the music is where I left it, the booster seats for my 2 kids are where I left them. It hasn't had someone eating thai food in it that left a smell.
You can claim they clean it all you want, it never really gets "clean". Perhaps your standards are lower, and that is fine. I find it to be disgusting, just like I find airplane seats to be disgusting (and I know flight attendants from my flying days, they'll tell you stories, and they never get cleaned properly every day).
I have no interest in sitting in a car that someone else might have just been in who has a cold and coughed all over it.
The whole idea is DOA for millions of people. Maybe you like it and that is fine, but to say that it is the future of cars, that is just stupid.
Well, more like maybe 15 or 20. Presumably they would be cleaned out every day or as needed, whichever is more frequent.
Really? You think a 5-10 min clean is going to make it "like new"?
You have people who are big, people who are small, people who smell different, people who eat in the car, people who smoke when they shouldn't, people who have kids who throw up, etc.
Such a service *might* be ok for primarily young single people who live in the urban core and have a lot of time on their hands, and have all their relatives and friends living in the urban core, because they can take the bus everywhere when a car isn't available, and if they need to go to IKEA to pick up something bigger, maybe they can wait an hour or two for a suitable vehicle to become available. But as a parent who just entered my 30s, I can't afford to be waiting around on cars. The kids can't wait to go to IKEA for two hours... that might interfere with nap time. Or one of them gets sick at school and I need to go immediately pick them up, etc. And I have almost no relatives in the urban core... they are in the suburbs or rural areas where these cars won't be. In short, like most people, I need a dependable car that is available on my schedule, not the other way around.
^ This, a thousand times this...
My truck sits about 22 hours a day... sometimes more... some people see that as a "waste", and perhaps in an absolute sense, it is...
But it is actually doing something... it is waiting for me, it is ready with 5 seconds notice, 24/7 to take me anywhere I need to go, right now...
The seats are where I left them, my music collection is always there, the booster seats for my 2 younger children are always in it, etc.
I drive every day, usually 3 or 4 different times a day. Millions and millions of people are just like me. I have to own a car, my entire city and way of life depends on it.
---
Side note: Even the courts get it, if you lose your licence due to traffic violations or other issues, Judges here will usually issue you a permit to drive to work/school/etc. because you HAVE to. Even if you get a DWI, there is simply no other way to get around, so you still have to be able to drive. People will drive anyway, so this sets some stricter rules rather than turning everyone into a criminal.
I'll finish by repeating what I said in my very first post: The main problem with solar power is the cost.
Yep... which is why there are 270,000 people in Plano, TX with only 175 installs of residential solar, it makes no economic sense.
The only people doing it are those who value something other than money. Which is fine, more power to them... but you'll never get mass adoption until it makes sense with the money.
---
As a side note, nuclear appears to have the same problem, but for different reasons. It appears that nuclear simply costs too much due to various reasons. It *shouldn't*, but it does and that may not change in the near future.
1. Your cooperative* is meaner than mine. Mine will allow you to 'carry a balance'. If you go on vacation or something for a month and end up going negative, you 'donate' the power to the coop.
Meh, I think the fact that they do net metering at all is nice... I honestly don't think it is fair to the power company.
It would benefit me, but any long term deal has to be fair to both sides. I wouldn't like net metering if I was a power company.
And 20% of installs would have to translate to '20% of customers install 100% net power generation'. In many areas they only really shoot for 50-80%, especially in California where you're charged progressively more the more kWh you consume. So if you're like you and use more than average, you can be faced with a bill like this: .15 .20 .30
First 800 kWh: $.10
Next 400:
Next 400:
Last 166:
That cost structure makes no sense, it is entirely politically motivated.
What difference does it make if you have 2 houses, each drawing 800 kWh, vs. 1 house drawing 1,600 kWh? The load is the same, the demand is the same.
The idea that you pay more as you use more strikes me as silly, it should be the other way around. As you use more, it should cost less. The base infrastructure has to be paid for, the utilitly needs X employees per installation location and area. If you use more power, they can spread those costs over more kWh so the price per should be less, not more.
It is completely backwards to how it should work.
As a bonus, some of them get installs with a couple batteries that can also act as standby power - if the grid cuts out standard inverters turn off, these cut the connection to the grid like a generator transfer switch would(for line safety and such for the electric company), and intelligently manage power availability and demand. So if you set it up that way, if it's cloudy out and the batteries aren't strong enough, you might find your TV cutting off to keep your fridge running. But at least your fridge is running... (Remember my grandparents and their average of 3 days of power outage a year).
To be frank, I don't think you're going to get very many people interested in a system where the TV cuts off because the battery can't power everything.
If you really want to get a lot of people to change, you have to offer something better. We use coal and natural gas because they are currently the "best" solution. Offer a "better" solution and people will flock to it of their own accord.
Solar is currently only a "good" solution when faced with the combined artificial incentives of overpriced power and subsidized panel installs. Well heck, I can make ANYTHING look good if I'm allowed to edit the market conditions to favor product X. :)