Connecticut Governor Calls For 100 Percent Carbon-Free Power By 2040 (utilitydive.com) 192
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, D, signed an executive order Tuesday directing state regulators to lay out a plan to reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. Utility Dive reports: Eight other states and the District of Columbia have taken legislative or executive action toward 100% clean energy in the past few years. While environmental advocates and state lawmakers were overall pleased with the directive, they said more concrete action would be needed to get the state to those goals, and that some policies seemed to be moving backwards. Specifically, advocates and lawmakers were disappointed by the administration's commitment to building a new natural gas plant. "It's not a bridge fuel. It's a fossil fuel," Senior Policy Advocate and Connecticut Director at Acadia Center Amy McLean Salls told Utility Dive. "And if we're going to be meeting our goals, then we have to be not building new gas infrastructure."
During the forum the administration said it was committed to building its Killingly Energy Center, a 650 MW natural gas-fired plant, expected to begin commercial operation in 2022, which frustrated some in the audience. "Apparently, it's just a bridge energy source we're resigned to depend on until we approach 2040 and our carbon-free goal," Rep. Jonathon Steinberg, D, who serves on the House Energy and Technology Committee, told Utility Dive in an email. "There weren't even promises to scale back residential hookup expansion, saving pipeline capacity for industry use and electric generation, which surprised me a little." Much of the conversation in Connecticut was focused on solar and net metering in the last legislative session.
During the forum the administration said it was committed to building its Killingly Energy Center, a 650 MW natural gas-fired plant, expected to begin commercial operation in 2022, which frustrated some in the audience. "Apparently, it's just a bridge energy source we're resigned to depend on until we approach 2040 and our carbon-free goal," Rep. Jonathon Steinberg, D, who serves on the House Energy and Technology Committee, told Utility Dive in an email. "There weren't even promises to scale back residential hookup expansion, saving pipeline capacity for industry use and electric generation, which surprised me a little." Much of the conversation in Connecticut was focused on solar and net metering in the last legislative session.
Executive order (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The more I read about worldwide responses to climate change, the more I'm convinced that all resolutions provided by the elites revolve around getting everyone to pay for it. This means, spread the burden across everyone, rather than have the wealthy elites be troubled by it, lest they have to reduce their quality of life, or standard of living at all.
I find it rather troubling that a lot of this discussion just flies over the head of the collective media, who seem to be wholly in the pockets of the elites,
Re: Executive order (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck you (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Fuck you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you and your lying ass. Climate change has nothing to do with government power, and 100% to do with science.
Hey Bright-Eyes, government power is how regulatory shit gets done like auto and aircraft safety standards, auto fuel efficiency standards, etc. If you want climate change regulations mandated, that won't happen without government power.
Oh, and stay classy.
Strat
Re: Executive order (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see. I put solar panels on my roof and bought a plug-in hybrid. I try hard to avoid unnecessary driving. I hardly ever eat red meat. But I guess you wouldn't count me as someone "of note". I'm just one of countless millions of ordinary people who changed their lifestyle to do their part. You could join us.
and we're all gunna die in $now+$x_years. (Where $x_years is pushed out every $x_years).
Really? I think you just made that up. Can you cite even one single case of a reputable scientist or politician who actually said "we're all going to die" because of climate change, and gave a specific year, and then later pushed the year out? Even one?
No, I didn't think so. That's because the real scientific predictions have turned out amazingly accurate. The things happening today are exactly what they predicted thirty years ago.
Re: Executive order (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically all of these plans for "fixing climate change" will do nothing of the sort.
Because they're not ACTUALLY plans for fixing climate change. They're feel good, "Look! We're doing SOMETHING!" measures that won't accomplish anything other than burning lots of money.
What they're doing is ineffective because they're relying on universal, global buy-in to their plans.
Or some other stupidity like shaming places like China, India and all the poor countries in Africa into following our STERLING example.
NOT
Re: (Score:2)
following our STERLING example.
America is responsible for 14% of worldwide CO2 emisions. [webquestions.co]
Despite only having 4% of the worlds population. [worldatlas.com]
If the rest of the world followed your example, yearly CO2 would go from 37,000MT to 125,000MT.
We would be well and truly fucked.(just like your idiotic green posturing)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no, "what if". The thief is walking the horse out the barn door, while you say, "well, maybe he's just taking it for a stroll."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
China has 4.5x as much solar generating capacity as the U.S., despite having only 1.6x as much electricity consumption
India has 53% as much the solar capacity as the U.S., despite having only 36% as much electricity consumption
The U.S. is way behind even the poorer developed nations.
And unfortunately we needed to start the nice cheap, gradual changes 50-80 years ago when we first recognized the problem. At this point we're racing toward the cliff with our foot on the accelerator - we're out of time for slo
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck did you get a mod point for reading the word "india" as "china"?
We'd also like to know why you didn't notice the inconsistency you were typing....
Do people always lie as much as this? (Score:3, Informative)
The point you're missing is that China and India, despite having all that solar capacity ARE STILL SURPASSING THE US in emissions and it's NOT slowing down...
Do you always post such easy to check lies?
America is clearly over twice India at 14.6% vs 6.8% of global emissions. [weforum.org]
hang on, dummy. (Score:3)
Hang on dipshit, how is changing power generation not doing anything, exactly?
Re:Executive order (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line is, whether you believe in climate change or not, it doesn't matter. The goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions means that the consumption of energy must go down, which is a really big ask for the first world.
This is just incorrect. You can switch from coal to just natural gas even and use more energy than before and still have less CO2. Or just go solar/wind/nuke etc.
There are also many areas/devices/appliances where energy consumption has gone down. You think those kids doing the same thing on a PC wouldn't use even more energy? They likely are already using far less energy than you, (probably) reading this on a PC.
Re: (Score:3)
Bottom line is, whether you believe in climate change or not, it doesn't matter. The goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions means that the consumption of energy must go down, which is a really big ask for the first world.
You are not providing
Re: (Score:2)
>The goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions means that the consumption of energy must go down, which is a really big ask for the first world.
Or you know, move towards carbon-neutral energy sources. Solar is already cheaper than coal, the cheapest fossil fuel, but comes with obvious power-buffering (or scheduling) requirements. Not sure how wind, hydro, tidal, and geo-thermal compare on the cost scale. And of course there's nuclear as well - some of the new reactor designs promise to be a lot cheape
Democracy fails the envrionment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately we are like a Frog being slowly boiled in a pot. Global Climate Change is slow compared to our lifespan, So it isn't like a disaster movie where an asteroid will hit earth and the governments of the world spend trillions of dollars to defect the asteroid to save the earth. But it is a slow process, which requires everyone to change their behaviors. This sucks if you are going to get reelected, because people don't want change, especially people who have achieved a life style and status which they are comfortable with.
Now if you are in political power and all the science is saying this is a problem, which needs to be fixed you can ignore or just give lip service to the problem, and get reelected because all the voters who are comfortable with their life. Or actually take charge make the tough decision, and piss off people for the greater good.
Yes to reduce climate change we need to lower our energy usage, use new energy sources that may have different environmental impacts (such as nuclear), and/or find ways to collect and clean up the additional carbon (such as reforestation) . There is no Star Trek Utopia fix to the problem, people are going to be disadvantaged, and it will be expensive, and it will take a long time for the earth to clean, so we will not get satisfaction within our lifetime.
Environmentalism sucks politically and our democratic government fails in terms of problems like the environment and most mature governments do not have a mechanism built around fixing long term problems, without seeming like tyranny, as "For the Greater Good" is the slogan of the despot.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm convinced that all resolutions provided by the elites revolve around getting everyone to pay for it. This means, spread the burden across everyone, rather than have the wealthy elites be troubled by it, lest they have to reduce their quality of life, or standard of living at all.
The Canadian solution of a revenue neutral carbon tax distributes a dividend to each citizen for every dollar taxed. 70% receive a cheque equal or greater to what they paid for the carbon tax. With this solution the burden is on the elite. The average Joe gets back more than he paid.
This is also solution that allows the market to route around carbon, rather than a top down command and control model. It's much better than the solution proposed by the conservative government where the government would giv
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that what you're moaning about, wealth funneling from us working folk towards those at the top?
It's not like it's a one-party issue. it's actually been worse under Republican presidents since Reagan.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone get this guy his jello and meds. The right burned all of their prediction karma when they told us that the president was a secret muslim antichrist who was going to enact sharia law.
I don't know who is still falling for all this shrill blind panic, but we aren't.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a little note for all you partisans out there. The country is actually rather mixed politically. Even a "Solid" Blue state is probably 67% democrats, and 33% republican. For a solid "Red" state is would be 33% democrat and 67% republican. Having 1/3 of your population in opposition to the majority, still creates a lot of problems. Also to point out in the solid color states, often a lot of the government officials who are elected in such states, may not necessarily be as party faithful as you
Re:Executive order (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it's right there in the first line of the summary. It's not some new law or program, it's just an order to develop a plan.
Looking at the executive order itself, its primary immediate effect is to reorganize various climate change efforts in the executive branch under what had previously been an advisory committee. It gives that committee various reporting, oversight, and policy development responsibilities, and sets out some general priorities for its work (e.g. considering the fairness of cost distribution). It directs the rest of the executive branch to cooperate with the committee.
This is nothing Earth-shattering, nor is it some kind of executive branch overreach. It's just the governor reorganizing efforts that were already going on in his office.
Math though (Score:4, Insightful)
Reduction is not the solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Reduction of CO2 emissions as a primary objective is a bad objective. We need to reduce fossil fuel burning and use for energy sure but that should only be secondary to other bigger problems with our environment like desertification that increases the speed and damage that CO2 emissions "supposedly" cause.
Carbon sequestration through holistic land management, ranching, and farming should be our Primary objective because it also increases our foliage, restores forests, increases biodiversity, improves crop yields, and fights the encroachment of deserts turning them back into verdant plains, hills, and mountain sides.
Earth is turning into a desert and everyone's solution seems to be make it more of a desert. This is what is leading to water shortages and mass burning which also emit loads of CO2.
Wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Earth is turning into a desert and everyone's solution seems to be make it more of a desert.
A green desert apparently.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
re: "more concrete action" (Score:2, Troll)
An average of 927 kg (2044 lb) of CO are emitted for every 1000 kg (2205 lb) of portland cement produced in the U.S. Finding a different way of producing portland cement, that key ingredient in concrete that holds it all (sand and rock) together, without the need to incinerate limestone, would be a key technology in reducing CO emissions.
The world is burning... (Score:3, Interesting)
... and almost every comment I've read has something to do with why their party is doing a great job and why the other party are idiots.
The Connecticut governor is at least trying something. If the goal is missed, that's OK. The idea is that one uses the government to steer policy for the benefit of all, in this case the world climate.
The point is that something has to be done, and he is trying.
--
He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak. - Michel de Montaigne
Re: (Score:2)
He is trying ... by building new gas powered generating plants so the renewables don't create rolling blackouts and kill their political viability.
The point is pragmatism is a necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
Ned Lamont is 65 just now, he might as well promise everybody a free pony in 2040, he will likely be dead in 20 years time., doesn't care.
They're building a new natural gas plant in the state just now. Natural gas is a great energy source as it can be ramped up and down in an instant, smoothing over the intermittent input from renewables. Without that, it gets much trickier to keep the lights on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ned Lamont is 65 just now, he might as well promise everybody a free pony in 2040, he will likely be dead in 20 years time., doesn't care.
Forget about being dead, how long will he be in office? It's real easy to write a check that some future governor will have to pay out.
Here's what I want to see from elected officials, a plan that they will complete while in office. Don't tell me that in 20 years the state will have 100% CO2 free electricity supply. Tell me that in two years the state will have ten percent carbon free electricity.
Oh, and tell me how we can get this lower CO2 from our electricity without seeing rates go up. I'm sure that
Re: (Score:3)
Renewables look set to kill off every single fossil fuel electricity generation technology through simple cost effectiveness by 2040-2050 except possibly natural gas which may cling on by the tips of it's fingernails a bit longer.
First, it's real easy to grab that first 20% of electricity production. That's just replacing old coal plants with shiny new windmills and solar thermal plants, often with heavy subsidies to make it profitable. It's going to be exceedingly difficult after that since we still don't have cheap electrical storage for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Just ask Germany how well that's going for them.
Second, in the USA and many other nations the biggest reductions in CO2 emissions has been
Re: (Score:2)
"t's going to be exceedingly difficult after that since we still don't have cheap electrical storage for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. "
Are there no mountains in Connecticut for hydro batteries to be installed?
That and Germany is already at 35-37% renewables. A lot of those shiny windmills [sic] are in Northern germany which is about as flat as a billiard table, that 20% figure of his is bollocks.
Re: (Score:3)
You really are stubborn, I've thrown the LCOE numbers (Levellized Cost Of Energy, i.e with subsidies deducted) for the various power generation technologies at you time and again and I don't mind doing it as many times as it takes.
And those numbers are meaningless since the storage costs for intermittent wind and solar is not included. Every report I've seen that gives these LCOE numbers will give a warning on comparing the LCOE of an intermittent source against the LCOE of a dispatchable source. The numbers will lose any meaning if taken to the extreme of needing storage on the grid.
Wind and solar power with the storage needed to keep the lights on will cost many times more than an energy plan that includes nuclear power. I've po
Re: (Score:2)
You really are stubborn, I've thrown the LCOE numbers (Levellized Cost Of Energy, i.e with subsidies deducted) for the various power generation technologies at you time and again and I don't mind doing it as many times as it takes.
And those numbers are meaningless since the storage costs for intermittent wind and solar is not included. Every report I've seen that gives these LCOE numbers will give a warning on comparing the LCOE of an intermittent source against the LCOE of a dispatchable source. The numbers will lose any meaning if taken to the extreme of needing storage on the grid.
Wind and solar power with the storage needed to keep the lights on will cost many times more than an energy plan that includes nuclear power. I've posted links for this before but I'm not in the mood to include them now. Go find someone else to explain the costs of storage to you this time. I've met my intended goal for today, I got people thinking about nuclear power and that's what is important.
Oh, there is one other thing that I want people to think about... energy return on investment, or EROI. Solar is shit for EROI, and the energy debt in building storage will only make it worse. Wind isn't too bad on EROI, we will just have to keep storage needs to a minimum to prevent that from dragging it down.
Meaningless? ... these are the numbers YOU cited! The moment you include CCS in the bill for natural gas it basically becomes twice as expensive and wind or solar. There is no way grid storage is going to double and triple the LCOE of renewables. Especially since you could construct a system that is 70-80% renewable with hydro storage, hydro generatoin stations, geothermal or even CCS equipped natural gas plants as an short notice backup option. That would still give you a near CO2 emissions free system wit
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningless? ... these are the numbers YOU cited!
Indeed, I do cite those numbers. I cite them to point out that as of today nuclear power is cheaper than offshore wind and solar thermal. The Democrats will often bring up offshore wind and solar thermal as technologies they support in their "Green New Deal" as examples of how they will bring reliable and inexpensive energy. But, if they would only look at the data then we can see that if the Democrats call offshore wind and solar thermal as "affordable" or "inexpensive" then so is nuclear power.
The moment you include CCS in the bill for natural gas it basically becomes twice as expensive and wind or solar.
Then don
Re: (Score:2)
I've got news for you: nuclear isn't dispatchable either. It's not intermittent, but it also can't adjust its output to match demand. In the past people have treated nuclear as a source of baseline energy, but the whole concept of baseline is vanishing. In places with a lot of renewables, there are already times when those renewables meet 100% of the demand. That will become more common with time. And you can't shut down your nuclear plant for a few hours just because you don't need it right now. You
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to check where that idea first appeared. Hint: the guy had a New Deal to sell. And he wasn't a Republican....
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to check where that idea first appeared. Hint: the guy had a New Deal to sell. And he wasn't a Republican....
Maybe, but it is the Republican party's business as usual today thanks to Jude Wanniski: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Freischutz tells a big fat lie to defend his tribe and attack his opposition CrimsonAvenger points out the obvious dumbshit lie for what it is Freischutz blows off his lie by responding "maybe, but.." as if it isnt a big fucking deal that he just fucking lied his ass off to attack the people he, with his "but" then attacked again, with another big fucking lie.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pure BS.
That dude stayed in the driver seat far longer than the Republican schmucks the GP is talking about, therefore he clearly did not intend to drop off when the consequences catch up with him.
Regardless, we will never know how the New Deal would have unfolded because of that little event called WW2, which upended all assumptions about society and economy.
Re: I'm curious (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm not even sure that he's going to get re-elected for a second term. He promised people that he was only going to add tolls on our highways for out of state trucks, but changed his mind and started supporting tolls for everyone before he even took office.
That pissed a lot of people off, and I bet that a bunch of them will remember that come re-election time.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, very few politicians appear to even have a rudimentary understanding of energy challenges.
Re: (Score:3)
Just how are they going to define "carbon free" and where exactly is all this mythical energy going to come from?
That's easy . . . they'll just buy it from New York. If any of that energy produces carbon, the carbon will be in New York, not in Connecticut.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a trick question or have you been living in a cave for the last couple of centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the source, it is going to come from these mythical things that nobody has ever seen but everybody has heard of called: 'wind' and ... 'the sun'.
Tell me, how much is this going to cost? If those are the only options then that's going to be very expensive. The Democrats have to know how to lower CO2 without making electricity rates skyrocket. There's been plenty of discussion about how to do this lately. Wind and sun will play a part, but there's going to have to be more than wind and sun in this solution or it will go over like a turd in a punch bowl when election day comes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
as renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient all the time, how are electricity prices going to sky rocket?
Storage costs to manage the intermittent nature of the wind and sun.
Once the levels of battery storage is increased to store nearly all excess energy produced, it'll probably get even cheaper in order to get rid of it just like they do now, cost goes down in periods of overproduction
Steam thermal power plants that get their heat from nuclear, coal, or natural gas, are dumb, cheap, and reliable. If there is battery storage added to that then it becomes smarter, cheaper, and more reliable. Batteries don't care where the electricity comes from.
Offshore wind is more expensive than nuclear right now. If the Democrats keep pushing for offshore wind and batteries to replace nuclear then prices will go up. I certainly unde
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking it would be environmentally unsound to go 100% carbon free electricity. Prime example methane generation in our waste systems. It is far more sensible to collect the methane produced and burn it to generate electricity, than just release the smelly methane straight to atmosphere. Outside of that no real need, considering nuclear. Better reactor designs are possible and it is just a matter of time until safer forms of generating electricity from nuclear energy are created, both for use o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm curious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ecological carbon is not a problem - unless we're burning down forests or thawing permafrost to release ecologically sequestered carbon. Fossil carbon is the problem, because it destabilizes the ecological carbon cycle.
Grow a plant, it absorbs CO2 fro the atmosphere to build it's structure. Burn it for energy (or feed it to an animal - same difference, different reactor) and that carbon is re-released into the atmosphere. Total change in atmospheric CO2: 0
Methane has a lot more warming potential, and and
Re: (Score:3)
Safer? Safer than an average of ONE death per year, world-wide, from nuclear power? Which is where we stand right now, what with Chernobyl and Fukushima, between them, having caused fewer than 70 deaths (and we only get that high by counting the ones that aren't people (if it isn't people when we want an abortion, it isn't people, period)).
More people die having
Re: (Score:2)
If someone says carbon free then they're talking bullshit.
Carbon free is irrelevant, atmospheric carbon is fungible. What matters is carbon neutrality.
Quite right that burning methane is superior to letting it escape. And burning it for power is better than just flaring it off, which is what is done at most sewage processing facilities.
Those interested in a better solution for wastewater management that doesn't even involve any lifestyle changes should look into AIWPS.
Re: (Score:2)
>And burning it for power is better than just flaring it off, which is what is done at most sewage processing facilities.
Not to mention most U.S. oil wells...
Re:Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't even try to watch the Democrat town hall discussion on the "climate crisis" but I've read and listened to commentary on it and I'm seeing the Democrats being very ignorant on the science.
But you feel perfectly qualified to comment on them at great length regardless.
What really bothers me is this focus on how much meat Americans eat. It seems to me that the environmental impact on meat production is not even close to being a big part of the problem. They want everyone to stop eating meat, that is unless it's human flesh. https://lidblog.com/eating-hum... [lidblog.com]
Cattle is responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, mostly methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas. Livestock rearing and the associated pesticide use is also extremely disruptive and a big source of wildlife habitat destruction which often manifests itself in carbon sinks like forests being turned into carbon and methane producing farmland.
They keep talking about drinking straws and shopping bags. Is that really a problem? It also sounds like many of their solutions could be worse than the supposed problem when it comes to things like plastic in the environment and CO2 production.
Plastic particle pollution is a real and very serious problem: https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
The big problem is electricity. As in, depending on who you ask, the CO2 produced from lights, heating, and cooling is quite likely half of the CO2 we produce. Electric cars aren't likely to make a big dent in the problem, and if they don't resolve the issue on where this electricity is coming from the use of electric cars could make the problem worse.
With, wind and solar beating every other energy source on price I'm not particularly afraid that in a world full of electric cars most of them will be charged with energy from inefficient 1950s vintage coal plants.
What does science tell us on how to get the most electricity with the least CO2 emissions. The best three energy sources on this are onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Solar power is certainly lower in CO2 than natural gas but when compared to onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear it doesn't look all that great. Solar might work well in southern California but not everyone enjoys as much sun.
This newfound focus on climate by the Democrats is quite likely to blow up in their faces. They are talking about how hydroelectric dams are some kind of bogeyman, and they can't even say the words "nuclear power". They rant and rave about how eating meat is destroying the planet when there's not a lot of actual science to back that up.
Again, somethng like 60% of methane emissions in the US come from livestock, methane is about 30% more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and farm land is usually only produced by eliminating carbon sinks. US emissions from livestock were around 144 million tons CO2 equivalent. If you can cut that significantly by something as simple as changing the feed these animals eat why not do it? As for solar being pretty useless outside of California, you could power large portions of Europe at prices that would be hard to beat, using solar plants in S-Europe and N-Africa. There are large portions of the planet where Solar energy is becoming the hands down cheapest and most efficient energy generation technology. As for hydroelectric dams, they can kill off fish by silting up rivers and the constantly changing level of the reservoirs can cause dust storms and erosion. If you happen to live down wind of one, or own a stretch on a salmon river and rely on it to make your living this is a real problem. Then there is the problem of decades of emissions from the reservoirs due to decaying vegetation. There i
Re: (Score:2)
When the main focus is CO2, nobody gives a crap about how much methane cows produce.
Sure, that's also a problem, but not the one we're talking about right now.
Plastic particles don't come from straws and bags, though. As far as I am informed, however well or not, a lot comes from fibers e.g. from clothing. Plastic bags and straws pose their own problems, but once again not the ones people are talking about.
So grandparent is absolutely right that the solutions offered touch the problems discusses peripherall
Re: (Score:2)
New flash methane *becomes* CO2 when exposed to sunlight for long enough - like when it's floating around in the atmosphere. And also, CO2 is the main talking point because it's the single biggest systemic problem. That doesn't mean the others aren't also a major problem, with methane probably being #2 on the greenhouse effect priority list.
Yes, clothing is a major source of plastic particles, but pretty much all plastic just keeps breaking down into smaller and smaller particles as long as it's circulat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concept isn't THAT simple. Its not just a simple counting system. The number of bison, buffalo, antelope, elephants, etc supported by a specific amount of land & resources naturally is paltry in comparison to the number of cows we raise for said land. That means there is a TON more carbon sinks for a specific bison than a cow. In nature, there are far more regulatory processes (including predators) to offset or negate a bison's emmissions.
There is also the fact that the bison was spread out rath
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As for 'abhorrent', what exactly do you mean?
What comes to mind first is Bernie Sanders suggesting the US federal government fund abortions in Africa and Asia. This is supposed to help with climate change by reducing global population growth. It seems like the Democrats like to kill brown babies.
If you want more examples of their abhorrent suggestions then read their platform documents like I did.
Re: (Score:2)
"It seems like the Democrats like to kill brown babies." - making a claim like this sounds desperate.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
At a guess, i would think the money would be for making a safe, hygienic hospital environment for said abortions rather than a dirty unsafe back street job for those that make the choice to have one.
The way the question was framed and how he answered I'm not so sure just how much "choice" would be involved.
"It seems like the Democrats like to kill brown babies." - making a claim like this sounds desperate.
Desperate or not this is how it could be taken by many voters. Especially after given whatever framing device a competitor wants to put on it, Democrat or Republican.
The point is that Democrats are not taking a scientific approach to the problem of global warming. They are finding ways to shoehorn emotional and tangentially related topics like abortion, poverty, misogyny, and "would someone please
Re: Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, somethng like 60% of methane emissions in the US come from livestock, methane is about 30% more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and farm land is usually only produced by eliminating carbon sinks.
Again, all of the carbon that comes out of cows went from the air and soil into feed crops in the last year or so, so cows are not contributing to net carbon buildup. None of it is the fossil carbon that comes from burning oil and coal. But don't let me interrupt your cookie-cutter talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, somethng like 60% of methane emissions in the US come from livestock, methane is about 30% more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and farm land is usually only produced by eliminating carbon sinks.
Again, all of the carbon that comes out of cows went from the air and soil into feed crops in the last year or so, so cows are not contributing to net carbon buildup. None of it is the fossil carbon that comes from burning oil and coal. But don't let me interrupt your cookie-cutter talking points.
The CO2, is absorbed by plants, the methane, no. Plus, there is more to the carbon footprint of cattle raising than just the CO2 the animal exhale. There is agricultural machinery, transport of feed, fertilisers, the processing and transportation of the meat, the waste processing and the fact that creating pastureland often destroys much more efficient carbon sinks. None of this is absorbed by the plants eaten by the cattle. Agriculture is becoming a bigger CO2 and methane emitter than the transportation s
Re:Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:4, Informative)
What does science tell us on how to get the most electricity with the least CO2 emissions. The best three energy sources on this are onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Solar power is certainly lower in CO2 than natural gas but when compared to onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear it doesn't look all that great. Solar might work well in southern California but not everyone enjoys as much sun.
That's a misleadingly simple view of energy sources for a few reasons. Solar is more cost-efficient than wind at displacing fuel-burning sources (gas, coal) even at northern latitudes, but wind has the advantage of producing energy during usage peaks at evenings, making its contributions more valuable on the energy market. Solar and wind together has a smoother and greater average availability time then one source by itself.
You also can't compare an intermittent source such as solar power to firm sources such as hydro and nuclear, as they fill different roles on the energy market. Installing intermittent capacity doesn't displace the need for firm capacity, as there will still be hot evenings when neither the sun is shining nor wind is blowing.
The optimal approach isn't to push a few energy sources to extremes, but to instead pick the low-hanging fruit of every category.
Re: (Score:2)
More cost efficient.
If you're talking "with subsidies"? Sure.
What happens once the subsidies cease?
Also, there's the problem of energy density.
Nuclear is one of the least dense forms of energy generation.
This means you need to build large facilities.
The sunlight isn't always optimal.
This means you increase your facility size even FURTHER (usually by a factor of 3) to make up with quantity.
And you're STILL going to be using gas-fired plants to offset on low generation days, as the sort of power storage requ
Re:Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how people can go on without any actual facts. Nuclear subsidies have steadily declined since 1975 while "green" now sucks up the majority. It's also important to quantify what kinds of subsidies. R&D? Operating?
Also, your statement, "Nuclear is one of the least dense forms of energy generation" is pure fantasy. "Dense" as in land/space required to produce X amount of energy? Not a chance, nuclear is the *most* dense of all. "Dense" as in resources required per power generated over the lifespan of the generating equipment? Wind and solar still lose.
The sad thing is nuclear technology has been stifled for decades; currently, only 20 percent of fuel is "burnt up" before it is removed from service. There are designs on the books that use what we currently classify as "waste" for fuel!
https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
Re: (Score:2)
while "green" now sucks up the majority.
No it doesn't. I can't think of one country where that is true. The subsidies for "stuff you burn" far outweights green pretty much everywhere in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
only 20 percent of fuel is "burnt up" before it is removed from service. There are designs on the books that use what we currently classify as "waste" for fuel!
And despite decades of hype that's where they've stayed: on the books. Not just in the US, through the whole world. It's not because no one has tried. We have lots of ideas for Amazing New Reactor Designs, but actually making them work in practice and making them cheap enough to compete with other energy sources turns out to be really hard. People have tried, and so far they haven't been able to do it.
Maybe someday they'll get all the problems fixed. They'll produce an Amazing New Reactor Design that's
Re: (Score:2)
WithOUT subsidies, solar is cost-competitive with coal, which beats the socks off most of the competition. In some regions (or with subsidies) solar even beats the socks off coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This is why people pulling power from strictly solar and wind, even subsidized, have their power bills multiply.
Re: (Score:2)
More cost efficient. If you're talking "with subsidies"? Sure.
What happens once the subsidies cease?
Thanks for making me check my sources, as I couldn't find reliable numbers from the source I was thinking of when I said that solar was more cost-efficient. I'll instead reference the 2018 Lazard report [lazard.com], which shows the unsubsidized levelized cost today in $/MWh as a range and in mean:
Solar PV - Thin Film Utility Scale: from $36 to $44, mean at $43
Onshore Wind: from $29 to $56, mean at $42
Historically, onshore wind has been much cheaper than solar at the utility scale, but they are now about even, with so
Re:Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't even try to watch the Democrat town hall discussion on the "climate crisis" but I've read and listened to commentary on it and I'm seeing the Democrats being very ignorant on the science.
I didn't even try to read your post, but I've read the comments that agree with my personal opinions and they all say you are being very ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Deserves an extra funny mod, though it does include some insight, too. Right now it's showing as "Funny", and that's where I think it should stay (but I never get a mod point to give (for reasons still unknown)).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
as the rain-forest burns to accommodate more cows
And to grow soya.
We could solve this problem by opening more federal land for cattle grazing here. But of course we have to think of the poor endangered species that would get trampled. So we should just allow this land to return to it's natural state as it was before Europeans found the continent. With huge herds of buffalo roaming it and trampling those endangered species.
Re: (Score:2)
Reduction in consumption is not going to happen. Period. If we really wanted to do that, it is extremely easly to achieve. You just raise the sales tax on meat and offset it by lowering it on eggs or fruits or soy. Very efficient, simple, implementable, and monitorable. But there is no appetite for this. You need cooperation to achieve it and you don't have it to even begin the discussion. The only thing viable is to come up with more complex solutions that reduce emmissions per unit of product or fi
Re:Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have a read of this washington post article is you want to know why they say meat is not good for the planet how-meat-is-destroying-the-planet-in-seven-charts [washingtonpost.com] Only the passionate vegans are advocating stopping all meat production, most are saying, lets cut back on meat consumption a bit
Re:Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's upvoting this crap? He didn't watch the debates. Eating hamburgers has led to the deforestation in Amazon and it's very water and energy intensive -- so, why wouldn't you talk about it? Why is it going to "bite them" if they are trying to deal with an actual problem that we all face? As opposed to the Republican plan of "pretend it's not there"? Warren said the "plastic straws pollution" is a distraction and most of the candidates have pragmatic and researched plans. Bernie for instance explains where he will get the trillions he is demanding for a massive effort (here; https://berniesanders.com/issu... [berniesanders.com]) and how much more it will cost to do nothing.
"What does science tell us on how to get the most electricity with the least CO2 emissions." Yes, let's put on our little lab coats and say firmly "science" and then some ill thought out talking points with no supporting evidence. By saying "science" we are now ready for Slashdot. WTF is happening here? It's like 4Chan escaped or something. My kid is seeing these videos of people screeching about "feminazis" ... I'm sure he's going to come to me and tell me that there are now people suggesting we eat people to solve Global Warming any day now. Yes, let's get distracted by what delusional people think and shit-posted videos on Youtube as if this is representative of what the adults want to accomplish.
World famous, award winning economist Thomas Piketty who is a prefessor at EHESS, the Paris School of Economics, the London School of Economics and served as Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at MIT endorses Bernie Sanders' policies - the math adds up. His economic advisor is Stephanie Kelton who explains Modern Economic Theory; https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/0... [cnbc.com] . These aren't people shooting from the hip. They have plans even BEFORE they are in office. Imagine people who are seeking the advice of scientists and experts. Seems very Slashdotty. It makes me feel like a return to professionalism is at hand.
But hey, let's roll the dice just put our confidence in ideas from the very same people who were wrong about Global Warming one more time -- the people who troll the web and pay for FUD to stall us for a little bit more -- I'm sure building a storm surge barrier around the Eastern seabord is going to be cheap, and we'll get Atlantis to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some Democrats might have some war hawks but not Progressives -- are you sure you've actually read what THEY say and not what Breitbart says they say?
The massive human culling I can't rule out though -- but I'm pretty sure the winning company that gets the bid will immediately outsource the job and undocumented workers will finally get their revenge.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This video alone shuts you completely down. Democrat war hawks are driving the ship. We have already seen the calls to put deniers in jail. We have already seen the calls to ostracize, marginalize, and regulate everything that offends a minority on the left while anything offended on the right is fair game.
Global Warming has become the rally cry for Socialists around the globe to unify and "justify" the total draconian control of all human populations. Political Correct
Re: (Score:2)
You are linking to a panel of some group named ACT! hosted by the Heritage Foundation -- I don't see how that represents Democrats at all. If you are trying to say that I should "behold their wisdom", well I'm kind of concerned at their logic that of the 1.2 Billion Muslims and concluding that 25% are radical -- fine, if you define them as having very fundamentalist theocracy and draconian punishments. But does this translate into "scary terrorist bent on destruction?" Because of there were about 300 millio
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it going to "bite them" if they are trying to deal with an actual problem that we all face? As opposed to the Republican plan of "pretend it's not there"?
The Democrats are trying to deal with global warming while simultaneously getting rid of nuclear power. Nuclear power currently provides 20% of the electricity in the USA, and does so very safely, reliably, and with prices competitive with natural gas.
The Republicans have been reducing CO2 output, largely by accident, by relying on nuclear and natural gas for our electricity. The Republicans can sink the Democrat plans on global warming by coming out in support of more nuclear power. They don't have to a
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing about the wonders of Nuclear power. Seems to me, that we can meet our growing energy demand by implementing Green Tech -- we can keep what is working now humming along and replace as needed.
If Nuclear power were super cost effective like proponents tell us -- then private industry would be building them and making a profit. I'm not an expert, but it seems they aren't doing this. You start building a Nuke plant and we can put in more wind and solar for less money for that output before you can
Re: (Score:3)
If Nuclear power were super cost effective like proponents tell us -- then private industry would be building them and making a profit.
You are assuming a free market, and when it comes to nuclear power the Democrats have spent decades putting in legal barriers for nuclear power in the USA. There's profitable nuclear power in the world, just not for new nuclear power in the USA.
To build a new nuclear power plant in the USA requires a permit from the federal government. The Democrats have done everything within their power to keep licenses from being issued and to impose regulatory costs to discourage anyone from actually building if a per
Why ship beef at all? (Score:2)
Here's an interesting factoid about beef: in 2017, the USA exported $7.27 worth of beef, and imported $6.2 billion worth of beef. In other words, the Amazon is not burning in order to supply the USA with beef, as it is a net producer thereof! Perhaps we should stop moving all that beef around the world for no good reason?
Globalisation, and the globalists, are very much at the core of this problem. There is no need to move all that beef around. Erect some trade barriers, and stop wasting all that energy on s
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to move all that beef around.
It's a seasonal thing. I like my beef fresh. So it makes sense to harvest or slaughter at optimal times in different locations and then move the produce around to satisfy a constant demand. Or you could just make jerky and store it in in your root cellar. And then be sick of eating it after a long winter. And beef aside, vegetarians are absolutely dependent on global supply chains. A lot of the organic stuff they eat just does not keep for very long.
Re: Democrats should be looking at the science. (Score:2)
Yes, clearly it's "them" that do all the shit-posting. /lol
Re: (Score:2)
What really bothers me is this focus on how much meat Americans eat.
Raising livestock for food takes up 41% of all land in the contiguous 48 states [bloomberg.com]. 654 million acres for grazing, and another 127.5 million growing crops that are fed to animals. Think about that for a minute. Just try to comprehend it. 41% of all land just to raise animals for food. Raising livestock is crazy inefficient. In comparison, only 77.3 million acres are used for growing the crops we eat ourselves. And of course energy use, water, transportation, etc. all scale with land use. If we cut our
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't their waste still a HUGE environmental problem?
No. It's a political problem. As long as huge piles of nuclear fuel are allowed to accumulate, foes can point at it and shriek about nuclear power.
Re: (Score:3)