Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VII 21

[dik]

thread1618-496010:
thread1618-496614:
thread1618-497017:
thread1618-497239:
thread1618-497988:
thread1618-498967:

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

...and 'nothing new'.

"The death toll rose to 32 and more dangerous weather was forecast for a wide swath of the South and Midwest already in ruins Sunday from a surge of storms that fueled confirmed or suspected tornadoes in at least 11 states."

and it's starting to kill people, elsewhere...

https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/04/02/global-warming-is-killing-indians-and-pakistanis

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

I disagree... NOx is a different 'can of worms'.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I guess you haven't studied what I have posted? There is a good reason for all the bad weather nowadays. And has zero to do with NOx, Co2 and on and on.

I don't know what to make of the link you posted. It goes to a "GeoEngineering" website. Looks like those guys have lots of links and videos and such. But, I have no idea which ones you are basing your assertions on. Maybe a more specific link that we can look at and research might be helpful. I don't really want to spend a week going down a rabbit hole on that website and its links.

 

[CWB1]

Per capita is the way to go...

Without normalizing via a filtration factor based on the country's own environment its an irrelevant statistic. An overpopulated country with small area or little greenery could be low on a per-capita basis yet still severely overwhelm the environment within their borders via pollution. Conversely, an underpopulated country with a large area could be very high on a per=capita basis but well within their environment's filtration capacity.

Its almost as silly as equating emissions with resource consumption...or reallocating emissions from producers to consumers...or most of the other political schemes to redistribute wealth via junk science.

 

[BridgeSmith]

...or reallocating emissions from producers to consumers...

or shifting energy production and the associated pollution/emissions from end users to power plants and then claiming the pollution displacement vehicles are "zero emissions".

 

[dik]

Governments and businesses are so good at 'putting a spin' on things, you really have to be careful about what they are really saying...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

or shifting energy production and the associated pollution/emissions from end users to power plants and then claiming the pollution displacement vehicles are "zero emissions".

This is a frequent talking point among the conservatives who are against electric vehicles. It is a legitimate concern, especially in areas of the US where the power grid is fueled by inefficient (based on CO2 output) sources like coal.

However, in California, this is not a very accurate take. Here are the numbers for California:

Natural Gas = 38% of electricity production.
Nuclear = +9% (though California doesn't consider this to be 'clean')
Hydro = +10% (though California doesn't consider this to be clean or renewable for some crazy political reason)
GeoThermal = 5%
Solar = 14%
Wind = +11%

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...ty-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation

Now, we can certainly critique the total carbon footprint when including things like the batteries and manufacturing, energy loss through the electricity grid, and such. But, the actual production (at least in CA) is pretty good.

 

[dik]

and really long term effects if it changes ocean currents. The effects can be far reaching, lasting millennia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVacLA1Xkm8

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

It appears that California is nearly 50% renewable... they can slowly change improve. This is good considering their population and general proactiveness (word?)... other states may not be so good and may be a lot slower.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It appears that California is nearly 50% renewable... they can slowly change improve. This is good considering their population and general proactiveness (word?)... other states may not be so good and may be a lot slower.

Also, California has mild weather. Inclement weather can wreak havoc the efficiency of the batteries for electric vehicles. Personally, I think Hybrid vehicles are the better option TODAY for most of the states here in the US. They certainly have some other advantages in flexibility, range and such.

 

[dik]

In particular for stop and go city traffic... EVs only make sense if you have non fossil electricity.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

It appears that California is nearly 50% renewable

What metric are you using for this? By the EIA numbers, net electricity generation for CA is 33.6% renewables, much of it hydroelectric.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

If you look at my link, it was from the California Energy Commission data from 2021.

I should point out that the 33.6% (even on the California Energy Commission's site) specifically does NOT include large hydro power because it's not considered renewable. It also doesn't include nuclear power, which is essentially free of CO2 emissions.

For what it's worth, California's economy is robust enough and large enough that it can absorb the significantly higher costs of energy generation when compared to states that don't have the funds to support these "clean" energy projects.

FWIW, I would think the solar numbers would be difficult to truly get accurate numbers since so much of solar power is from end users. Does it just measure how much those homes contribute to the power grid, or does it include the amount that went to power that house itself? Does it only include the large scale solar plants like Ivanpoh?

 

[SwinnyGG]

In particular for stop and go city traffic... EVs only make sense if you have non fossil electricity.

You've said this a bunch of times in different ways.

Stop saying it, it isn't true.

 

[dik]

Sorry guy... it is. Fossil fuel electricity generation may be a tad more efficient... but it's still contributing to the carbon footprint.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

Fossil fuel electricity generation may be a tad more efficient...

It isn't "a tad" more efficient. It's WAY more efficient. Possibly 50% more efficient, depending on specifics.

but it's still contributing to the carbon footprint.

Elimination of emitted carbon is a literal impossibility. You can do nothing, or you can make reductions.

If you're going to continue screaming that the sky is falling, you ought to be the one on my side of this argument.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It isn't "a tad" more efficient. It's WAY more efficient. Possibly 50% more efficient, depending on specifics.

Well, that really depends on your definition of "efficiency". Cost efficient? Yes, fossil fuels tend to be significantly cheaper on cost basis. Though a lot of the regulations and taxes and punishments that we've placed on them are narrowing this gap.

I should point out that many people will claim that renewables like solar and wind are as cost efficient (or more so) than fossil fuels. But, that ignores total life cycle costs. The amount of maintenance cost per MegaWatt generated is tremendously higher for solar and wind. There are reasons why these industry must currently be propped up by government subsidies to survive.

Now, if you want to talk about efficiency in terms of "impact on the environment", then I would argue that Coal is the worst. Lots of permanent waste produced by coal. Lots of carbon emissions.

Natural gas is very "clean" in terms of how it burns (much better than gasoline and coal). It basically just emits water and CO2. But, unburnt natural gas is VERY impactful on global warming when it is accidentally released into the atmosphere. If you're talking about CO2 emissions, then natural gas is still more efficient (on a MegaWatt per ton of CO2 emissions) compared to coal and gasoline.

Now, in terms of efficiency per CO2 emissions, nothing beats Nuclear and Hydro.

 

[BridgeSmith]

I should point out that the 33.6% (even on the California Energy Commission's site) specifically does NOT include large hydro power because it's not considered renewable. It also doesn't include nuclear power, which is essentially free of CO2 emissions.

What I was looking at appears to include all "utility scale" production, including large hydro.

I agree nuclear is a great carbon-neutral power source, and only gets excluded from the conversation based on the technicality that it's not "renewable" due to the very small amount of Uranium (or Thorium) fuel that it uses. If the 'environmental activists' were really serious about making large cuts in CO2 emissions, without the massive toxic waste and environmental damage caused by solar and wind energy production, they'd be pushing nuclear. Also, all of the significant dangers of Uranium-based nuclear power can be avoided with Thorium molten salt reactors.

 

[dik]

I was trying to be humourous. Nearly all our power in Manitoba is hydro, and a lot of power in Canada is the same... The finishing statement, "you can have to make reductions", may be more correct...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

We can't make reductions, not if we follow the current end all fossil fuels whatever the cost movement.