Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Skotty]

Why target gas heat at this point? Is Ontario already clean in every other way? I guess they must already have power at least as clean as burning gas, or switching homes away from gas would be premature and initially counter productive. Gas heat is fairly efficient (generally efficiency losses are to heat, but not a problem here as heat is the objective). Personally, gas heat for residential homes and gas for cooking are some of the very last things I would look at changing.

I currently have a gas cooktop, gas water heater, and gas heat. However, since electricity is 85% coal in my area, I'm guessing using gas for these is, for the moment, better than using electricity. When that changes, I could give up the gas heat and gas water heat, but I'd really hate to give up the gas cooktop. I hope that when emissions are reduced to the point of stability, gas for cooking will be part of what's left in the remaining acceptable emissions.

 

[ZsoZso]

Ontario electricity has Zero (0%) coal since 2014, mostly nuclear + hydro with some gas-powered peaker plants, and some wind + solar that has been built up in the form of FIT and MicroFIT to replace the last coal from 2010.

So in Ontario, electricity has very little carbon footprint.
But in term of efficiency, you are right that using electricity for heating is rather inefficient. Geothermal is much better, but location limited. I rather miss the focus on passive-solar building technology, which is far more cost effective and also zero carbon.

 

[ggr]

It will also require that gasoline sold in the province contain less carbon,

How do you get gasoline to contain less carbon?

 

[ggies07]

Has anyone seen this yet? Ted is basically using the same tactics from the tocacco industry for Exxon now, but most of us knew this anyway....

Exxon's Lawyer in Climate Science Probe Has History Helping Big Tobacco and NFL Defend Against Health Claims

Ted Wells, an attorney hired by ExxonMobil to represent the company against accusations it lied about the climate risks of burning fossil fuels, also represented the tobacco industry in the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1999 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, DeSmog has found.

The tobacco industry is now infamous for writing in a 1969 memo that “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public.” Yet, Exxon has even said in its own late 1970s studies that “there is no doubt” that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was harmful.

 

[SmartElectric]

Why target gas heat at this point? Is Ontario already clean in every other way?

Ontario is refurbishing nuclear plants, and with energy efficiency initiatives, we boil water some evenings at the nuke plants instead of turning turbines because no one wants the power:
Smart Electric Drive: Choose one : boil steam or recharge a million electric cars

A million electric cars would only just use up some of that excess overnight power, the other thing we need to do is use more electricity to power our homes, and geothermal and heat pumps would make good use of the large amount of surplus power we have available to us.

With $20 billion in nuke refurbishments on the books for the next decade, Ontario needs something to use up that power, and one million electric cars and the switch from gas heat would be a good start.

 

[DrGuest]

This is in Historic Virginia City, MT, however someday...

 

[RichardC]

Ontario electricity has Zero (0%) coal since 2014, mostly nuclear + hydro with some gas-powered peaker plants, and some wind + solar that has been built up in the form of FIT and MicroFIT to replace the last coal from 2010.

So in Ontario, electricity has very little carbon footprint.
But in term of efficiency, you are right that using electricity for heating is rather inefficient. Geothermal is much better, but location limited. I rather miss the focus on passive-solar building technology, which is far more cost effective and also zero carbon.

Agreed. I am using passive solar together with air source heat pump (which can be installed anywhere) for winter heating.

 

[RichardC]

How do you get gasoline to contain less carbon?

Low carbon ethanol.

 

[RichardC]

Has anyone seen this yet? Ted is basically using the same tactics from the tocacco industry for Exxon now, but most of us knew this anyway....

Exxon's Lawyer in Climate Science Probe Has History Helping Big Tobacco and NFL Defend Against Health Claims

This is being investigated in Canada. Similar investigations should be launched elsewhere.
See: Leading Canadians call for investigation of climate change denier groups - Ecojustice

 

[RichardC]

This is being investigated in Canada. Similar investigations should be launched elsewhere.
See: Leading Canadians call for investigation of climate change denier groups - Ecojustice

News on similar initiatives in California:

Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable for Climate Science Misinformation
Jason Barbose, Western states policy manager | May 16, 2016, 9:41 am EDT

See: Momentum Builds in California to Hold Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable for Climate Science Misinformation - The Equation

 

[RichardC]

Another climate change victory in the Courts
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found in favor of four youth plaintiffs, the Conservation Law Foundation and Mass Energy Consumers Alliance Tuesday in the critical climate change case, Kain et al. v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The court found that the DEP was not complying with its legal obligation to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and ordered the agency to “promulgate regulations that address multiple sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions, impose a limit on emissions that may be released … and set limits that decline on an annual basis.”
See: Historic Victory: 4 Teenagers Win in Massachusetts Climate Change Lawsuit
Slip Opinion Details

 

[S'toon]

India records its hottest temperature ever of 51 C

That's 123 degrees F.

 

[David_Cary]

Why target gas heat at this point? Is Ontario already clean in every other way? I guess they must already have power at least as clean as burning gas, or switching homes away from gas would be premature and initially counter productive. Gas heat is fairly efficient (generally efficiency losses are to heat, but not a problem here as heat is the objective). Personally, gas heat for residential homes and gas for cooking are some of the very last things I would look at changing.

I currently have a gas cooktop, gas water heater, and gas heat. However, since electricity is 85% coal in my area, I'm guessing using gas for these is, for the moment, better than using electricity. When that changes, I could give up the gas heat and gas water heat, but I'd really hate to give up the gas cooktop. I hope that when emissions are reduced to the point of stability, gas for cooking will be part of what's left in the remaining acceptable emissions.

If your electric is hydro/nuclear, then getting rid of NG is a pretty obvious thing to do next. Perhaps they should push EVs more - but in the North, it is a little harder. By electric heat, they are of course talking air source or ground source heat pumps - not electric strips.

NG for cooking is a pretty small bit of course. I have cooking and heat back up. We cook a decent amount and we use 1 therm a month. It is very little NG. I am very sure that our neighbors use more NG in one day in January then we use all year to cook.

 

[RichardC]

If your electric is hydro/nuclear, then getting rid of NG is a pretty obvious thing to do next. Perhaps they should push EVs more - but in the North, it is a little harder. By electric heat, they are of course talking air source or ground source heat pumps - not electric strips.

NG for cooking is a pretty small bit of course. I have cooking and heat back up. We cook a decent amount and we use 1 therm a month. It is very little NG. I am very sure that our neighbors use more NG in one day in January then we use all year to cook.

I agree. This also needs to be considered from a long term perspective in terms of path dependency and the resulting locking of emissions for another 50 years. Imagine how difficult it would be to meet future climate goals if you are allowing the continuing installation of gas infrastructure in 2030 that would be creating an expanded GHG footprint well into the second half of the century. On both a personal and a practical level it would be much harder to turn off gas heating once it is installed, than to prevent its installation in the first place.

Speaking from personal; experience, we decided 35 years ago to forego natural gas heating (which is available at the curb) and instead to use a mix of passive solar and an air source heat pump, which has kept us warm through some fairly chilly winters.

 

[nwdiver]

Why target gas heat at this point? Is Ontario already clean in every other way? I guess they must already have power at least as clean as burning gas, or switching homes away from gas would be premature and initially counter productive. Gas heat is fairly efficient (generally efficiency losses are to heat, but not a problem here as heat is the objective). Personally, gas heat for residential homes and gas for cooking are some of the very last things I would look at changing.

There's an efficiency multiplier. I swapped the gas hot water heater in my house for a heat pump hot water heater that cools my garage as it heats my water.

Fuel Switching: An Essential Step Towards A Decarbonized Future

 

[1208]

View attachment 176940 This is in Historic Virginia City, MT, however someday...

Places like that should be preserved as it is, like Oradour Sur Glane.

In my country we would bulldoze it and build housing with no gardens on it.

 

[ggies07]

Exxon Mobil, Chevron Shareholders Reject Resolutions Aimed At Battling Climate Change

And there you have it:

Shareholders of Exxon Mobil and Chevron have voted to reject a series of resolutions aimed at encouraging the companies to take stronger actions to battle climate change.

And a big F*** YOU to Rex for this comment. Renewable energy is growing so fast, because it's exponential not linear, that Exxon will die due to his resistance. He doesn't care what happens after he's dead because he only has like 20 more years.

"The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today to replace the pervasiveness of fossil fuel in our global economy and in our very quality of life, and I would go beyond that and say our very survival," said Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil's president and chairman.

 

[SkunkWorks]

With respect to the statement above: "The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today to replace the pervasiveness of fossil fuel in our global economy and in our very quality of life, and I would go beyond that and say our very survival," said Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil's president and chairman.

Compare his statement to the following testimony:
Having served as Minister of Defense for Canada, Paul Hellyer (who also obtained a degree in aeronautical engineering and an air pilot’s license) is a credible witness; as are the Astronauts, Intelligence and other Military and Government employees (some with top security clearances) who testified concerning sustainable clean energy (and other issues) at:
www.SiriusDisclosure.com/witness-testimony

 

[beeeerock]

Saw this a week ago... BC Geothermal Resource Estimate Maps

With the big fuss about the habitat destruction and loss of land to the proposed Site C dam, you have to wonder why the geothermal options haven't been pursued. I suspect it's project inertia.... Site C has been in the design and approval stage for so long, it would take another decade to shut down construction... it would be done by then.

At least Hydro power is clean. If it gets built, I suppose there are worse things.

 

[ggies07]

Not a surprise, but we have another one......Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.

The funding spanned trade associations, corporate lobby groups, and industry front groups as well as conservative thinktanks and was exposed in court filings last month.

The coal company also gave to political organisations, funding twice as many Republican groups as Democratic ones.