Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[tigerade]

This guy has it all figured out:

Florida Congressman: If Humans Cause Climate Change, Then ? | ThinkProgress

A Republican lawmaker from Florida dipped his feet deeper into climate denial on Monday, saying it is “foolish” to believe humans can cause global warming, and justifying his logic with a strange comparison to dinosaur extinction.

Lui: Does this concern you though, when you look at 2014 and 2016?
Miller: I’m concerned with the truth. And the truth is, climate has been changing for a long time. They call it global warming, global cooling — now everybody wants to call it climate change. Yes, the climate is changing. But it has been doing that for centuries. And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that’s it’s not settled.​

Miller: It changes. It gets hot, it gets cold. It’s done it for as long as we have measured the climate.
Liu: But man-made, isn’t that the question?
Miller: Then why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Were there men that were causing — were there cars running around at that point, that were causing global warming? No. The climate has changed since earth was created.

​

 

[tigerade]

And in other news:

Top 5 Signs Its Time to Stand Up for Science (Op-Ed) - Yahoo News

 

[RichardC]

Some recent developments here and there.

Some more good news from the US:

Obama Turns Up Heat: Climate Deniers are “Radical Fringe”.

I told an interviewer the other day, that climate deniers are now “backpedaling”.President Obama clearly sees the same thing, and is pressing the advantage. In a commencement address at UC Irvine on Saturday, the President ridiculed climate denial, comparing it to believing the moon is made of cheese
Have no doubt that this attack is well supported by polling and focus group data.

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/06/14/obama-ramps-up-climate-climate-deniers-are-radical-fringe/

While fossil haven Australia is going in the wrong direction:

Let’s Wait Until The Rich Get Richer To Cut CO2 Emissions…

The conservative Queensland state government has called for action on emissions reductions to be deferred, saying that economic growth should not be impeded, and low emissions technologies should only be deployed “when society is wealthier.”
The government of one of the richest states in one of the world’s wealthiest economies – and with the highest emissions per capita – argues that “action now runs the risk of being expensive yet ineffective and harmful to those in the community least able to afford the additional costs.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/13...GN&utm_term=0_b9b83ee7eb-a3b3392051-331989925

Finally, in Canada the consequences of poor federal policy choices are beginning to become apparent:

Are Harper’s dreams of Canada as energy superpower going up in smoke?

Are Prime Minister Harper’s dreams of Canada becoming an energy superpower going up in smoke? In the last decade, his Conservative government has done everything but roll out the red carpet for the energy sector. Whether it’s multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in the United States, gold-plated junkets to foreign energy markets, or muzzling opposition from domestic environmentalists, never before have we seen Ottawa shill so unabashedly for a single industry. ...

Unfortunately for Canadians, it’s becoming clear that despite the Prime Minister’s best attempts at economic intervention, their government is playing a losing hand. ... Even as the rest of the world is realizing that it must wean itself off fossil fuels, the Harper government wants to double down on the resource.

Canadians have been force-fed the idea that the energy sector is the engine of economic growth for the nation. But take a look around. Whether it’s British Columbia’s hopes for liquefied natural gas, Alberta’s for the oil sands or the country’s struggling coal mines, the news is hardly encouraging.

A newly minted gas accord between Russia and China has all but taken the wheels off B.C.’s plans to become a major LNG exporter. ...

Canadian coal producers are facing a similar story. As China continues to choke on its own emissions, the country is starting to pump the brakes on what was once considered an insatiable appetite for coal-fired power. ...

The latest piece of bad news for the energy sector comes from the oil sands, the resource Harper touts as being the crown jewel of Canada’s natural resource assets.
The owners of the $11-billion Joslyn North oil sands mine are putting the project on ice indefinitely. Total E&P Canada, the Canadian arm of French oil giant Total SA, along with its partners–Suncor Energy, Occidental Petroleum and Japan’s Inpex–said they’ve been unable to find a formula under which the mega-project makes economic sense.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...superpower-going-up-in-smoke/article18942499/

 

[tigerade]

Minimum CO2 price of $32 needed to curb warming, study shows - Yahoo News

Study shows that a Global CO2 price of at least 32 dollars per tonne needed for strong cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. File this one under the "Not Gonna Happen" folder.

 

[DRS1]

Hydro power is under attack by whacks that seek to destroy the dams. And in the Midwest all hydro development plans have been cratered by the environmental whacks law suits in ignorant whack administrative law judges courtrooms.

So, get ready for hydro to dry up, or not be expanded in other locations.

I was using national numbers for coal... If it is below 50 percent nationally, so be it.

And at the rate the whacko contingent are forcing nuclear plants to shut down, your brew of power will have to be picked up by other means. And NO WAY will roof too solar get you 80 amps 240/440 for a super charger. Unless maybe someone has a mansion as large as a factory rooftop.

The Tesla has toxic ingredients in the materials that make up the car. And rare earth ingredients in the aluminum brew. So, is there claims here that the motors are certified not to have any toxic ingredients or any rare earth products? I did not see that on the web site.

My point as I said at first. Enjoy the car.. It is one way for the future. However, nose up superior attitudes about ones own "save the planet" ego is not fulfilled by driving a Tesla. If one wants to save the planet, become old order Amish. Not buy a toxic LCD screened luxury performance car, falsely claiming to be some save the world success.

 

[DRS1]

Oh, and how does it work to charge your Tesla at night using your personal rooftop solar system? Oh, maybe wind you say? Good luck working around your whacko home owners association or local zoning to have a wind mill big enough on your property.

And get ready to lose your subsidy for EV electric rates. Even if you had your own "clean" power generation the KWH cost would be over $.20. Which would change the TCO model for a Tesla (or any EV) into silliness

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The Tesla has toxic ingredients in the materials that make up the car. And rare earth ingredients in the aluminum brew. So, is there claims here that the motors are certified not to have any toxic ingredients or any rare earth products? I did not see that on the web site.

First time that I read such a thing. Can you give a link for this?

- - - Updated - - -

My point as I said at first. Enjoy the car.. It is one way for the future. However, nose up superior attitudes about ones own "save the planet" ego is not fulfilled by driving a Tesla. If one wants to save the planet, become old order Amish.

Do you know that in the USA transportation absorbs 46% of the oil consumption?

 

[CalDreamin]

Hydro power is under attack by whacks that seek to destroy the dams. And in the Midwest all hydro development plans have been cratered by the environmental whacks law suits in ignorant whack administrative law judges courtrooms.

So, get ready for hydro to dry up, or not be expanded in other locations.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You make a lot of inflammatory accusations but so far have provided no evidence, and have made several demonstrably false statements.

California's Renewable Portfolio Mandate incentivizes the development of new small hydro power generation and efficiency upgrades at large hydro power plants.

And NO WAY will roof too solar get you 80 amps 240/440 for a super charger. Unless maybe someone has a mansion as large as a factory rooftop.

There are no superchargers at single family homes where most rooftop solar PV systems exist. The vast majority of Tesla charging in the U.S. uses 110-240V AC, and rooftop solar can offset all that's needed. My rooftop solar install covers only half of my single car garage, yet is sufficient to power a Model S for 32,000 miles a year, which is more than I drive.

The Tesla has toxic ingredients in the materials that make up the car. And rare earth ingredients in the aluminum brew. So, is there claims here that the motors are certified not to have any toxic ingredients or any rare earth products? I did not see that on the web site.

Name the "toxic ingredients" and "rare earth ingredients" in a Model S that aren't in an ICE car, and what components are made of these ingredients. Provide citations. You are the one making the accusations -- where's your evidence?

 

[NuclearPowered]

Oh, and how does it work to charge your Tesla at night using your personal rooftop solar system? Oh, maybe wind you say? Good luck working around your whacko home owners association or local zoning to have a wind mill big enough on your property.

And get ready to lose your subsidy for EV electric rates. Even if you had your own "clean" power generation the KWH cost would be over $.20. Which would change the TCO model for a Tesla (or any EV) into silliness

Go back to Yahoo comments.

 

[roblab]

And NO WAY will roof too solar get you 80 amps 240/440 for a super charger. Unless maybe someone has a mansion as large as a factory rooftop.

I'd say you're a little out of touch.

I have eight sealed lead acid batteries (82 kw) that require no maintenance. They are expected to last 18 years. They power my home at night. They supply, through inverters, 220 volt 100 amp service. We don't call our charger a "super" charger, but it does the job. My panels sit on half of my roof (south facing) of my 1800 sq foot home. We like to pretend its a mansion, but a lot of our neighbor's houses are bigger. Oh, and all this has been running for about 10 years, so my investment has paid for itself.

20 miles from my house we have 26 geothermal plants, and not too far we have wind and hydro feeding the grid. The primary base is NatGas, so there is some carbon, but that's no reason to not try to do something.

As for being smug about what we are doing, no. We mainly just like to drive for free in a really great car. I can't see the pollution, and I don't care a whole lot about it, except maybe when I'm following a diesel and have to close the vents.

Sounds like you need to buy a Tesla so you could feel better, wake up with a smile, and learn the Tesla nod.

- - - Updated - - -

To the extent that the United States can extinguish its appetite for petroleum as a means of locomotive force is the extent to which this nation can unhitch itself from the world oil trade. I am a bit too lazy tonight (and can use the always handy but absolutely true excuse of hyper-slow internet connection) to put forth the hard data, but this country's consumption of crude oil - minus the amount used for transportation - is very close to equal to that of our own domestic production. So I argue thus: if we - still the largest coherent economic presence on the planet - can end our role in world oil trade, then we can concomitantly end the fungibility of that product. And to the extent that the US can do it, so the other nations of the world can follow. And that is what can break the connection between bullets and barrels.

Excellent! Bravo.

 

[ggr]

Less than 40% in 2013, nationally. And you should add in the substantial power imports from Canada (mostly Québec), virtually all of which is from renewables (hydro+wind).

I guess my point was that I didn't even have to do research or be accurate to call bovine excrement.

 

[Nathan Smith]

There are no superchargers at single family homes where most rooftop solar PV systems exist. The vast majority of Tesla charging in the U.S. uses 110-240V AC, and rooftop solar can offset all that's needed. My rooftop solar install covers only half of my single car garage, yet is sufficient to power a Model S for 32,000 miles a year, which is more than I drive.

I'd have to say it depends on where you live... I had solarcity come out and access my 2400 sqft home. Placing a 6 kW DC system (largest possible for my roof) would only cover 27% of my energy needs. After 20 years I would have saved $8k. And yes, I drive less than 32k per year.

 

[dsm363]

Toxic LCD? Funny. Newer gas powered cars don't have LCD displays of course so very informed comment.

 

[nwdiver]

And at the rate the whacko contingent are forcing nuclear plants to shut down, your brew of power will have to be picked up by other means. And NO WAY will roof too solar get you 80 amps 240/440 for a super charger. Unless maybe someone has a mansion as large as a factory rooftop.

If there's 1000 homes each with a ~5kW (a moderate array) that's 5000kW. That's why the VAST majority ~99% of solar PV systems are grid-tied. This isn't about "feeling superior" this is about demonstrating that you can have conservation without deprivation; You can have a 416HP luxury car without burning hundreds of gallons of gasoline per year; You can consume 20MWh annually without adding to the risk of coastal flooding, stronger hurricanes or severe droughts. It is not ok to get our energy from fossil fuels. With EVs, Storage, wind and solar... we don't need to.

Burning fossil fuels for energy is a necessary evil that for the most part is no longer necessary.

 

[Nathan Smith]

Do you know that in the USA transportation absorbs 46% of the oil consumption?

If by Oil you mean Petro the number is 76%... http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/primary_energy.pdf However, contrary to NWDiver we are FAR away from not having to use fossil fuels. 65% of electricity is created from fossil fuels. So on a national level, going from gas to electric moves us from Petro to gas/coal. Renewable sources TODAY can't make up for that shift - so we will still be burning some form of fossil fuels for this nations energy needs for the foreseeable future.

 

[nwdiver]

contrary to NWDiver we are FAR away from not having to use fossil fuels. 65% of electricity is created from fossil fuels. So on a national level, going from gas to electric moves us from Petro to gas/coal. Renewable sources TODAY can't make up for that shift - so we will still be burning some form of fossil fuels for this nations energy needs for the foreseeable future.

My point was that we don't need to develop any new technology to make the shift... But yes... Solar + Wind + Storage can make the shift. We're currently at ~0.2% solar and we won't need storage until we're at ~20%. We just need to start deploying the technology that we have. Solar is cheaper than coal in most places and cheaper than new nuclear everywhere. My last PV install is generating ~70kWh/day at an average cost of $0.04/kWh over 20 years. Time to start racking panels like they're going out of style :smile:

http://www.businessinsider.com/barclays-downgrades-utilities-on-solar-threat-2014-5

 

[Raffy.Roma]

My point was that we don't need to develop any new technology to make the shift... But yes... Solar + Wind + Storage can make the shift. We're currently at ~0.2% solar and we won't need storage until we're at ~20%. We just need to start deploying the technology that we have. Solar is cheaper than coal in most places and cheaper than new nuclear everywhere. My last PV install is generating ~70kWh/day at an average cost of $0.04/kWh over 20 years. Time to start racking panels like they're going out of style :smile:

Well said.

 

[Robert.Boston]

If by Oil you mean Petro the number is 76%... http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/primary_energy.pdf However, contrary to NWDiver we are FAR away from not having to use fossil fuels. 65% of electricity is created from fossil fuels. So on a national level, going from gas to electric moves us from Petro to gas/coal. Renewable sources TODAY can't make up for that shift - so we will still be burning some form of fossil fuels for this nations energy needs for the foreseeable future.

But burning nat gas to generate electricity is far less carbon-intensive than burning gasoline to travel the same distance. The same is true with modern coal-fired plants. So (in the US) even the worst-case scenario is that EVs are net neutral--today.

When you buy an ICE car, you are stuck with its carbon emissions for its lifetime (unless it can burn bio-diesel). When you buy an EV, it's carbon footprint reduces as more renewables are added to the grid.

 

[DRS1]

Well said.

Ok... 20 year spread to get to $.04 a KWH? Way too extended time ROI for average home owner. I have yet to see a NPV (net present value) GAAP calculation for these deployments. Any CPAs in here that are a fan of clean personal energy production that have done this?

If you are willing, any way you can post the paperwork for your last install? Upfront and ongoing cost, brand and design of the system? Would help me, and possible others that are thinking about deployment of solar system.

I am NOT against clean energy, and not demanding perfection or 24/7 generation.. I am trying to be a realist, and to challenge the fake reality for those who do claim to be superior in their environmental views and activities.

Have you, or has anyone done a environmental impact study on the production and disposal of a solar or wind system for a house? The systems do contain much fossil fuel based materials (plastics and the like), metals like copper, other more rare materials that production causes toxic waste (generating panels materials and construction)... There is more to all this... Much of "clean energy" have pollution and waste material impact that has not been admitted to. BTW, I am ok with such issues... So long as smug nuts do not force this down our throats with false assumptions.

 

[DRS1]

My last comment was meant for NWDIVER. Wrong "quote" used.