-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Increasingly difficult not to harbor INTENSE resentment.....
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
400ppm is obviously a big roll of the dice which seems asinine considering options like solar are now at grid parity in a lot of areas, but progress has been so rapid of late that I'm really not all that worried. Once the global financial system truly gets a hold of solar financing it's game over and change will only accelerate to levels we can't even imagine now. Imagine what tactics the big banks will turn to once oil is a permanent bad bet, they'll be racing to finance residential solar before the "boom" passes them by.
When I was a kid, the ozone hole was the MASSIVE UNAVOIDABLE END-OF-DAYS problem, then the EPA came along and it sorted itself out. There's no solid indication that we can't turn our CO2 problem around before irreparable damage is done, the reaction of the planet to 425ppm may be to freeze the hell out of us. No way to know, we're in uncharted waters.
With any luck we plateau at 450 and then drop back to historical norms within a reasonable amount of time. Hopefully that much CO2 absorbed by the oceans will not be catastrophic, we shall see. The baby boomers will be dead before you know it and then this will all be a thing of the past.
CFCs were a relatively easy problem to solve. There were only about a dozen companies that Manufactured them and Dupont alone was ~50%. AGW is ~3 or 4 orders of magnitude more complicated. AGW vs CFCs is literally like comparing the assembly of a jigsaw puzzle to a Falcon 9 rocket. The Montreal protocol almost single handedly solved the issue... how many international meetings have we had for AGW yet still emissions rise....
Climate Change is a 'Wicked Problem'
A significant number of people are going to have to be coerced into doing the right thing... that's not finger wagging... that's reality. Being an apologist isn't going to keep us from going over 450ppm... stopping the frivolous use of fossil fuels will. We need more people to have to courage to stand up and say this is wrong and it needs to stop.
Unsure about the effects, but there are ways we can (and should) go to actively reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not just reduce the amount we add. Most obvious to me seems to be "planting trees"
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Yes. Easier than planting trees, grows faster, oceans make up 70% of the earth's surface, algae can sink to the bottom thus sequestering carbon.
Last edited:
deonb
Active Member
Trees don't really help (sorry, Al Gore). The bacteria that eats them when they decompose releases the far far majority of the trees bulk back as CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is an interesting read on how the cycle works. It has a biased conclusion by the paper industry (Hey - solution - turn trees into paper, then bury the paper), but the principles are correct:
http://www.fopap.org/the_truth_about_trees.html
There is a proposal to take decomposing trees from forests and bury it:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/06/clearing-forests-of-dead-wood-prevents-massive-co2-emissions/
This will help and is simple to implement, but the scale required behind this is massive:
"The dead wood is best stored air tight underground. That way a continuous carbon sink is created. Every square kilometer of forest would fill trenches of 10×25 meters in size and 10 meters deep. Some 10 million of those would have to be dug every year to store 5 billion tons of carbon at a cost of $14 per ton worth of buried wood." (i.e. $70 billion per year)
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Agreed Deonb. That's why the algae are so attractive. Replicating the Carboniferous period basically, but hopefully much quicker yet in a controlled manner. Yes, it will be a giant experiment (just like releasing all the carbon in the last hundred years has been), but probably a necessary one.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Why would the average consumer buy a new ICE vehicle 12 years from now when we know EVs are better, cheaper and must more in our interest to operate? That's a big part of the problem already half solved.
The Pope just said we need to go 100% renewable. That should be an indication of just how far we've progressed as a group on the topic.
Sequestering carbon via algae may be a possible approach; still, let me ask this: about once a year, we hear about an "algae bloom" in the US Gulf of Mexico (generally attributed to runoff of fertilizer nutrients from farms in the Mississippi watershed). When this happens, it is said that this creates a "dead zone," because the decomposing algae cause a major reduction in available oxygen in the water. Fish can swim away from this, but it kills oysters, corals, crabs, etc. Anyway, can we do carbon sequestration with algae, without causing this "dead zone?" Does it have to do with the type of algae that is growing?
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I'm not an expert but I envision this being done far out in the open sea and somehow (this is the tricky part) controlling the grow, spread and decomposition of the algae.
Something I find very worrisome is that the majority of my friends and colleagues here in Alabama do not believe that there is a such thing as climate change (as though it were a religious question). They think that the climate data is falsified by researchers who are just looking to get more government grants; they don't accept the results shown by climate modeling systems (because, they say, small changes to assumptions can lead to major changes in results in computer models). Some of them say that even if there is an increasing global temperature (which couldn't be true because Al Gore is a damn-o-crat liar, who got rich talking about this), it is due to natural variability in the sun's output.
Here's the thing: if you consider this to be a "religious question," no discussion of facts is going to be sufficient to change minds. Here's what will make a difference: cost. Make electric vehicles cheaper than ICE vehicles, and/or increase the price of fuels (or the tax thereon) so that it reflects the true cost of the fuel (where the cost of damage to the environment is taken into account). I think that cost is going to be the only consideration in this debate for a lot of people (maybe a majority of them).
To the OP: don't let it eat you up from inside, take a deep breath and relax a bit. Eventually homeowners in Tornado Alley will begin berming up their homes as well as installing Solar and Wind systems. It all takes time. And realise they DO need those pickups to haul their big campers and work trailers around. Can't do much work with an EV, even an MS (although I do try).
Papal Encyclicals should be in LATIN, no?
--
Papal Encyclicals should be in LATIN, no?
--
The physical scale seems massive but the budget scale doesn't. When we're talking about national budgets in the units of trillions, 70 billion / year is doable.
Apologies to those of you who already read this material on teslamotors.com, where on May 31, 2015, I posted a response in a thread entitled "Glenn Beck Seal Approval And Now Brickbats and Flummery"; see http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/for...al-and-now-brickbats-and-flummery-all?page=16
@nwdiver and others, I'd like to comment about "taking action". I do think economics have a fundamental role to play in the existence of this problem and in its solution. Classic tragedy of the commons. So one way to move towards a solution is to tweak the rules. Put a price on carbon. There's a serious effort to do just that in Massachusetts. I realize a bunch of people will jump on the "can't solve it in a state, can't solve it on a national level, can only get there with a global solution" meme, and IMHO, there's truth to that, but it's critical to get the ball rolling **somewhere**.
My wife has made a large contribution towards the push towards carbon pricing. She spends most of her time home-schooling our 10-year old boy. But in her spare time:
My wife co-founded Climate Exchange (CXC), a Massachusetts non-profit to push for a first-in-the-nation carbon fee and rebate mechanism (i.e., revenue neutral, all money that comes in goes back out to the masses) here in Massachusetts:
My wife and CXC successfully raised several hundred thousand dollars that is now being used to create and fund a campaign here in Massachusetts.
My wife is an active member and funder of Citizen's Climate Lobby, a non-partisan, nation-wide non-profit organization campaigning for carbon pricing, which directly lobbies members of Congress:
About two years ago, my wife organized and co-funded an economic analysis of impact of carbon pricing on the Massachusetts economy. This study was performed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI):
This study was presented at the Massachusetts State House, and the subsequent discussion generated by this report led to the commissioning of a report by the MA Department Of Energy Resources (DOER), which is a necessary step preparatory to passing legislation:
About a year ago, inspired by the Massachusetts REMI report, a CCL member funded an analysis of impact of carbon fee-and-dividend (aka fee-and-rebate) on the national economy:
Momentum has picked up to the point that there are now not one but two bills being considered by the Massachusetts legislature.
Some other reports can be found here:
The Barrett bill may be considered in a committee markup session as early as October, and could well pass the Senate prior to the conclusion of this legislative session. My wife will host a Tesla community get-together / environmental fund-raiser here in the Boston area during the month of September. I hope local Tesla owners will find the time to attend the party, if for no other reason than to eat.
But it will also be an opportunity to voice your views to local politicians who will be in attendance, and who will be listening very carefully to this well-heeled, potentially politically active demographic.
Now, duh, my wife didn't do all this by herself. There are plenty of people working together on this. But in her spare time, she has made quite a difference. Perhaps someone else on this list will be motivated to help.
Thanks,
Alan
P.S. I know you from other threads, and know that you are a serious solar advocate driven by your perception of the economic realities of solar versus nuclear versus other energy sources. Have you thought about joining Citizens Climate Lobby? They could use you what you have to offer!
@nwdiver and others, I'd like to comment about "taking action". I do think economics have a fundamental role to play in the existence of this problem and in its solution. Classic tragedy of the commons. So one way to move towards a solution is to tweak the rules. Put a price on carbon. There's a serious effort to do just that in Massachusetts. I realize a bunch of people will jump on the "can't solve it in a state, can't solve it on a national level, can only get there with a global solution" meme, and IMHO, there's truth to that, but it's critical to get the ball rolling **somewhere**.
My wife has made a large contribution towards the push towards carbon pricing. She spends most of her time home-schooling our 10-year old boy. But in her spare time:
My wife co-founded Climate Exchange (CXC), a Massachusetts non-profit to push for a first-in-the-nation carbon fee and rebate mechanism (i.e., revenue neutral, all money that comes in goes back out to the masses) here in Massachusetts:
My wife and CXC successfully raised several hundred thousand dollars that is now being used to create and fund a campaign here in Massachusetts.
My wife is an active member and funder of Citizen's Climate Lobby, a non-partisan, nation-wide non-profit organization campaigning for carbon pricing, which directly lobbies members of Congress:
About two years ago, my wife organized and co-funded an economic analysis of impact of carbon pricing on the Massachusetts economy. This study was performed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI):
This study was presented at the Massachusetts State House, and the subsequent discussion generated by this report led to the commissioning of a report by the MA Department Of Energy Resources (DOER), which is a necessary step preparatory to passing legislation:
About a year ago, inspired by the Massachusetts REMI report, a CCL member funded an analysis of impact of carbon fee-and-dividend (aka fee-and-rebate) on the national economy:
Momentum has picked up to the point that there are now not one but two bills being considered by the Massachusetts legislature.
- Sen. Mike Barrett has filed a bill, S.1747, An Act combating climate change: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S1747
- Sen. Marc Pacheco has filed a bill, S.1786, An act to protect our environment and reduce the carbon footprint of the commonwealth: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S1786
Some other reports can be found here:
The Barrett bill may be considered in a committee markup session as early as October, and could well pass the Senate prior to the conclusion of this legislative session. My wife will host a Tesla community get-together / environmental fund-raiser here in the Boston area during the month of September. I hope local Tesla owners will find the time to attend the party, if for no other reason than to eat.
But it will also be an opportunity to voice your views to local politicians who will be in attendance, and who will be listening very carefully to this well-heeled, potentially politically active demographic.Now, duh, my wife didn't do all this by herself. There are plenty of people working together on this. But in her spare time, she has made quite a difference. Perhaps someone else on this list will be motivated to help.
Thanks,
Alan
P.S. I know you from other threads, and know that you are a serious solar advocate driven by your perception of the economic realities of solar versus nuclear versus other energy sources. Have you thought about joining Citizens Climate Lobby? They could use you what you have to offer!
Last edited:
beeeerock
Active Member
Or perhaps make into a slurry not unlike crude oil and pump it down the old oil wells... Sequestering is the key.
- - - Updated - - -
I suspect it would be easier to grow it in reclaimed sewage out in the desert where there is space and plenty of sun. Plenty of problems to solve making that happen, admittedly, but it needs to be an easy crop to grow, with the less complexities the better.
- - - Updated - - -
Or simply how bad the problem is, that even the Catholic Church is on board with the reality of Climate Change! Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely glad to see that shift in policy, it just came as a bit of a surprise is all... ;-)
deonb
Active Member
I wonder whether with new technologies, we'll be able to build a well into the mantle at some point. That way you can just deposit material down there, and have the mantle distribute it into the asthenosphere.
Just hope we don't ever need that carbon again...
MichFin
Member
Most people don't do the right thing until it's forced on them and then 10 years later they don't understand why it took so long. A perfect example is seat belts.. How long did they sit there unused until they passed a law requiring them. Now I don't feel comfortable in the car unless I have my seat belt on.
I say they should have a $10k fine if a new home doesn't have x amount of renewable energy built into it. Like solar panels or equivalent.
I say they should have a $10k fine if a new home doesn't have x amount of renewable energy built into it. Like solar panels or equivalent.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
In Norway it's very likely now that oil furnaces for heating homes will become illegal in 2020. This includes existing ones. And no, there will be no incentive or grant to be had for the cost of replacing it with, for example, geothermal or a fluid-to-air heat pump.
Another example is the TEK-10 standard for construction. All new construction, homes, commercial must conform to this standard which includes very strict rules on isolation and general energy efficiency. There are absolutely no exceptions to be had. And yes, if you build and don't conform to the standard the building can never be inhabited and could be taken down by court order.
Another example is strict rules on emissions, CO2 as well as NOx, particulates etc.
The main thing though, and what's always been missing in a global perspective (including the US) is that these kinds if rules has to apply to EVERYONE, INCLUDING the biggest corporations. But due to lobbying, bribery and different forms of systematic corruption that differ by region (some places dictatorship, other places nepotism and in the democracies special interest) the biggest players have always managed to exempt themselves from rules that would have made them have to take responsibility.
/rant
Similar threads
