Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[mspohr]

Elected officials in sweltering US states prioritizing fossil fuel cash over people

Governors of Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Nevada have all received money from oil and gas firms as residents suffer

www.theguardian.com

Elected officials in states baking under sweltering temperatures – including Florida, Texas and Louisiana – are prioritizing their donors from planet-warming industries instead of protecting their constituents, advocates say.

In signing the law barring the creation of municipal heat protections, DeSantis followed the rightwing leader of another rapidly warming state: Texas, where a heat dome brought triple-digit temperatures earlier this month. Amid similarly sweltering temperatures last June, Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, signed a similar bill into law, outraging climate and labor activists. “It’s inhumane and cruel,” one Texas outdoor worker told the Guardian at the time. Environmentalists have also criticized Abbott in recent years for barring municipalities from enacting bans on planet-heating gas in new construction and for vowing to exclude renewable energy from economic incentive programs. Abbott accepted over $7.5 m from fossil fuel companies during the 2022 election, making the sector the biggest industrial contributor to his campaign.

Last year, Joe Lombardo, the governor of Nevada, vetoed a bill that would have required two counties to adopt heat mitigation priorities into their development plans. Asked for comment about the policy, Lombardo’s office referred the Guardian to the governor’s veto message which said the bill would have created “significantly more red-tape for master-planned projects in two of Nevada’s fastest growing counties”. A far-right Republican, Lombardo has accepted campaign donations from utilities that provide gas, including Southwest Gas Corporation and NV Energy.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803908307897454983

China’s share of global GHG emissions today (26.4%) is far exceeded by its share of global renewable energy capacity today (37.6%).

So from the point of view of NET ZERO we could say that China has a NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT. But of course the situation of the Climate Change issue is so bad that also China has to continue to improve and decrease GHG emissions and increase renewable energy production.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Then why is world consumption of coal still increasing (sure it might have dipped during covid)? We should be half off the peak! If we're lucky it peaks before the end of the decade. Throw in some political instability maybe oil and gas or other alternatives become too expensive for developing nations.

I'll happily agree with you if and when world coal consumption drops under 4B tons/year. You and I probably don't see eye to eye on when that can occur. I don't think Smil is trying to mislead anyone - I thing his goal is to be a realist.

World consumption of coal is increasing especially because electricity demand is increasing faster than renewables.

The good news for the world is that annual renewable capacity and energy storage production continues to increase, which is why we're still on track for a global decline in coal consumption.

Political concerns are what's holding it back, although they are reasonable concerns.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803908307897454983

China’s share of global GHG emissions today (26.4%) is far exceeded by its share of global renewable energy capacity today (37.6%).

So from the point of view of NET ZERO we could say that China has a NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT. But of course the situation of the Climate Change issue is so bad that also China has to continue to improve and decrease GHG emissions and increase renewable energy production.

Those numbers are only in its electricity sector.

That's why electrification of transportation and heat is so important. It unlocks the door to sustainability.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

World consumption of coal is increasing especially because electricity demand is increasing faster than renewables.

The good news for the world is that annual renewable capacity and energy storage production continues to increase, which is why we're still on track for a global decline in coal consumption.

Political concerns are what's holding it back, although they are reasonable concerns.


Those numbers are only in its electricity sector.

That's why electrification of transportation and heat is so important. It unlocks the door to sustainability.

Agree 100%. I said that China has to continue to improve.

 

[eevee-fan]

The continued talk of nuclear is just dumb. Tony Seba talks about "Super Power" which is building excessive solar so that solar fields can provide enough power even on a cloudy day with minimal reliance on batteries. We have a lot of battery capacity that can be filled during the day, instead of overnight, let's have commercial solar (cheaper per kW than residential rooftop solar) and provide public charging options (esp workplace charging) so that we won't need to rely as much on night time charging. In both cases, the EV is sitting idle.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803908307897454983

China’s share of global GHG emissions today (26.4%) is far exceeded by its share of global renewable energy capacity today (37.6%).

So from the point of view of NET ZERO we could say that China has a NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT. But of course the situation of the Climate Change issue is so bad that also China has to continue to improve and decrease GHG emissions and increase renewable energy production.

Nope. When 100% renewables is "net zero", any burning of fossil fuels still makes it a net positive carbon footprint. They can only be considered negative when they sequester (remove from the atmosphere) more CO2 than they emit.

We don't have any viable tech for negative carbon ... yet.

 

[mspohr]

We don't have any viable tech for negative carbon ... yet.

trees

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

trees

Okay, we don't have any viable FAST ways for negative carbon ... yet.

 

[eevee-fan]

Okay, we don't have any viable FAST ways for negative carbon ... yet.

"We don't have" if we don't look. That's the problem with that one party in the US that's in denial, because $$$. And now are "all in" on Bitcoin, or at least the one branded for their Dear Leader, because $$$. LOL

algae carbon sequestration at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Algae's surprising potential to help ease climate change worries

The key to bringing global net-zero goals into reach may be algae, say researchers. Studies show impressive success of certain microalgae varieties to remove CO2 from the atmosphere then break it down into useful materials.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Nope. When 100% renewables is "net zero", any burning of fossil fuels still makes it a net positive carbon footprint. They can only be considered negative when they sequester (remove from the atmosphere) more CO2 than they emit.

We don't have any viable tech for negative carbon ... yet.

Sorry but when your Carbon Footprint is negative you are sequestering Carbon from the atmosphere because you are giving Clean Energy to the grid that somebody else will use and who would have otherwise used Energy produced by Fossil Fuels, also if you are still using Fossil Fuels to produce Energy. Main thing is that you produce more Clean Energy than that which you used.
Of course then it's always better to decrease the amount of Energy produced by Fossil Fuels that you used.
This is the spirit of NET ZERO.

Advice you to read this book.

P.S.
You can find this book on Amazon

 

[DanCar]

Quote: ... Arnold Schwarzenegger slams Germany for closing nuclear plants while claiming a fossil fuel emergency to its citizens!

Schwarzenegger, the most famous living Austrian, speaking Thursday in Vienna, also praises California for saving Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1804260919595405627

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Sorry but when your Carbon Footprint is negative you are sequestering Carbon from the atmosphere because you are giving Clean Energy to the grid that somebody else will use and who would have otherwise used Energy produced by Fossil Fuels, also if you are still using Fossil Fuels to produce Energy. Main thing is that you produce more Clean Energy than that which you used.
Of course then it's always better to decrease the amount of Energy produced by Fossil Fuels that you used.
This is the spirit of NET ZERO.

Advice you to read this book.

P.S.
You can find this book on Amazon

That's pure rhetorical BS. Until china (or any country) are 100% renewable, any clean energy they produce is simply there to offset their own fossil fuel consumption. They don't have "extra" to offset some other countriy's fossil fuel consumption. That is NOT negative carbon no matter how you word it. That type of thinking is how fossil fuel producers try to sell people on how "green" their companies are (and thus earn those crazy high ESG scores).

I'd suggest not relying on what people say and make sense of the calculations yourself.

Edit: Another way to think about it is if you are pooping in your house (because you eat meat for the energy). If you had some "special food" that gives you energy without producing any poop, then you have clean energy. So until all your energy comes from that "special food", as long as you eat any meat, you'll still be pooping in your house and not NET-ZERO. Even if you shared that "special food" with your neighbors to reduce the amount of poop they generate, it still doesn't change the fact that you have poop in your house, therefore, you're NOT negative poop ("clean-up the poop").

 

[Raffy.Roma]

That's pure rhetorical BS. Until china (or any country) are 100% renewable, any clean energy they produce is simply there to offset their own fossil fuel consumption. They don't have "extra" to offset some other countriy's fossil fuel consumption. That is NOT negative carbon no matter how you word it. That type of thinking is how fossil fuel producers try to sell people on how "green" their companies are (and thus earn those crazy high ESG scores).

I'd suggest not relying on what people say and make sense of the calculations yourself.

Edit: Another way to think about it is if you are pooping in your house (because you eat meat for the energy). If you had some "special food" that gives you energy without producing any poop, then you have clean energy. So until all your energy comes from that "special food", as long as you eat any meat, you'll still be pooping in your house and not NET-ZERO. Even if you shared that "special food" with your neighbors to reduce the amount of poop they generate, it still doesn't change the fact that you have poop in your house, therefore, you're NOT negative poop ("clean-up the poop").

I agree that China has to decrease its Fossil Fuels consumption, which is the spirit of NET ZERO, but it's not rhetorical, it's mathematical. As long as China produces more Clean Energy than it uses China has a NEGATIVE Carbon Footprint.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I agree that China has to decrease its Fossil Fuels consumption, which is the spirit of NET ZERO, but it's not rethorical, it's mathematical. As long as China produces more Clean Energy than it uses China has a NEGATIVE Carbon Footprint.

To this concern I report this table useful to calculate your own Carbon Footprint.

ENERGY CONSUMPT. Lbs of CO2

Gallons of gasoline burned
annually _______ * 23.4 = _________
Gallons of diesel burned
annually _______ * 26.0 = _________
kWh of electricity used
annually _______ * 1.15 = _________
Natural Gas Mcf used
annually _______ * 115 = _________
Heating Oil gallons
annually _______ * 22.4 = _________
Propane gallons
annually _______ * 12.7 = _________
Plane trips
annually _______ * 640 = _________

Total lbs of CO2 = _________

 

[Raffy.Roma]

To this concern I report this table useful to calculate your own Carbon Footprint.

ENERGY CONSUMPT. Lbs of CO2

Gallons of gasoline burned
annually _______ * 23.4 = _________
Gallons of diesel burned
annually _______ * 26.0 = _________
kWh of electricity used
annually _______ * 1.15 = _________
Natural Gas Mcf used
annually _______ * 115 = _________
Heating Oil gallons
annually _______ * 22.4 = _________
Propane gallons
annually _______ * 12.7 = _________
Plane trips
annually _______ * 640 = _________

Total lbs of CO2 = _________

Iif you produce Clean Energy the contribution of "KWh of electricity used" in the above mentioned Table is the difference between the electricity that you used, and which was produced with Fossil Fuels assuming that the grid didn't supply Clean Energy, and the electricity that you produced with renewables. That's how you can get a NEGATIVE Carbon Footprint.

As you can see this is not rhetorics, this is mathematics.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

To this concern I report this table useful to calculate your own Carbon Footprint.

ENERGY CONSUMPT. Lbs of CO2

Gallons of gasoline burned
annually _______ * 23.4 = _________
Gallons of diesel burned
annually _______ * 26.0 = _________
kWh of electricity used
annually _______ * 1.15 = _________
Natural Gas Mcf used
annually _______ * 115 = _________
Heating Oil gallons
annually _______ * 22.4 = _________
Propane gallons
annually _______ * 12.7 = _________
Plane trips
annually _______ * 640 = _________

Total lbs of CO2 = _________

Of course if produce more Clean Energy than that which you used you can still continue to have a positive Carbon Footprint if you do many plane trips and you use heavily an ICE car.

I mean you have to refer to the Table in the quoted post to calculate your own Carbon Footprint.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Iif you produce Clean Energy the contribution of "KWh of electricity used" in the above mentioned Table is the difference between the electricity that you used, and which was produced with Fossil Fuels assuming that the grid didn't supply Clean Energy, and the electricity that you produced with renewables. That's how you can get a NEGATIVE Carbon Footprint.

As you can see this is not rhetorics, this is mathematics.

You started off on the correct foot and then did something mathematically wrong by claiming clean energy as NEGATIVE carbon. It is not. It is ZERO carbon. 1+0 still equals 1. That is the math.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

You started off on the correct foot and then did something mathematically wrong by claiming clean energy as NEGATIVE carbon. It is not. It is ZERO carbon. 1+0 still equals 1. That is the math.

Of course when you get Energy from the grid you consider that Energy POSITIVE in the calculation of the Carbon Footprint BUT when you give Clean Energy to the grid you consider that Energy NEGATIVE. It's NOT ZERO Carbon because that Energy WILL BE USED BY SOMEBODY ELSE connected to the grid. This way you are doing Carbon Sequestration. But I know that you don't believe me so I will report the calculation of the Carbon Footprint that Jim Riggins did.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Of course when you get Energy from the grid you consider that Energy POSITIVE in the calculation of the Carbon Footprint BUT when you give Clean Energy to the grid you consider that Energy NEGATIVE. It's NOT ZERO Carbon because that Energy WILL BE USED BY SOMEBODY ELSE connected to the grid. This way you are doing Carbon Sequestration. But I know that you don't believe me so I will report the calculation of the Carbon Footprint that Jim Riggins did.

View attachment 1058678

As you can see the Total Consumption of Jim is 6243 KWh/yr BUT the production of Clean Energy with PV ( PhotoVoltaic) is 7585 KWh/yr which is considered NEGATIVE in the calculation of the Carbon Footprint.

This way Jim is giving to the grid 1342 KWh/yr of Clean Energy that will be used by somebody else who would have otherwise used Energy produced by Fossil Fuels.

This is the spirit of NET ZERO.

 

[eevee-fan]

As you can see the Total Consumption of Jim is 6243 KWh/yr BUT the production of Clean Energy with PV ( PhotoVoltaic) is 7585 KWh/yr which is considered NEGATIVE in the calculation of the Carbon Footprint.

This way Jim is giving to the grid 1342 KWh/yr of Clean Energy that will be used by somebody else who would have otherwise used Energy produced by Fossil Fuels.

This is the spirit of NET ZERO.

The PhD would say "that depends". In California (and many other countries/states during Spring and Fall), the excess Jim produces just means the utility had to turn off some panels of their solar fields. It was maybe 5-10 years ago, in Las Vegas, I've seen a solar field with trackers that had turned some panels away from the sun.

The utilities are starting to discourage rooftop solar and as the % of customers with rooftop solar increase (and utilities can purchase utility solar at a fraction of rooftop solar Net Metering rates), I tend to agree with the utility.