ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Well-Known Member
Green methane leaks to be more exact.The other issue is that methane is a potent greenhouse gas so even "green" methane destroys the environment.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Green methane leaks to be more exact.The other issue is that methane is a potent greenhouse gas so even "green" methane destroys the environment.
Well, considering that animals waste 90% of their corn, soy, etc. feed, it is cheaper to just eat corn, soy, etc.Well maybe in the future renewable meat will end up cheaper than future-fossil meat.
But this does not in any way shape or form eliminate the animals, deer (and all ungulates) create methane. Our unfarmed suburbs are full of them. our farms are full of them as well for that matter. Coyotes have responded and now cover the entire east coast and deer populations briefly fell but are increasing again.Well, considering that animals waste 90% of their corn, soy, etc. feed, it is cheaper to just eat corn, soy, etc.
I don't know enough to compare the GHG bill from different uses of land, but I'll guess that the real solution is to let those lands revert back to pre-human habitats. Forest, e.gCorn is the problem from a greenouse perspective.
I believe you mean ruminants, not ungulates. The natural population of deer would be much lower than cows and have much lower environmental impact. (I understand that you are overwhelmed with deer now but a few wolves could restore balance.)But this does not in any way shape or form eliminate the animals, deer (and all ungulates) create methane. Our unfarmed suburbs are full of them. our farms are full of them as well for that matter. Coyotes have responded and now cover the entire east coast and deer populations briefly fell but are increasing again.
Corn is the problem from a greenouse perspective. Only 3% of beef goes to consumers as purely grass fed beef but 100% of our very healthy deer/elk population heck even your local friendly rabbit producing methane system is fed on grass/woody veg . Almost all of the greenhouse issues associated with beef production comes from the corn finishing, where animals are fed corn for the last 3 months before slaughter. Eliminate those 3 months and you'd have more expensive much tastier beef and fewer emissions. Methane though is going to be emitted from ungulates in ecosystems that support ungulates (temperate / arid / boreal forest/plains/deserts). In fact animals on grass / woody vegetation emit more methane than corn fed. So, by cutting out corn feedlots you will reduce total greenhouse emissions but increase methane. Ungulates browse, they create methane. THEY ALWAYS HAVE. If you remove cows nature will put some ungulate there to replace them and net methane may very well increase (almost a surety). Remember that there are many implications to even going to grass fed, you'd eliminate lots of corn plantings, replacing with grass. What to do what to do...eliminate cows and nature replaces with deer and methane goes up.
EV's are going to decimate corn farming in the US by cratering gas consumption and that will eliminate much of the ethanol additive market which consumes 40% of the total corn produced. Do our global warming models account for this reduction? At a certain point we'll see huge political battles as petro producers fight farmers for a shrinking petro slice. How do they model this outcome? (seriously asking anyone that knows) All of which will make marginal corn production very uneconomical and the shift will be to replace rural lands with grass fed beef/sheep/pork/poultry or to replace with solar farms. Solar farms in rural areas is a form of social injustice in and of itself so not something to cheer about necessarily. It shifts cost of production of energy to regions generating very few benefits - there is almost no local employment for rural businesses through solar farms other than someone mowing. Do global warming models account for mowing solar farms or spraying herbicides by the hundreds of gallons (I'd really like to know). Etc etc. Not simple is it.
My suggestion...eliminate ethanol through simple economics of great EV's that are so practical so compelling no one will want an ICE. At that point corn production will plummet. Encourage consumers to shift meat consumption to
Don't get me started about sham carbon tax credits for forestry practices that cause a net reduction in captured carbon. Looking at you The Nature Conservancy and Conservation Fund.
I find this interesting. Is there evidence that animal density of naturally browsing ungulates will match the density of raised animals? There are vacant ranches near me that graze cattle for part of the year, and not much seems to move in when the cows aren't there. Certainly not to the extent of the grazing stock.If you remove cows nature will put some ungulate there to replace them and net methane may very well increase (almost a surety). Remember that there are many implications to even going to grass fed, you'd eliminate lots of corn plantings, replacing with grass. What to do what to do...eliminate cows and nature replaces with deer and methane goes up.
I don't have any references, but I believe the lack of natural gas curtailment is a product of the long term contracts instituted after the deregulation mess. If the State is serious about GHG targets, they have to figure out a way to force fossil sources to curtail before renewables. If they have to pay those generators to stand down and stand by, so be it. However, they need to reduce their fuel consumption when the supply is not needed.Can anyone link data showing if there are contract, generation, infrastructure or other issues preventing natural gas from being maximally curtailed instead of solar PV?
This is a CAISO example from yesterday and to different degrees happens on most sunny days in California. Solar PV will drive imports to off or nearly so and often negative, markedly slows down large hydroelectric production, but while depressing natural gas there always seems to be a substantial minimum supply regardless of how much solar PV production is available then solar PV instead gets curtailed.
Yep, and I'm not even sure it will cost much more since I think the curtailed PV is still paid.I don't have any references, but I believe the lack of natural gas curtailment is a product of the long term contracts instituted after the deregulation mess. If the State is serious about GHG targets, they have to figure out a way to force fossil sources to curtail before renewables. If they have to pay those generators to stand down and stand by, so be it. However, they need to reduce their fuel consumption when the supply is not needed.
Completely agree with your rant! There is no clean methane. What a complete joke. I suspect that we'll let many subprime ag lands revert to forest (though forest commodity prices are high the price of timber is low) or natural prairies. These would be great places to aim carbon tax credit schemes.I don't know enough to compare the GHG bill from different uses of land, but I'll guess that the real solution is to let those lands revert back to pre-human habitats. Forest, e.g
Regarding animals that emit methane, how much do they differ by Kg animal weight ? I read some time ago that the diet markedly affects methane production in cows. I suspect (but don't have data at my fingertips) that free ranging cows emit a lot less methane than feedlot cows
---
<rant>
I cannot help but get exasperated by articles talking about 'clean' methane production when the low hanging fruit is to collect the leaks
Few people seem to realize that the GHGe of methane when its ~ 3% leak from extraction is included in the well-to-burn is every bit as bad as coal.</rant>
Anybody curious how much utility revenue was lost ?In 2018, California’s energy system operator canceled $2.6 billion in utility spending thanks in part to local solar and efficiency improvements.
Can anyone link data showing if there are contract, generation, infrastructure or other issues preventing natural gas from being maximally curtailed instead of solar PV?
Savings in water use.