"The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy": https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-energy-land-use-economy/?terminal=true
When you look at it the way you continuously portray ... er, share it? Renewable energy seems like all downside no upside, way too many questions and uncertainty to make any aggressive action
related "U.S. Renewables – Current and Potential Output": https://www.masterresource.org/renewable-energy/u-s-renewables-update-2019/ excerpt: Conclusion: Too Much Renewables More than $3 trillion has been spent on the renewable energy effort since 2004, and the figure has now stabilized at about $300 billion for each one of the last six years.[6] For a cost comparison, the earlier mentioned nuclear power plant – another source of clean and green electricity and also heat – cost $4 million, inflation adjusted. Not billions, just millions. Hundreds of them could have been producing power for the money spent on renewables today, making our country and the world cleaner and richer as a result. As to the likelihood of the W&S output influencing climate change, those 9.5% of electricity, which is 1% of total U.S. energy consumption, is unlikely to influence anything except our pockets. And we have no means of measuring those causes and effects reliably as yet. Despite this discouraging renewable energy history, documented numerically in voluminous literature, it is politics, not economy, that forces our country and individual states continue year after year to commit us, the tax- and rate- payers, to the goals of producing “20, 50, …. 100 percent of energy from clean, renewable sources in 5, 10 …. 20 years.” Those goals a being set despite seeing them not met, and budgets going red repeatedly, for a half a century by now. On top of that some proponents claim this energy to mean the US energy overall, not just the electrical portion of it. That would raise the target sevenfold. more at the link
Citing nuclear as cost-effective in comparison to renewables which would take "years" seems like total horse ****.
It's pretty damn expensive to build a nuclear plant and given what we saw at Fukushima the safety margins for them have gone up driving up the cost and construction time even more.
Addressing this. The issue of how much area is needed is important but also ignores that new technology in both solar and wind is allowing energy production in all places. Photovoltaic building materials are making it possible to generate power on most structures. With photovoltaic glass all of those big curtain walls could be generating electricity while still keeping much of the same aesthetics and function. With wind we've come to think of giant windfarms but turbines could be generated on top of skyscrapers too. https://buildingtheskyline.org/wind-turbines/ Also considering anywhere there is motion you can generate electricity. Given how much flood control is an issue with Houston new flood control infrastructure could also generate power since flood control is about the control and movement of water. Reservoirs and even large cisterns could be equipped with turbines that generate power both when they are filled and also as they drain out. This is one of those reasons why the measures for addressing climate change are important even if climate change wasn't an issue. Figuring out how to generate electricity practically anywhere means we can build a distributed, robust grid with a lot of redundancy.
For a dude who brags about science education you source someone who doesn't know what a climate model is. Climate models aren't statistical models. They are systems of partial differential equations using energy balance equations and the laws of physics(thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics etc) using boundary and initial conditions from data gathered and creating an output of temperature changes over time. Those models are tested using hindcasting by using data from different eras in the past as boundary and initial conditions and then matching the output of running that model with real temperature data of that era. You might as well be a Art history drop out.
Chaos theory is poorly understood by anyone who doesn't study it. It isn't helped by pop culture using it to explain nonsense. Also, even at the chaos theory 101 level you learn that a fundamental element of chaos theory is an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. If you don't have a handful of college level classes in it, and a ton of background maths, you don't understand it... you're relying on experts or fitting your own preconceived notions onto the data. Of course there is more to climate than just chaos theory as you say, but you've lost 99.8% of the public after you've said the magic words.
Well ask China. See if I give a damn. America doesn't have heavy industry. If we had it, we could regulate it and keep it safer. The boomers sold out all the blue collar jobs, and then the rich children of the next gens became work averse socialists so I guess it worked out for some ppl.
Telling me you don't work in modern industry without telling me you don't work in modern industry. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-working-longer-hours-older-generations-study If you had a job you would know how much our generation puts in hours. Most of us work more than 40 hours a week. That wasn't the case for boomers when they were young. Retired boomers and gen Xers and out of touch younger people are the only ones who think the younger generations work less.
China is just a satan of a country. Wuhan flu, their carbon emission, human/animal rights abuse that’s unmatched. @Nook called it decade ago on here
So you're telling me that farting on butterflies isnt stopping hurricanes in the near future? I had one important job.
If you owned a pile of dirt that had hundreds of millions worth of oil below, would you screw over the planet for your children and their grandchildren? Someone else will hold the bag, so lambo here we go! The bit about Houston is far more serious though. That's a 15 year time to switch away ASAP. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...uel-assets-worthless-2036-net-zero-transition Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition $11tn fossil fuel asset crash could cause 2008-style financial crisis, warns new study About half of the world’s fossil fuel assets will be worthless by 2036 under a net zero transition, according to research. Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy. It highlights the risk of producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand, which is estimated to leave $11tn-$14tn (£8.1tn-£10.3tn) in so-called stranded assets – infrastructure, property and investments where the value has fallen so steeply they must be written off. The lead author, Jean-Francois Mercure of the University of Exeter, said the shift to clean energy would benefit the world economy overall, but it would need to be handled carefully to prevent regional pockets of misery and possible global instability. “In a worst-case scenario, people will keep investing in fossil fuels until suddenly the demand they expected does not materialise and they realise that what they own is worthless. Then we could see a financial crisis on the scale of 2008,” he said, warning oil capitals such as Houston could suffer the same fate as Detroit after the decline of the US car industry unless the transition is carefully managed. The challenge is evident at the ongoing Cop26 climate conference, where some of the nations most at risk of being left with stranded assets – such as the oil and gas exporters Russia and Brazil – are likely to try to slow down the transition as they have done at previous climate meetings, while those most likely to gain – such as the fuel-importing EU – are pushing for faster action. The new paper, published in Nature Energy, illustrates how a drop in demand for oil and gas before 2036 will reshape the geopolitical landscape. Current investment flows and government commitments to reach net zero emissions by 2050 will make renewable energy more efficient, cheaper and stable, while fossil fuels will be hit by more price volatility. Many carbon assets, such as oil or coal reserves, will be left unburned, while machinery will also be stranded and no longer produce value for its owners. The most vulnerable assets are those in remote regions or technically challenging environments. Most exposed are Canadian tar sands, US shale and the Russian Arctic followed by deep offshore wells in Brazil and elsewhere. North Sea oil is also relatively expensive to extract and likely to be hit when demand falls. By contrast, current oil, gas and coal importers such as the EU, Japan, India and South Korea, will reap hefty economic dividends from the transition because they will be able to use the money they save on overseas fuel purchases to invest in their own countries, including money for renewables that will modernise infrastructure, create jobs and improve energy independence. The situation for the world’s two biggest emitters – the US and China – is more complex as they have more diversified economies with both substantial fossil fuel assets and powerful renewable sectors. The UK is in a similar situation, but as a net energy importer, stands to benefit overall. Much depends on the speed and spread of decarbonisation, along with the tactics used by fossil fuel exporters to sell off their assets before they lose value. To assess the impacts, the study explored several different scenarios. (Inforgraphics in link)
Bills have and will pass spending Trillions on climate change these weeks and a Nuclear plant cost ~ 30 billion each. These could cost less if the government actually wanted to build them but we live in the world we live in. Nuclear is carbon free and has the least lives lost per kwh of any source. Cost is now out the window with this insane spending. The only reason we don't have nuclear is people are dumb.
Inflation, inflation, inflation!! Let's cut gas taxes to make things the way they were!! www.thenation.com /article/environment/baby-formula-climate-crisis/ The Baby Formula Shortage Is a Preview of a Coming Food Crisis Unless governments transition off fossil fuels and limit global warming, food shortages and famine will become the norm. June 6, 2022 As a new mother, I’ve spent the last few weeks terrified of running out of food for my 2-month-old baby, who was born six weeks early and has struggled with breastfeeding. But the thing that scares me as much as the prospect of running out of formula is the knowledge that this shortage is a preview of what is to come if governments fail to transition off fossil fuels and limit global warming. Most of the dialogue around climate consequences is weather-focused: extreme heat, storms, and fires. But the climate crisis is also a food and water crisis, one that has already interrupted global food systems and caused devastating famine. And it will get worse: UNICEF estimates that by 2040, one in four children globally will experience shortages of water and food. Americans have very little understanding of where most of our food comes from. That makes it harder to connect the dots between extreme heat, drought, the “insect apocalypse,” and our food system. But without dramatic action to limit both warming and corporate power over our food supply, food shortages and famines are imminent. To put it simply, the plants we eat—and the animals that eat plants—require water, a predictable climate, and beneficial insects, like pollinators, to grow. Climate change is ruining all that, while also creating the conditions for agricultural disaster: fires, floods, heat waves, freezes, and new diseases that could wipe out entire cultivars of staple food plants. Extreme heat and drought is already decreasing the yields of American soy, corn, and wheat crops. The formula crisis is a climate preview in more ways than one. While the Biden administration rightly used the Defense Production Act (DPA) to get new formula on shelves, Republicans used the shortage to fearmonger about immigration, going so far as to demand that formula be taken from the babies of immigrant asylum seekers in detention. Climate-change-induced induced food and water shortages that affect hundreds of millions of people will only fuel more violent nativism and cruelty. Another parallel: The corporate consolidation that precipitated the formula shortage is also a feature of our agricultural system—and already makes food more expensive. And with an increasingly oligarchic government, the prospect of frequent food and water shortages becomes even more dire. During the Irish potato famine, the British infamously continued exporting grain from Ireland to England while millions of Irish starved to death. When faced with food and water shortages and scant government regulation, it is likely that corporations and the ultra-rich will put their profits over working people’s survival. That Wall Street firms are buying up the world’s water supply should terrify us. Hopefully, baby formula will be back on shelves soon. But if we want to prevent babies, children, and adults from starving to death in the years to come, we need both to end our reliance on fossil fuels and to limit the power of corporations in our democracy, before it’s too late. To start, President Biden must treat the climate crisis with the urgency that a cataclysmic crop-destroying, famine-inducing phenomenon deserves: He should immediately declare a climate emergency and use his executive authority—including the DPA—to curb emissions, ramp up renewables, and protect the food and water our babies need to thrive.
"50% reduction by 2030" won't be achieved not because it's "too expensive", but because people don't ****in wanna. Maybe they own XOM or Aramco stocks. Maybe they plan to but are fum ducking illiterate to do it. This is a game or winners and losers. Plenty of people gonna have that Wile E. Coyote moment when they're outpriced from all the "common goods" we have taken for granted. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220602095102.htm A 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 can be achieved. Here's how Energy and environmental researchers pooled their knowledge to provide recommendations to fulfill the United States' climate pledge Date: June 2, 2022 Source: DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Summary: To prevent the worst outcomes from climate change, the U.S. will need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in the next eight years. Scientists from around the nation have developed a blueprint for success. The United States has set an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Are we on track to succeed? A new study by a team of scientists and policy analysts from across the nation suggests that there are multiple pathways to achieve this goal -- but big commitments will need to be made, immediately. "This study should give policy makers and other energy stakeholders some level of comfort, by showing that everybody in the field is pointing in the same direction. The case for clean energy is stronger than ever before and our study shows that the 2030 emission target can be achieved," said Nikit Abhyankar, one of the study's authors and a scientist in the Electricity Markets & Policy Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). He notes that the most urgent actions will be to double the amount of renewable capacity built each year and transition predominately to electric vehicles within the next decade or so. "With the right policies and infrastructure, we can reduce our emissions, while saving American consumers billions of dollars and generating new employment," he said. Reducing GHG emissions by 50% by 2030 would put the United States on a path to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the target scientists say is required to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis. The study, published in Science, consolidates findings from six recently published techno-economic models that simulate the U.S. energy system operations in comprehensive detail. According to the authors, the separate models all agree on four major points: The majority of the country's greenhouse gas emissions come from power generation and transportation, so to reduce overall emissions by 50%, the electricity grid needs to run on 80% clean energy (up from today's 40%), and the majority of vehicles sold by 2030 need to be electric. Other important sources of GHG emissions reduction include electrification of buildings and industries. The primary barrier to increased alternative energy use will not be cost, it will be enacting new policies. A coordinated policy response between states and the federal government will be necessary to succeed. Thanks to advances in wind, solar, and energy storage technologies, powering the electric grid with renewables will not be more expensive; and electric vehicles could save every household up to $1,000 per year in net benefits. A clean-energy transition would reduce air pollution, prevent up to 200,000 premature deaths, and avoid up to $800 billion in environmental and health costs through 2050. Many of the health benefits will occur in communities of color and frontline communities that are disproportionately exposed to vehicle, power plant, and industrial pollution. "Our study provides the first detailed roadmap for how the United States can reach its 50% greenhouse gas emissions-reduction target by 2030," said lead author John Bistline, program manager in the Energy Systems and Climate Analysis Group at the Electric Power Research Institute. "This will require tripling the pace of historic carbon reductions, an ambitious but achievable target if stakeholders collaborate across all sectors. By comparing results across six independent models, we provide greater confidence about the policies and technology deployment needed to achieve near-term climate goals, laying the groundwork for an affordable, reliable, and equitable net-zero future." According to Abhyankar, who led the development of one of the six models, "By 2030, wind, solar, coupled with energy storage can provide the bulk of the 80% clean electricity. The findings also show that generating the remaining 20% of grid power won't require the creation of new fossil fuel generators." He noted that existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with energy storage, hydropower, and nuclear power are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity demand. "And if the right policies are in place, the coal and gas power plants in the country that currently provide the majority of the nation's electricity would recover their initial investment, thereby avoiding risk of cost under-recovery for investors." "Since announcing the nation's emissions reduction pledge at the 2021 United Nations climate conference, the United States has taken steps in the right direction," said Abhyankar. "But a lot still needs to happen. What we are hoping is that this study will give some level of a blueprint of how it could be done." The other models used for this study were developed by the Electric Power Research Institute, Environmental Defense Fund, National Resources Defense Council, and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
