Global Climate Status Report

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by babe, Mar 4, 2019.

  1. LogGrad98

    LogGrad98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    20,848
    3,711
    263
    Jul 7, 2010
    Sustainable renewable sources of energy. That needs to be the focus. If all the time, effort, money, and legislation that goes into all the carbon management ******** were instead focused on driving companies to using and developing more sustainable energy sources the problem would get fixed faster. Most companies are happy to pay a carbon tax with no effort at all, or token PR efforts, at changing their energy usage, and just passing the cost on to the consumer.
     
  2. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    Well there’s a difference between a carbon tax and carbon credits. A carbon tax taxes emissions bridging the the price gap between the price of hydrocarbon products and its negative externalities that are not priced in. It effectively closes a market failure loophole. Carbon taxes make a lot of sense because you can lower taxes elsewhere, at once avoiding economic slowdown and lowering emissions through higher pricing.

    Renewables are great, but Germany has shown us that a renewable economy is very expensive and they have missed nearly all of their emissions targets. Schedule and budget are king and they haven’t been able to stick to one. Their energy policy is becoming increasingly less popular, especially among the poor and middle class. With that said, they have lowered emissions considerably despite missing targets.

    I think the reality is, we will continue to be a hydrocarbon based economy over the next several decades.
     
  3. LogGrad98

    LogGrad98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    20,848
    3,711
    263
    Jul 7, 2010
    I think it's a no-brainer that we will be hydrocarbon based for decades to come. My argument is that if you focus on taxes and credits companies will do just enough to minimize or maximize as the case may be. Short-term profits generally reign supreme. If we want real long-term change we need to change the focus to drive more effort in developing and using renewables. Credits for % of renewable energy used or much higher taxes on hydrocarbon use. Don't focus on the emissions, that's the wrong approach. Focus on what causes the emissions, and then you will see new tech and higher use of sustainable energy sources that will, in turn, drive lower emissions. It's like performing a true root cause analysis. So often people focus on the output of the process and not the inputs. Emissions are an output. But focusing on that won't do anything to fix the inputs, which is where the focus needs to be.
     
  4. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    The thing is, energy transitions are driven by economics. Focusing on emissions brings the economics into balance by pricing in negative externalities. The reality is that renewables are expensive and making them competitive with cheap hydrocarbons will require a combination of taxation, subsidies, and investment in R&D. The question is, acknowledging the risks posed by climate change, how willing are we to commit to a transition and what kind of commitment are we tying ourselves to?
     
  5. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    The above exchange is really going nowhere. top-down management.... government credits/incentives/rewards can never rise to the level of real competitive issues.

    many countries today are developing nuclear, we should do so as well. nuclear is out the gate price-competitive.... in fact overwhelmingly so, even with "cheap" natural gas and whatnot.

    I am here making the prediction that cold fusion will become competitive with hydrogen or any fission within twenty years.

    The best investment opportunity in that span will be companies/startups with super deep ocean trench pumping bringing deuterium-rich water to the surface for use.
     
  6. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Back to my volcanism theme and warming oceans. Here is an article discussing record rainfall and speculating that anthropogenic global warming via CO2 atmospheric effects is the root cause. I say it is increasing thermal flux from our deeper earth. At any rate, increased ocean evaporation produces more rainfall/snowfall, and is essential for the initiation of a new ice age.....

    https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Wettest-12-Months-US-History-Yet-Again?cm_ven=cat6-widget
     
  7. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    I don’t know where you are getting your information but nuclear is extremely expensive. Especially post - Fukushima
     
  8. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    We have an excellent understanding of climate forcing mechanisms. Anthropogenic contributions are clearly the cause of post-industrial warming.
     
  9. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,033
    1,340
    228
    May 26, 2010
    Expensive initially, but very cheap after the set-up.
     
    LogGrad98 likes this.
  10. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    So... expensive?

    Not to mention getting rid of the waste...
     
  11. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,033
    1,340
    228
    May 26, 2010
    So, over the life span of the plant, cheaper. Getting rid of the waste is a NIMBY problem more than an expense problem.
     
    babe likes this.
  12. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    Capital costs are extremely high (like 5x more than natural gas) and build times are long (like 10+ years). Operating costs are lower although it is dependent on the price of natural gas (very low for the foreseeable future - shale has changed everything). Over the lifetime of the plant, it’s not clear if it’s cheaper than a natural gas plant when you take into account opportunity costs and net present value. Similarly, investors aren’t going to be clamoring for an investment that takes 20+ years to break even.

    But the point is that’s competitive and even more importantly the capacity is high and dependable.

    Getting rid of the waste is very much an expense problem.

    Nuclear from top to bottom is a NIMBY problem even though on a per btu basis it’s cleaner and safer than natural gas.

    For what it’s worth, Germany - with its plan to build a carbon neutral economy - has chosen to decommission their nuclear plants. Nuclear from what I can tell has no future until they can demonstrate that they can build an inherently safe plant (impossible) and bring down capital costs ( almost impossible with the degree of regulation they face in the United States).
     
  13. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Looks like I've got a tiger by the tail here. Maybe you have more current information on these industries than I do.

    According on one of my brothers, who is a nuclear engineer specialist in nuclear safety, and an acquaintance who is a billionaire in the nuclear waste disposal field, the costs are preponderantly political, and if we had an educated public, things would be different.

    For example, waste can be "containerized" in semi-truckload sized glass/polycarbonate loads where the nuclear waste is encased in an unbreakable, even in a major earthquake sort of event, virtually immortal "casket", in quantities that will not generate enough heat to ever melt the ball, and where the will be no leakage into aquifers or soil in the lifetime of the nuclear waste. Not all that expensive to do.

    The problem in entirely political, regulatory.... bureaucratic.... and tolerable only to a credulous and ignorant public that has been brainwashed.

    It is not expensive, or dangerous. Encased in this manner, it would be safe to store it permanently onsite, or transport it by truck or train anywhere..... even drive it through downtown Manhattan.
     
  14. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    I think everyone gets caught up on operating costs. Capital costs matter a lot. Even Inslee in the last democratic debate mentioned the exhorbitant upfront costs in nuclear.

    Yes NIMBY is an issue. It’s going to be hard to win public opinion
     
  15. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I like your position on this one. I have discussed the NIMBY thing above, briefly.

    Rossatom, the Russian company which is the leader now in developing nuclear power facilities.... and which was the beneficieary of Hillary Clintons sell-out of US resources for an amazingly politically-successful and personally-enriching load of payola only because of her position in the Obama administration and her prospected Presidency, is designing plants for a number of Mideastern countries which will come online in the near future. People in these countries are not expected to raise any unwanted protests over their governments decisions.....

    These plants do not have anything like the safety engineering we would require here.

    I think it's necessary to over-engineer on safety issues. The latest plans include huge water reservoirs physically located so that if the power goes off and other controls are disabled for any reason, the reactor will be automatically inundated with a sufficient quantity of water to cool the reactor and keep it cool enough to prevent structural meltdown. The floodgates are designed to stay shut on a positive power control so that if power fails they will automatically open.

    This requires a larger plant "footprint" in design, but the elevated lake will look pretty.

    multiple other control designs will be required here in the USA. And yes, the initial costs will be high, but the useful plant lifetime will be very long. I may not know everything.... this is conversational sort of fodder, not industrial trade secrets. But it is encouraging.

    windmills kill migrating birds....solar panel expanses fry them. Neither is really all that good a plan.

    Here in the Great Basin, we have a geological sheet of hot rock practically everywhere within reach of piping that could circulate water into it and produce steam. We also have immense high-quality(low sulfur) coal beds... enough to fuel the earth for 500 years, not to mention the oil shale or the natural gas, or the oil.

    I had a neighbor who was in the oil exploration business, a consultant for major oil companies. His office was pretty huge, and the walls had maps of the US West, from Texas to California. On the occasion of my visit I was interviewing him about the Grand Staircase National Monument. He was very firm about the need to keep the Dutch from developing the Coal in the monument. Chevron had hosted Bill Clinton for a week in the Rockefeller Ranch near Grand Teton before he went to the South Rim to wave his hands across the Grand Canyon to announce the Monument. It was a politically bought-and-paid-for Rockefeller monopoly move, to kick the Dutch outta this country. Hey this is Our Coal. When I commented on how much coal was being locked up, he went to his wall and described the immense oil resources we have, saying it would be hundreds of years before we would need it.

    With the Global Warming gambit..... it will be thousands of years before we need it.

    even without nuclear resources.

    No, this whole show is cartelism at its finest. Big Oil, bro. With a neat little trick in Carbon Credits, which will be issued to oil and coal players for not using their stuff, while they build the wind the solar. And human life will be engineered to forever need a minimal amount of very high priced carbon fuels, forever. Well, until the good folks of globalism carve out monopolies in the other energy resources, carefully minding the store so nobody can get a foot in the door, through governmental regulation.

    And that's why nuclear has a bad rap, and why it is regulated outta the business now.
     
  16. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    As hard as it will be to win public opinion, it is the thing that must be done.
     
  17. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    Ok sure, but what about economics?
     
  18. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    So here is an article from a clearly bought-and-paid-for anti-development source.... on the Grand Staircase thing....

    https://www.hcn.org/issues/49.22/mo...nte-coal-and-dinosaur-fossil-lie-side-by-side

    Pretty sure @Red is a subscriber to this.

    another current article, reviewing the Monument from a local point of view...

    https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060040270

    Coal can be used clean, with the cost of scrubbing emissions and extracting useful stuff from flue dusts.... lots of salts, trace minerals.... I consider a heap of coal ash to be a sort of mine, inviting development and extraction of profitable materials, which would secure the toxic elements and produce a fine fertilizer and road-building material.

    But coal is nowhere near as interesting to me as cold fusion.... even established nuclear technologies are not even on the same scale as cold fusion. Plasma nuclear reactors using hydrogen fuel have no waste issues to speak of, but despite many years of research we are still not anywhere close...

    cold fusion is progressing... LENR.... quietly. Quietly, on purpose.
     
  19. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,253
    798
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I thought I dismissed that concern as mostly political in nature, not in actual physical reality "economics".

    Well, OK. We should do a separate thread on that. Pretty sure you are currently pretty well-informed, and I will have to work to answer your knowledge.
     
  20. Carbon13

    Carbon13 Well-Known Member

    1,997
    201
    98
    Dec 18, 2014
    Hydrocarbons rule because they are cheapest. That’s the challenge
     
    babe likes this.

Share This Page