Donald Trump did the RIGHT thing on pulling out of Paris Accords

[winsor 185]

billvon

Quote

There are places in the world where deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. If you tell those people that they have to stop doing that because their grandchildren will pay the price, they will tell you that they have to do this to survive today.

Agreed - which is one reason it's so important to get them solutions to their problems that do not require deforesting the planet. Unfortunately, due to the polarization we see in politics today, people working towards that are labeled alarmists, idiots, "sanctimonious bugwits" etc. and less gets done.

People who presume to have 'solutions,' and consider themselves empowered to provide them to others, rather fit the definition of sanctimonious. Al Gore has the 'bugwit' part of the deal covered coming and going, though some of his sycophants reportedly have three digit IQs.

'Progressives' bitch about greed, but ignore its existence as a force of nature. If you want people to proceed in a manner consistent with your goals, it tends to work if you arrange things so they will turn a buck in the process. If working with you amounts to a lose-lose proposition, it does not tend to work out so well.

In any event, it is often difficult to distinguish stupidity from denial, a disease of which liberal ideology is easily characterized. Not to worry, conservative ideology is no better.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,380]

>People who presume to have 'solutions,' and consider themselves empowered to provide them
>to others, rather fit the definition of sanctimonious

Well, given that I was an S+TA for six years, I fit that definition to a tee. (And now I make all manner of technical decisions on project directions, which team members implement.) So I have that going for me.

>'Progressives' bitch about greed, but ignore its existence as a force of nature.

And yet market-based solutions to carbon emissions (like carbon credit trading) are both progressive and rely on greed to function.

[winsor 185]

billvon

>People who presume to have 'solutions,' and consider themselves empowered to provide them
>to others, rather fit the definition of sanctimonious

Well, given that I was an S+TA for six years, I fit that definition to a tee. (And now I make all manner of technical decisions on project directions, which team members implement.) So I have that going for me.

>'Progressives' bitch about greed, but ignore its existence as a force of nature.

And yet market-based solutions to carbon emissions (like carbon credit trading) are both progressive and rely on greed to function.

Nice try.

Having actual authority and PRESUMING said authority are different things. I, of course, approve of your taking responsibility for getting someone under canopy who was flailing at pull altitude.

Admittedly Progressives, like Trump, occasionally fuck up and do something that makes sense. However, both have an abysmal track record on that count.

[billvon 2,380]

>Having actual authority and PRESUMING said authority are different things.

Yep. But rest assured, I was told by several people that my authority was only presumed. I was not elected, I couldn't speak for USPA, I couldn't ground them at all DZ's, I didn't understand their mad skillz, it was all an ego power trip for me etc.

People see elected officials a similar way. If they do things that a person likes, well, then they are just representing the will of the people. If they do things a person does not like, well - they are sanctimonious bugwits, idiots who are drunk on power.

[wmw999 2,116]

Sometimes authority comes exactly from assuming (presuming) it, acting like it, and being right often enough that people remember. It doesn't always last, but that's how you get your heroes-in-a-crisis and graybeard status.

Not everyone will listen, but that's true of all authority. Some people look for authority, some reject the concept, and some presume it. Such is life.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,254]

winsor

Nice try.

Having actual authority and PRESUMING said authority are different things. I, of course, approve of your taking responsibility for getting someone under canopy who was flailing at pull altitude.

Nice try.

From the beginning of this thread of conversation you have been talking about elected politicians. They do have actual authority. That's literally what the elections are for - figuring out who gets the authority.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,381]

billvon

>Actually we should not put nuclear and coal into the same category.

I agree. The only reason they were lumped together to begin with is that Rick Perry needed a facile justification to subsidize coal plants. After Trump's earlier failures with the travel ban, Perry realized he couldn't just say "I hereby order utilities to use more coal to placate Trump supporters."

So instead he commissioned a study to see if renewables were putting grid reliability at risk. This way, he could require more coal plants by pointing to the study and saying "I am just trying to make the grid more reliable and save Grandma from freezing to death."

Unfortunately the study found that the grid is now MORE reliable even with more renewables. So that was out.

So he then figured he'd claim that "90 days of stored energy" was a good way to promote coal, because most coal plants can store 90 days of coal in or near their powerplant, and that way he could claim it was for "energy security." That also happened to include nuclear, since refueling cycles are typically years for fission plants. Other than that, there's very little commonality.

Xcel Energy receives shockingly low bids for Colorado electricity from renewable sources
http://powerlinks.news/article/58864e/xcel-energy-receives-shockingly-low-bids-for-colorado-electricity-from-renewable-sources

"Renewable-energy developers have offered to supply Xcel Energy with electricity at the lowest prices quoted in the U.S., including solar and wind options with energy storage priced below what coal-generated power in the state costs."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Bob_Church 7]

wmw999

Sometimes authority comes exactly from assuming (presuming) it, acting like it, and being right often enough that people remember. It doesn't always last, but that's how you get your heroes-in-a-crisis and graybeard status.

Not everyone will listen, but that's true of all authority. Some people look for authority, some reject the concept, and some presume it. Such is life.

Wendy P.

When I worked at the phone company it was obvious that most bosses became bosses so they could boss people around. It was a world of assholes. When I then went to Ohio University I found myself working for bosses who were only bosses because the paperwork said so. They didn't want to be bosses and I made it a point not to bother them. It was great.

[AlanS 1]

A Solar Panel on Every Roof, Here Are the Numbers.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/a-solar-panel-on-every-roof-in-the-us-here-are-the-numbers/

This is worth reading. Hear is a summary of the major points.

Quote

When you’re scoping out possible futures, it’s useful to ask a lot of “what if?” questions. For example, what if we could install solar panels on every suitable roof in the United States? How much electricity would they generate?

A description of the methodology. (Science in action... summary below)

Quote

So first off, the researchers took advantage of a Department of Homeland Security program that laser-maps buildings, which now covers almost a quarter of buildings in the US. From this, it's possible to get roof area, roof tilt, roof direction, and whether the roof is shaded by trees. Roofs were tossed out if they were too small, too steep, north-facing, or otherwise would lose more than 20 percent of their possible solar output, but most roofs were suitable.

To estimate the rest of the country, the researchers calculated statistics for the covered area and then used things like Census data to scale them for every other ZIP code area.

Next, the researchers worked out the average amount of sunlight in a year for each location. Using the average efficiency of rooftop solar panels installed in 2015, they combined everything to produce a map of maximum possible rooftop solar energy production.

Summary of conclusions.

Quote

In total, they estimate that there are a little over 8 billion square meters of suitable roofs in the US. Cover that in solar panels, and you would produce about 1,400 terawatt hours of electricity each year—about two-thirds of which would come from small residential buildings. The total production is equal to nearly 40 percent of the total electricity currently sold by utilities in the US.

Quote

nearly 40 percent of the total electricity currently sold by utilities in the US.

Some details. Results would vary for different parts of the country.

Quote

Apart from the big numbers, there are some interesting details at the state or local level. States with strong sunlight and plenty of roofs obviously have the most potential—California, for example, could supply 74 percent of its total electricity use by covering its buildings with solar panels, while Wyoming could only get to about 14 percent.

But that’s partly because of different electricity use. New England doesn’t have the sunniest skies, but the limited need for air conditioning in the summer helps keep electricity use down. As a result, that region could produce about half its total electricity from rooftop solar.

[TriGirl 268]

Quote

Summary of conclusions.

***
... The total production is equal to nearly 40 percent of the total electricity currently sold by utilities in the US.

From what else I've been told, this is actually a viable number. Meaning, we have to keep power plants online and running continually, because it burns more fuel and costs more to fire them up "when needed," for example at night, or during storms when the panels don't collect nearly enough sunlight (again, that's as I understand the process -- I know I'm over simplifying it).

I was also thinking of it like this: if I could have solar panels that ONLY provided power to my A/C unit (the A/C unit would pull from there first and get any other needed power from the grid), then my solar panels would be off-setting the cost to power my A/C when the unit would need to draw the most power anyway. And if I had any other panels, they could be helping the "grid" during the time of day most of the energy is being used (I might consider powering an electric car that way as well, assuming the technology comes along to store the energy at least for a day so it could be diverted into my car.

However, we would (should) never think we could replace all of our power needs by renewables anyway. We'll always need a back-up, so we should plan for the most cost-effective/fuel efficient course of action (like keeping the generators always running). But a cut of fossil fuels used for the power grid by nearly half? Then add power generated by windmills and hydroelectric plants (damns), and increase efficiency of appliances -- yeah, I think we'd be doing a good thing for the planet to reduce the fossil fuel requirements by such a significant amount.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[Phil1111 908]

Apple’s next US data center will be built in Iowa
Facility Outside Des Moines Will Run on 100 Percent Renewable Energy
https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2017/08/apples-next-us-data-center-will-be-built-in-iowa/

New Report: States with Strong Domestic Clean Energy Choices are Creating Jobs and Economic Growth
http://www.rila.org/news/topnews/Pages/New-Report-States-with-Strong-Domestic-Clean-Energy-Choices-are-Creating-Jobs-and-Economic-Growth.aspx

Apple to build data center in Iowa, joining Microsoft, Facebook, and Google
https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/24/apple-to-build-data-center-in-iowa-joining-microsoft-facebook-and-google/

[billvon 2,380]

>However, we would (should) never think we could replace all of our power needs by
>renewables anyway. We'll always need a back-up . . .

Agreed. And for now, that will come from fast-ramp combined cycle natural gas and large hydro (which is very fast ramp up.) In the future that will come from pumped hydro, battery storage and load-demand response. Those are the changes that will allow intermittent renewables to extend past 50% of our generation.

[AlanS 1]

TriGirl

Quote

Summary of conclusions.

***
... The total production is equal to nearly 40 percent of the total electricity currently sold by utilities in the US.

From what else I've been told, this is actually a viable number. Meaning, we have to keep power plants online and running continually, because it burns more fuel and costs more to fire them up "when needed," for example at night, or during storms when the panels don't collect nearly enough sunlight (again, that's as I understand the process -- I know I'm over simplifying it).

I was also thinking of it like this: if I could have solar panels that ONLY provided power to my A/C unit (the A/C unit would pull from there first and get any other needed power from the grid), then my solar panels would be off-setting the cost to power my A/C when the unit would need to draw the most power anyway. And if I had any other panels, they could be helping the "grid" during the time of day most of the energy is being used (I might consider powering an electric car that way as well, assuming the technology comes along to store the energy at least for a day so it could be diverted into my car.

However, we would (should) never think we could replace all of our power needs by renewables anyway. We'll always need a back-up, so we should plan for the most cost-effective/fuel efficient course of action (like keeping the generators always running). But a cut of fossil fuels used for the power grid by nearly half? Then add power generated by windmills and hydroelectric plants (damns), and increase efficiency of appliances -- yeah, I think we'd be doing a good thing for the planet to reduce the fossil fuel requirements by such a significant amount.

Yep. I agree with most of this.

To the extent possible all homes should have roof solar, and a battery to store the excess. When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

Base power (which runs all the time, and won't be less than 50% for the for seeable future), is both coal and nuclear. We should close all the coal plants and replace them with nuclear power.

Then update our power grid, so power can be transmitted over long distances. With this we can place large nuclear power in remote locations to deal with the base load, and move power created in windy places like North Dakota to the coastal cities.

Then locally have smaller natural gas plants to handle the local fluctuations in power demand, that exceed the base power generation and the local variable power generated from solar.

We could do this now if we had the will.

[billvon 2,380]

>To the extent possible all homes should have roof solar, and a battery to store the
>excess. When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute
>to work.

. . . and be part of the storage solution.

>Base power (which runs all the time, and won't be less than 50% for the for seeable
>future), is both coal and nuclear. We should close all the coal plants and replace them
>with nuclear power.

Right now we are at natural gas 34%, coal 30% and nuclear 20%.

Nuclear power is a great idea, but has never fulfilled the promises of safe and cheap power. It is now one of our most expensive forms of power, and even the new inherently safe reactors being built (like the AP-1000) have fallen prey to billion-dollar overruns and decade-long delays. Two new reactors were just cancelled in the US because the utility couldn't afford the increasing costs.

It would be great to see a new technology really fulfill the promise of cheap, safe power from nuclear energy. PBMR's, SMR's, thorium-salt reactors etc all look promising, but are decades out as well. And there's always fusion even further out. For the near future baseload will be handled more and more by natural gas. (Which is still a fossil fuel, but vastly better than coal.)

Also for the near future most of our generation expansion will come from renewables, like wind and solar. Storage (in the form of battery, pumped hydro and load-demand) will gate the ramp-up of those sources of power; we are already coming close to 100% renewable generation during the day in places like Hawaii and California.

Expansion of the grid - specifically HVDC backbones that span the country - should be a focus of infrastructure work over the next 20 years, for the reasons you list.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Alan,

Quote

When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

I think that we are getting there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currently_available

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityCar

Jerry Baumchen

[mrubin 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Alan,

Quote

When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

I think that we are getting there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currently_available

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityCar

Jerry Baumchen

My wife and I recently bought a Chevy Bolt EV. It has plenty of range for her commute plus any errands we have to run in the evening and we only need to charge it every few days. I still have my Subaru that we use on longer trips where the Bolt doesn't have the range or we won't have easy access to charging stations.

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[billvon 2,380]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Alan,

Quote

When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

I think that we are getting there . . . . .

Around me you can get a Fiat EV for $69 a month, 3 year lease. They are lousy little cars, but if your goal is to get to work really, really cheaply - they are a good solution.

[BartsDaddy 4]

billvon

***Hi Alan,

Quote

When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

I think that we are getting there . . . . .

Around me you can get a Fiat EV for $69 a month, 3 year lease. They are lousy little cars, but if your goal is to get to work really, really cheaply - they are a good solution.

I'm sure it works out to more than that. That is creative pricing.At your price it works out to less than 2,500.00 for three years. With knowing Fiat that may well be what it is worth, but not what you will get it for before any subsidies or rebates.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[headoverheels 291]

billvon

Around me you can get a Fiat EV for $69 a month, 3 year lease. They are lousy little cars, but if your goal is to get to work really, really cheaply - they are a good solution.

I have a friend that has one. He said that the decreased (special rate) home power rates were enough to make it essentially free, based on savings for his home consumption. Also, it came with free rental X times per year of a gas-powered vehicle, so you could take that on longer trips.

[billvon 2,380]

Even the most dedicated fiscal conservative may see the light after studies like this -

=====================
Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets
Marshall Burke, W. Matthew Davis & Noah S. Diffenbaugh
Nature volume 557, pages549–553 (2018)

Published:
23 May 2018

Abstract
International climate change agreements typically specify global warming thresholds as policy targets, but the relative economic benefits of achieving these temperature targets remain poorly understood. Uncertainties include the spatial pattern of temperature change, how global and regional economic output will respond to these changes in temperature, and the willingness of societies to trade present for future consumption. Here we combine historical evidence with national-level climate and socioeconomic projections to quantify the economic damages associated with the United Nations (UN) targets of 1.5°C and 2°C global warming, and those associated with current UN national-level mitigation commitments (which together approach °C warming). We find that by the end of this century, there is a more than 75% chance that limiting warming to 1.5°C would reduce economic damages relative to 2°C, and a more than 60% chance that the accumulated global benefits will exceed US$20 trillion under a 3% discount rate (2010 US dollars). We also estimate that 71% of countries—representing 90% of the global population—have a more than 75% chance of experiencing reduced economic damages at 1.5°C, with poorer countries benefiting most. Our results could understate the benefits of limiting warming to 1.5°C if unprecedented extreme outcomes, such as large-scale sea level rise, occur for warming of 2°C but not for warming of 1.5°C. Inclusion of other unquantified sources of uncertainty, such as uncertainty in secular growth rates beyond that contained in existing socioeconomic scenarios, could also result in less precise impact estimates. We find considerably greater reductions in global economic output beyond 2°C. Relative to a world that did not warm beyond 2000–2010 levels, we project 15%–25% reductions in per capita output by 2100 for the 2.5–3°C of global warming implied by current national commitments, and reductions of more than 30% for 4°C warming. Our results therefore suggest that achieving the 1.5°C target is likely to reduce aggregate damages and lessen global inequality, and that failing to meet the 2°C target is likely to increase economic damages substantially.

[airdvr 197]

mrubin

***Hi Alan,

Quote

When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

I think that we are getting there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currently_available

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityCar

Jerry Baumchen

My wife and I recently bought a Chevy Bolt EV. It has plenty of range for her commute plus any errands we have to run in the evening and we only need to charge it every few days. I still have my Subaru that we use on longer trips where the Bolt doesn't have the range or we won't have easy access to charging stations.

With just the most brief check it appears that EV versions of some cars run $8-10k more than the gas burning identical model. If gas is $3 per gallon you can buy 2,667 gallons of gas before you get to a break even. If they get 30 mpg that's 80,000 miles before the investment shows any return.

Interesting to see no regret over the Tesla $35k Model 3's rolling off the production line at $80K.

EV's are still the toys of the upper class and not anywhere near something that could be purchased by the average person here.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[mrubin 0]

airdvr

EV's are still the toys of the upper class and not anywhere near something that could be purchased by the average person here.

We got our Bolt EV for a price in the mid 30's, which isn't unreasonable for a brand new car. Add in the over $10k in rebates and tax credits we got and the price drops into the 20's, similar to a new Camry.

And even if you ignore all that and still insist on using the 80,000 miles, that's still less than 4 years at the rate we are driving it. We've been really happy with the purchase and I hardly would consider us upper class. If I was upper class I would be driving something much faster and sportier than my 7 year old Subaru with 185,000 miles

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Stumpy 256]

airdvr

Teslas are still the toys of the upper class and not anywhere near something that could be purchased by the average person here.

That I would maybe agree with. There are plenty of other EV's and hybrids emerging.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Bob_Church 7]

BartsDaddy

******Hi Alan,

Quote

When electric cars become affordable, they can be the 2nd car for the commute to work.

I think that we are getting there . . . . .

Around me you can get a Fiat EV for $69 a month, 3 year lease. They are lousy little cars, but if your goal is to get to work really, really cheaply - they are a good solution.

I'm sure it works out to more than that. That is creative pricing.At your price it works out to less than 2,500.00 for three years. With knowing Fiat that may well be what it is worth, but not what you will get it for before any subsidies or rebates.

Considering that traditional Fiats were my brother's favorite cars I can't imagine what keeping a new type, the EV, running.
My brother was a mechanic. He hated Mazdas and Subarus and loved Fiats because they paid the rent.

[airdvr 197]

Stumpy

***
Teslas are still the toys of the upper class and not anywhere near something that could be purchased by the average person here.

That I would maybe agree with. There are plenty of other EV's and hybrids emerging.

Average income in the US is $59,000.00. If you take out the over-inflated coastal wages I'm sure it's even less. At a tax rate of 30% that works out to just under $800 per week. A $30K auto loan works out to ~$500 per month. Not something the average person can do or something the banks would let them do without gold plated credit.

Sorry...the EV market in general in still for the upper crust. FUnny how many here don't realize how much better they have it than your average Joe.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne