Green new deal equals magical thinking

[JoeWeber 2,297]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I actually feel sorry for you guys.  There is going to be no green new deal.  Fossil fuels will continue to be the mainstay of energy on our planet for the foreseeable future.  CO2 levels will continue to rise for the rest our lives.  We will all live to realize that that your predictions of death and destruction were all wrong.  And the most pathetic of all, is that you will be (and are) mad about it.   

 

Feel sorry for yourself, thanks. No one here is arguing what you just now claimed again. We aren't Pollyanna's or Chicken Littles. We get it that aspects of the GND are the best that will happen. We get it that we can not, by decision, control CO2 emissions worldwide. And I'm pretty sure we all understand that CO2 will continue to rise for the rest of our lives unless we get lucky. As I see it, we are mostly thinking that by being honest about real science we might get on a path that makes getting lucky more likely. You continue to think in terms of meaningless time frames like "the rest of our lives". I've asked you before to answer hard questions like what level of CO2 would cause you concern. I think I might also have queried you as to rate of increase, too. But Nada. Instead you issue out more crap science. 

I do not disagree that today and tomorrow are not the problem. I also think I'll die without suffering too much due to climate change. But I am absolutely concerned with the rate of increase in CO2. Credible science is the reason why.

Maybe you're right and we should all be dancing in the streets and burning clam shells. But you might be wrong and seeing as you aren't Richard Feynman maybe you ought not to act so certain.

 

 

[billvon 2,396]

58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I actually feel sorry for you guys.  There is going to be no green new deal.  Fossil fuels will continue to be the mainstay of energy on our planet for the foreseeable future.  CO2 levels will continue to rise for the rest our lives.  We will all live to realize that that your predictions of death and destruction were all wrong. 

I think you will end up pretty angry and bitter if you really take that approach.  You'll have to watch, impotent, as EV's and renewable energy continue to grow rapidly.  IPCC predictions will continue to come true, and deniers will look increasingly shrill and out of touch as they deny what people can see right in front of them.

It's generally a mistake to bet on yesterday's technology - and to pin all your hopes on a decades-long deception.

[gowlerk 1,905]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Fossil fuels will continue to be the mainstay of energy on our planet for the foreseeable future.  CO2 levels will continue to rise for the rest our lives. 

Yes

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

We will all live to realize that that your predictions of death and destruction were all wrong. 

Now you are being silly.

[brenthutch 383]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I've asked you before to answer hard questions like what level of CO2 would cause you concern. I think I might also have queried you as to rate of increase, too. But Nada. Instead you issue out more crap science. 

I see no problem with a doubling of todays levels.  At the rate we are going that won't happen until well after we have figured out fusion.(and you guys thought I hated technology)  Until then, I think letting the poorer countries on the planet develop will be the best way to reduce suffering and help overall humanity.

[brenthutch 383]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

It's generally a mistake to bet on yesterday's technology - and to pin all your hopes on a decades-long deception.

Like windmills and the IPCC, agreed.

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/watch-twerking-traffic-order-fight-climate-change

After watching this I am seriously reconsidering my stance on climate change.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

At the rate we are going that won't happen until well after we have figured out fusion.

The Oracle has spoken: "Fear not the error of your ways for unproven technology will surely save you." Next time you check in with her please find out if the rate will change. That would be helpful.

Now that I know, I sort of feel like a dope for giving up low pulling before they had decent AAD's.

[brenthutch 383]

Why China’s Renewable Energy Transition Is Losing Momentum
BY MICHAEL STANDAERT • SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

Growth of wind and solar in China is slowing as government funding for green energy falters and upgrades to the transmission infrastructure lag. With China’s CO2 emissions again on the rise, experts worry the world’s largest emitter may fall short of key climate goals.

…

After plateauing from 2014 to 2016, China’s carbon dioxide emissions have risen in the last several years, with an estimated 4 percent increase in the first half of 2019. While coal consumption and production peaked in 2013, both have increased again since 2017 and are slowly creeping back to 2013 levels. 

Reliance on gas from fracking in the Sichuan basin, as well as coal-bed methane extraction and increased imports of natural gas (China is the second-largest natural gas importer in the world), are on the rise. Since China counts unconventional gases like shale gas and coal-bed methane as “new energy,” they are eligible for subsidies from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology [MIIT]. Roughly $830 million — more than 80 percent of an MIIT new energy fund — went to subsidizing such projects in 2018, according to a recent report by the state-run China Energy News.

While continuing to fund unconventional gas, China has now largely stopped providing national-level subsidies to wind and solar projects and is implementing reforms to its feed-in-tariff system, moving to replace it with auctions in which wind and solar power must compete directly with fossil fuels.

…

This process has started to slow the overall added capacity for wind and solar. While new solar photovoltaic installations hit an all-time high of 53 gigawatts [GW] in 2017, they slipped to around 41 GW last year and current figures put solar installations at slightly more than 11 GW for the first half of 2019. Projections are for about 25 GW of solar power to be installed this year and in succeeding years through 2025, an amount that would not sharply curtail fossil fuel use. 

Another problem is that renewable energy projects are facing land-use restrictions that protect agricultural, industrial, and urban land in provinces like Guangdong in South China, the country’s economic powerhouse, says Jonathan Luan Dong, a renewables analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. While several non-subsidized renewable energy projects had been scheduled to start in Guangdong in 2019, few actually seem to be moving forward. 

When I attempted to visit renewable energy projects that were said to be in the works, government offices and companies in the Guangdong cities of Jiangmen, Meizhou, and Zhanjiang declined my requests because the projects hadn’t started.

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Why China’s Renewable Energy Transition Is Losing Momentum
BY MICHAEL STANDAERT • SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

Growth of wind and solar in China is slowing as government funding for green energy falters and upgrades to the transmission infrastructure lag. With China’s CO2 emissions again on the rise, experts worry the world’s largest emitter may fall short of key climate goals.

So you're saying you want to move to China where they're making everything great again?

[DJL 232]

On 9/29/2019 at 7:36 AM, brenthutch said:

Until then, I think letting the poorer countries on the planet develop will be the best way to reduce suffering and help overall humanity.

Here's what's going on in the poorer countries: 35,000 people forced to leave their homes PER DAY.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-49854753/the-displaced-climate-change-in-vietnam-destroying-family-life

Seem's like a rather immediate and devastating issue but how's life in Pa?

[JoeWeber 2,297]

15 minutes ago, DJL said:

Here's what's going on in the poorer countries: 35,000 people forced to leave their homes PER DAY.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-49854753/the-displaced-climate-change-in-vietnam-destroying-family-life

Seem's like a rather immediate and devastating issue but how's life in Pa?

No, no, no. You need to read the entire post or you'll lose the meaning. See, in the year 2050 when CO2 is at 800ppm, and then President Scooby LaPierre has renumbered the Constitution putting the second amendment in it's rightful First Place position, we'll just pull out our fusion ray guns and halt the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere because FUN! So stop your damn worrying.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

So you're saying you want to move to China where they're making everything great again?

No it is just more evidence that there is no inexorable tide toward renewables, at the expense of fossil fuels.  

According to the EIA, by 2050 renewables will provide only 28% of global energy demand (a significant increase to be sure) while fossil fuels will account for 69%.  So much for net zero by 2050.

 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433

[billvon 2,396]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it is just more evidence that there is no inexorable tide toward renewables, at the expense of fossil fuels.  

 

From woodmac.com:

Global solar PV installations to reach record high in 2019

25 July 2019

Global solar PV installations will reach a new high of 114.5 GW in 2019, up 17.5% on 2018, according to new research from Wood Mackenzie.

As noted in the Wood Mackenzie 'Global solar PV market outlook update: Q2 2019', the market is now back on a strong growth trajectory after a slowdown in 2018. Annual installations are expected to rise to around 125 GW per year by the early 2020s.

Commenting on the report, Tom Heggarty, Wood Mackenzie Senior Research Analyst, said: "Global growth will continue despite a gradual slow-down in China, the world's largest PV market. The Chinese market peaked at 53 GW in 2017, driven by generous feed-in tariffs. A move towards more competitive procurement of solar PV will lead to more sustainable annual additions of 30-40 GW."

Quote

According to the EIA, by 2050 renewables will provide only 28% of global energy demand (a significant increase to be sure) while fossil fuels will account for 69%. 

That's business as usual - including Trump doing everything he can to sabotage renewables.  We could easily double that.

[DJL 232]

50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it is just more evidence that there is no inexorable tide toward renewables, at the expense of fossil fuels.  

According to the EIA, by 2050 renewables will provide only 28% of global energy demand (a significant increase to be sure) while fossil fuels will account for 69%.  So much for net zero by 2050.

 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433

Then you're saying that you're going to move to China and the rest of us need to move faster to eliminate fossil fuels from our own market and the world market.

[airdvr 197]

On 9/28/2019 at 10:48 PM, billvon said:

I think you will end up pretty angry and bitter if you really take that approach.  You'll have to watch, impotent, as EV's and renewable energy continue to grow rapidly.  IPCC predictions will continue to come true, and deniers will look increasingly shrill and out of touch as they deny what people can see right in front of them.

It's generally a mistake to bet on yesterday's technology - and to pin all your hopes on a decades-long deception.

Looks like not fast enough...

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#3ca45f9735f7

You all seem very quick to tear down the existing energy grid before you have a replacement.  Go green if you will, but leave coal and oil until we can actually afford to lose them.

 

[billvon 2,396]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Looks like not fast enough...

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

You all seem very quick to tear down the existing energy grid before you have a replacement.  Go green if you will, but leave coal and oil until we can actually afford to lose them.

 

I am all for nuclear power.  If you want to pay those power prices, I say - go for it!  I admire your willingness to put your money where your mouth is.

I have never wanted to tear down the grid.  Nor have I seen anyone here say that.  And I just got back from Solar Power International 2019 - and no one there wanted to "tear down the existing energy grid."  Are you making shit up again?

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

I am all for nuclear power.  If you want to pay those power prices, I say - go for it!  I admire your willingness to put your money where your mouth is.

That is what I say about wind and solar.  If you want to pay those prices, good on you just don't make me pay for your green new dream, as Nancy Pelosi put it.  I will stick to natural gas, at least for the next hundred years or so.

Speaking of natural gas, can't we all agree that it would be better to build more gas pipelines and use the gas rather than flare it into the atmosphere? 

Edited September 30, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Looks like not fast enough...

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#3ca45f9735f7

You all seem very quick to tear down the existing energy grid before you have a replacement.  Go green if you will, but leave coal and oil until we can actually afford to lose them.

 

One nuclear power plant a day or 2,000,000+  solar panels or 3000 wind turbines per day. And that is the net increase, we still have to replace the thousands a day that will be at the end of their useful lifespan.  

Edited September 30, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

One nuclear power plant a day or 2,000,000+  solar panels or 3000 wind turbines per day.

OK.  Not sure where you got those numbers, but let's go with them.

So let's look at the math there:

1 new nuclear power plant a day.  The Vogtle nuclear power plants (only ones under construction in the US) will cost $41 billion for 4 1GW power plants.  So ~10 billion per power plant for 1GW.  That's just construction costs; no costs included for fuel or waste disposal.

Meanwhile, those 2 million panels will cost (2 million * 350 watts per panel average * .40/watt) = 280 million.  35x cheaper.  

The US government spends about 7 million dollars a minute.  So they could buy that amount of solar with 40 minutes worth of daily spending - or 2.7% of the US budget.  Hardly impossible.

Quote

And that is the net increase, we still have to replace the thousands a day that will be at the end of their useful lifespan.  

True of both nuclear power plants and solar.

[headoverheels 291]

42 minutes ago, billvon said:

Meanwhile, those 2 million panels will cost (2 million * 350 watts per panel average * .40/watt) = 280 million.  35x cheaper.  

That doesn't seem to include construction cost.  And you get, what, equivalent of about 6 hrs/day of that rated 350W, when averaged over the day?

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That is what I say about wind and solar.  If you want to pay those prices, good on you just don't make me pay for your green new dream, as Nancy Pelosi put it.  I will stick to natural gas, at least for the next hundred years or so.

That's fine.  But given that natural gas costs more than solar now, you're the one asking for other people to pay your bills.  (Which is fine - as long as you don't bitch and moan when other people ask you to do the same.)

Quote

Speaking of natural gas, can't we all agree that it would be better to build more gas pipelines and use the gas rather than flare it into the atmosphere? 

Ideally you leave it in the ground. 

[billvon 2,396]

5 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

That doesn't seem to include construction cost.  And you get, what, equivalent of about 6 hrs/day of that rated 350W, when averaged over the day?

I am going with his numbers here.  In a typical solar power system the panel cost is about 70% of the cost of the array itself, so you'd be up to 3.7% of the US budget for the solar array.  With both you then have to add more costs.  Both have transmission lines you have to add.  For nuclear you also have to add the costs of fuel, spent fuel storage and operating costs (crews of dozens of people) and for solar you have to add storage and inverters.

[kallend 1,623]

This is not a comment on the accuracy of BH’s numbers but on the capacity to manufacture large numbers of items. Beverage cans are (contrary to what you may believe) highly engineered products yet in N America alone over 800 Million are manufactured daily. I see no issue in making 1/40 of that number of solar panels. 

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

This is not a comment on the accuracy of BH’s numbers but on the capacity to manufacture large numbers of items. Beverage cans are (contrary to what you may believe) highly engineered products yet in N America alone over 800 Million are manufactured daily. I see no issue in making 1/40 of that number of solar panels. 

Next up is the required space.  The area required to install the quantity of solar panels needed to entirely displace coal energy production is 2500 sq miles.  The amount of area leveled for mountaintop removal coal mining is 2200 sq miles.  So basically, we have the space too.

[brenthutch 383]

Wow, I didn't know that.  Well what is stopping us?  Its cheaper, more reliable, safer, takes up less space and is better for the environment. If all of your claims are true, then simple economic forces would drive adaptation all by themselves we don't even need the government.  BTW that has been my position all along. Lets all get on the Green Bus!!!

10 hours ago, billvon said:

OK.  Not sure where you got those numbers, but let's go with them.

So let's look at the math there:

1 new nuclear power plant a day.  The Vogtle nuclear power plants (only ones under construction in the US) will cost $41 billion for 4 1GW power plants.  So ~10 billion per power plant for 1GW.  That's just construction costs; no costs included for fuel or waste disposal.

Meanwhile, those 2 million panels will cost (2 million * 350 watts per panel average * .40/watt) = 280 million.  35x cheaper.  

The US government spends about 7 million dollars a minute.  So they could buy that amount of solar with 40 minutes worth of daily spending - or 2.7% of the US budget.  Hardly impossible.

True of both nuclear power plants and solar.

OOPS, Sorry, I missed some zeros.  Its actually 200,000,000.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-solar-panels-would-be-needed-to-replace-a-nuclear-power-station