Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Grog6]

It's only a stalemate if both sides are using valid arguments.

 

[Assimilator]

It's only a stalemate if both sides are using valid arguments.

You mean that "natural gas is the answer to everything" isn't a valid argument?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Am I reading what you want me to read?

It spread from power plant to power plant beause they detected a sharp increase in power demand that the power plants individually could not fill. One by one they disconnected from the grid and shutdown to prevent damage to themselves. Some of them were nuclear which took days to get back on the grid.

Today's Outlook | Demand | California ISO

Monitor real-time grid conditions. View current and historical data for demand, net-demand, supply, renewables, CO2 emissions and wholesale energy prices.

www.caiso.com

View attachment 154775

This is the duck curve from California, caused by the excessive amounts of solar power deployed in the state of California. Notice the Noon-day sun that causes solar panels to activate, dropping the the energy usage of Californians by 10GWs. Then at 7pm, the sun sets, requiring the grid to grow by 10GWs in 3 hours. We now have the numbers for what large scale solar deployments cause.

The worst rampup of that grid is the 10GW ramp in 3 hours at the end of the day, going from 60% generation to 100% generation across 3 hours. The 2-5% / minute load following capability of nuclear power plants per minute can more than follow the steep duck curve in the highest solar deployment in America.

This is real data that occurred on May 8th, 2020. We have reality before us, we have the stats to see how things work in the real world. There's no need to guess or make hypotheticals. Just look at the data. Nuclear isn't as agile as natural gas, but guess what? Its agile enough to handle the reality of our demand curves and energy usage patterns.

California is scheduled to decommission their last nuclear power plant (it is base load/does not fluctuate):

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

One of California’s largest energy utilities took a bold step in the 21st century electricity revolution with an agreement to close its last operating nuclear plant and develop more solar, wind and other clean power technologies.

www.latimes.com

Most of California's power comes from natural gas:

They're the ones ramping down and up again on a daily basis. Judging by that chart above, many are running 100% all of the time.

That's the point (and segueing back into the topic): wind/solar = natural gas; wind + solar + natural gas = death of nuclear which is near-zero emission. We're replacing something really dirty (coal) with something not as dirty (wind/solar/natural gas) when we should be replacing coal/wind/solar/natural gas with something almost completely clean (nuclear).


Natural gas is only 50-60% less carbon than coal (huge asterisk on that because a methane leak is exponentially worse than burned natural gas):

Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

This comprehensive overview details the potential environmental impacts of natural gas use and extraction, including its effects on water supplies, global warming emissions, air pollution, and wildlife.

www.ucsusa.org

 

[Grog6]

I most definitely did not say that.

Look at the posts above; there are lines of hopeful truisms, opposed by documents, links, and evidence.

It's hard to debate if the other team can't speak truth.

 

[ShaharNamer]

Dumping CO2 into the atmosphere wont help any of us let alone the planet. We all need to do more before its too late.

Shahar Namer

 

[R0H1T]

Here's an example of dehumidifier requirements to qualify for the Energy Star label:

Dehumidifiers Key Efficiency Criteria

www.energystar.gov

It's binary: it either qualifies or it doesn't. There are no tiers.


Didn't click that CAFE link?

Got it, so it means that you can sell non Energy Star products to the general public.

You were saying?

Here’s the Trump admin’s pathetic new fuel efficiency rule for 2026

From 46.7mpg to just 40.4mpg by 2026, and it's even less for trucks and SUVs.

Here’s the Trump admin’s pathetic new fuel efficiency rule for 2026

From 46.7mpg to just 40.4mpg by 2026, and it’s even less for trucks and SUVs.

arstechnica.com

So what I asked was basically what's the US doing to reduce its carbon footprint, especially per capita energy & fuel consumption ~ the answer not much, if anything at all.

 

[Vayra86]

So what I asked was basically what's the US doing to reduce its carbon footprint, especially per capita energy & fuel consumption ~ the answer not much, if anything at all.

That is correct, they even openly admit it, and have officially retreated from Kyoto.

One could argue the US is one of the few countries in the world actually being honest about it: we're fucked anyway and not going to be a hypocrite for trying to change that Because all things considered, the Kyoto (climate) agreement is not exactly set in stone or definitive in its solution either...

 

[the54thvoid]

Politics begone! LQ for speaking of it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Got it, so it means that you can sell non Energy Star products to the general public.

Yes. Energy Star is fundamentally an public information campaign to separate the low efficiency from the high efficiency models. Example in computing: Energy Star rated computers required active power factor correction (>70% efficiency) when the bulk of computers had passive (<50%). 80plus came along and created a private (as opposed to public) race for higher efficiency than Energy Star required.

You were saying?

Here’s the Trump admin’s pathetic new fuel efficiency rule for 2026

From 46.7mpg to just 40.4mpg by 2026, and it’s even less for trucks and SUVs.

arstechnica.com

So what I asked was basically what's the US doing to reduce its carbon footprint, especially per capita energy & fuel consumption ~ the answer not much, if anything at all.

Because the EPA/CARB/NHTSB were getting massive push back from automakers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Daimler, etc. that, to reach the new targets imposed on them, would have to take drastic measures severely increasing the costs to consumers which would depress their ability to sell vehicles/remain profitable. They basically won that argument that the new standards represented undue burden so EPA/NHTSB went into a holding pattern for years reevaluating things and now you see the new outcome: 40.4 mpg.

Even at that number, all of these manufacturers are going to have to debut more hybrid and/or electric models...which has problems of its own (like battery availability). 46.7 mpg is impossible when the vast majority of new vehicles sold are crossovers and pickups. They're doing great to hit 35 mpg. For example, the most fuel efficient pickup in the USA is the Ram with the EcoDiesel and that comes in at about 33 mpg. Thing is, widespread diesel use creates problems in the supply chain which is set up to provide gasoline for personal use and diesel for commercial use. Diesels also have problems in nothern states because of the fuel gelling. That directly translates into customer complaints which, in turn, basically mandates these picks need fuel cell heaters to combat gelling. Diesel, like electric, is seen as taboo by a lot of Americans for these reasons.

It really comes down to physics and how much energy one can reasonably extract from the fuel source. We're already moving to forced induction and transmissions with a lot more ratios...the only option left for ICEs is tighter engineering tolerances which means more rejected parts that won't pass quality controls. Every rejected part means more roll away cost.

Just because a government demands something doesn't mean it's physically or economically possible...


As to your question... a curious thought came to mind: CO2 should have seen significant flattening because of the massive reduction in transportation and production thanks to COVID-19, yeah?

Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

www.esrl.noaa.gov

Apparently not. How curious. Without statistical analysis, that actually looks like a bigger jump than a year ago...

CH4 appears to have been impacted...at least...but it's really too easy to tell:

Trends in CH4 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

www.esrl.noaa.gov

Most of the reductions from USA have likely been from switching from coal electricity to natural gas:

U.S. CO2 emissions by year 2024| Statista

CO₂ emissions in the U.S. have reduced by more than 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels to less than five GtCO₂ per year.

www.statista.com

Note: big dip was caused by the Great Recession.

Aside from that, how does one even reduce CO2 emissions that's economically viable?

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

www.epa.gov

Transportation is #1 and it really can't be helped until there's a breakthrough.
Electricity is #2 and it is falling year over year because the fleet of coal power plants is diminishing. It'd fall a lot faster if we were building nuclear power plants...but...that's got problems of its own in terms of start up costs and NIMBY.

The rest, I don't know how you'd reduce without creating other problems (e.g. displacement of industry, food shortages, etc.).

 

[the54thvoid]

Yes. Energy Star is fundamentally an public information campaign to separate the low efficiency from the high efficiency models. Example in computing: Energy Star rated computers required active power factor correction (>70% efficiency) when the bulk of computers had passive (<50%). 80plus came along and created a private (as opposed to public) race for higher efficiency than Energy Star required.


Because the EPA/CARB/NHTSB were getting massive push back from automakers like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Daimler, etc. that, to reach the new targets imposed on them, would have to take drastic measures severely increasing the costs to consumers which would depress their ability to sell vehicles/remain profitable. They basically won that argument that the new standards represented undue burden so EPA/NHTSB went into a holding pattern for years reevaluating things and now you see the new outcome: 40.4 mpg.

Even at that number, all of these manufacturers are going to have to debut more hybrid and/or electric models...which has problems of its own (like battery availability). 46.7 mpg is impossible when the vast majority of new vehicles sold are crossovers and pickups. They're doing great to hit 35 mpg. For example, the most fuel efficient pickup in the USA is the Ram with the EcoDiesel and that comes in at about 33 mpg. Thing is, widespread diesel use creates problems in the supply chain which is set up to provide gasoline for personal use and diesel for commercial use. Diesels also have problems in nothern states because of the fuel gelling. That directly translates into customer complaints which, in turn, basically mandates these picks need fuel cell heaters to combat gelling. Diesel, like electric, is seen as taboo by a lot of Americans for these reasons.

It really comes down to physics and how much energy one can reasonably extract from the fuel source. We're already moving to forced induction and transmissions with a lot more ratios...the only option left for ICEs is tighter engineering tolerances which means more rejected parts that won't pass quality controls. Every rejected part means more roll away cost.

Just because a government demands something doesn't mean it's physically or economically possible...


As to your question... a curious thought came to mind: CO2 should have seen significant flattening because of the massive reduction in transportation and production thanks to COVID-19, yeah?

Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

www.esrl.noaa.gov

Apparently not. How curious. Without statistical analysis, that actually looks like a bigger jump than a year ago...

CH4 appears to have been impacted...at least...but it's really too easy to tell:

Trends in CH4 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

www.esrl.noaa.gov

Most of the reductions from USA have likely been from switching from coal electricity to natural gas:

U.S. CO2 emissions by year 2024| Statista

CO₂ emissions in the U.S. have reduced by more than 20 percent when compared to 2005 levels to less than five GtCO₂ per year.

www.statista.com

Note: big dip was caused by the Great Recession.

Aside from that, how does one even reduce CO2 emissions that's economically viable?

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

www.epa.gov

Transportation is #1 and it really can't be helped until there's a breakthrough.
Electricity is #2 and it is falling year over year because the fleet of coal power plants is diminishing. It'd fall a lot faster if we were building nuclear power plants...but...that's got problems of its own in terms of start up costs and NIMBY.

The rest, I don't know how you'd reduce without creating other problems (e.g. displacement of industry, food shortages, etc.).

CO2 emissions are unlikely to drop. Workplaces are often automated, so fuel costs remain constant. On the other hand, more people at home, consuming power: kettles, heating, plus the associated server costs of decentralised networks would maintain steady consumption. The metric for lack of travel in lockdown is nitrogen dioxide, which has been shown to have drastically reduced.

Basically, putting millions of people at home means consumption of power at home. All the while, work places run Aircon, heating etc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well...I mean...it's kind of hilarious...because those links are for Hawaii and what's upwind from Hawaii? China, not USA.

Even so, transportation was affected the most by the quarantine, especially non-freight air and ground personal traffic. You'd think a good 50% reduction in those metrics would eventually result in a measurable difference in rate of CO2 change. It just might be too early to detect it...especially at Hawaii...out in the middle of nowhere water...

The reduction of NOx is directly proportional to CO2 because it's mostly diesels in poorly regulated countries where the NOx is coming from. A NOx reducing diesel more thoroughly burns the fuel converting it to CO2 which is less harmful. So where NOx fell sharply, so did diesel fuel burning.


I doubt global electric production/consumption has changed much because of the quarantine. If anything, it went down as factories idled and restaurants shuttered. Yeah, routers and servers are experiencing heavier loads but their power consumption is nothing compared to, say, a factory producing cars. Just one metal press probably uses as much power in an hour as a cloud cluster uses in a day.

 

[Grog6]

If we stop burning HydroCarbons for energy, CO2 emissions will drop considerably.

I like Gas fueled cars, so I hope it doesn't stop completely.

The only way it's actually going to drop in our time is if we decide to spend money to develop a process to sequester it as limestone or something.

A catalyst that could allow sunlight to split it into O2 and C in a recoverable fashion would be a world changer; one that would split H and O2 would be a nice set.

Our bodies contain enzymes that do both of those operations; so it IS possible, but hard to do.

 

[R-T-B]

Inverter is required...even on industrial scales.

woosh.

My point was the reliability figure for industrial inverters is far higher than the consumer study you linked.

 

[Assimilator]

I probably should've appended /s to my last post.

Politics begone! LQ for speaking of it.

LQ = ?

 

[lexluthermiester]

LQ = ?

Low Quality

 

[Grog6]

Low Quality.

 

[Assimilator]

Low Quality

Low Quality.

Thank'ee.

Good news: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ecover-after-coronavirus-pandemic-say-experts

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Kind of a badly written article. They cite decrease in power demand and coal plants being idled because their capacity isn't needed. Doesn't mean they aren't going to be turned back on as they are needed.

This week, a new report by the US Energy Information Administration projected the US would produce more electricity this year from renewables than from coal for the first time. Industry analysts predict coal’s share of US electricity generation could fall to just 10% in five years, down from 50% a decade ago. Despite Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to “dig coal”, there are now more job losses and closures in the industry than at any time since Eisenhower’s presidency 60 years ago. Among the latest has been Great River Energy’s plan to shut down a 1.1-gigawatt thermal plant in North Dakota and replace it with wind and gas.

Well, yeah, I posted about this months ago. USA is not commissioning any new coal power plants while closures are increasing because they're not cost competitive. Has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with the fact natural gas is a lot cheaper: to install, to operate, to maintain, and to close. There's literally no reason, in the USA, for anyone to consider coal.

China...on the other hand...

China Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal Plants

While the rest of the world turns away from the fossil fuel, China is investing big in coal-powered electricity.

www.wired.com

Coal Market Faces Fresh Speculation China Shunning Australia

A coal market only just rebounding from the lowest price in four years might now need to grapple with the prospect of China renewing its restrictions on Australian supplies.

www.bloomberg.com

The very last paragraph in the Guardian's article is really the only of note:

While nobody is expecting coal to disappear any time soon, Ted Nace, director of Global Energy Monitor, believes the balance has shifted for good. “Coal is definitely on the downturn and this pandemic is going to accelerate that. Demand should come back to some degree next year. But there is a very strong argument that it is not going to just bounce back.”

But no one's economy is "going to just bounce back" either.

 

[the54thvoid]

Kind of a badly written article. They cite decrease in power demand and coal plants being idled because their capacity isn't needed. Doesn't mean they aren't going to be turned back on as they are needed.


Well, yeah, I posted about this months ago. USA is not commissioning any new coal power plants while closures are increasing because they're not cost competitive. Has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with the fact natural gas is a lot cheaper: to install, to operate, to maintain, and to close. There's literally no reason, in the USA, for anyone to consider coal.

China...on the other hand...

China Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal Plants

While the rest of the world turns away from the fossil fuel, China is investing big in coal-powered electricity.

www.wired.com

Coal Market Faces Fresh Speculation China Shunning Australia

A coal market only just rebounding from the lowest price in four years might now need to grapple with the prospect of China renewing its restrictions on Australian supplies.

www.bloomberg.com

The very last paragraph in the Guardian's article is really the only of note:

But no one's economy is "going to just bounce back" either.

I did not see it as badly written. It clearly states as well that China is the elephant in the room, investing in its own land and Africa. It really all depends on what side of the fence you're painting. Renewables are on the increase and yes, natural gas is the preferable always on reserve. Obviously, nuclear is there but needs to remain low because you can't easily power down fission.

It might seem as though it doesn't contain enough new info but it's just a newspaper; far from the vanguard of science and pinpoint data analysis. But it's sound enough for the masses.


For balance, here's an article from the Guardian about renewables being turned off.

Renewable energy may be switched off as demand plummets

National Grid may ask suppliers to stop generating electricity due to record low demand

www.theguardian.com

Edit: there's a definite geo-bias in perception. It probably makes our views easier to understand. In 2018, the US accounted for a third of the global increase in natural gas use. China was up there too. But the EU isnt following that trend.

The United States and China pulled worldwide natural gas consumption upwards (+5%)
Global gas consumption accelerated in 2018, spurred by the US and China, which accounted for around two thirds of the additional consumption. US gas demand grew by 10% in 2018, the highest growth seen in the past 30 years, spurred by the power sector (+15 GW of new gas-fired power plants) and by buildings.
Gas consumption also accelerated in China (+18%) in line with its coal-to-gas substitution policy in the power and heating sector. Growth was also seen in India and South Korea thanks to sustained economic growth. However, consumption declined in Japan, as the restart of nuclear reactors reduced the needs for gas-fired power generation.
Gas consumption also continued to grow steadily in Russia (though at a slower pace than in 2017) and accelerated in Canada, Iran and Algeria.
Despite the economic growth, gas consumption declined in Europe – especially in Turkey, France, Germany and Italy – owing to higher temperatures, improved nuclear and hydropower availability as well as rising renewable power generation.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Title is "Coal industry will never recover after coronavirus pandemic, say experts "
It's misleading because reduction in coal as a share of total electric production has been declining, globally, since 2013. That's because new capacity isn't coal. Has nothing to do with pandemic.

The only thing the pandemic did, as I said, was cause some coal plants to idle because industry and commerical demand for power has plummeted. Again, that's not necessarily because of the pandemic but because coal power plants are among the most costly to operate.

In other words, the trend that started a decade ago will continue. Pandemic may accelerate closures due to economic shrinkage but coal (especially in countries like the USA) was not recovering for years:

Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The major fuel/energy sources and their contribution to annual U.S. electricity generation.

www.eia.gov

Nuclear can feasibly replace everything in that chart as long as the reactors are new designs that can scale with need. Nuclear can't be complimented by solar/wind without natural gas to even it out.

Next update of that graph should be interesting because it will show what was idled because of the pandemic.

 

[the54thvoid]

Title is "Coal industry will never recover after coronavirus pandemic, say experts "
It's misleading because reduction in coal as a share of total electric production has been declining, globally, since 2013. That's because new capacity isn't coal. Has nothing to do with pandemic.

The only thing the pandemic did, as I said, was cause some coal plants to idle because industry and commerical demand for power has plummeted. Again, that's not necessarily because of the pandemic but because coal power plants are among the most costly to operate.

In other words, the trend that started a decade ago will continue. Pandemic may accelerate closures due to economic shrinkage but coal (especially in countries like the USA) was not recovering for years

Ah, okay - I got you. A better phrase perhaps would invoke 'nails in the coffin'.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

China did a smart:

China excludes clean coal projects from list eligible for green bonds

China has excluded "clean coal" from a list of projects eligible for green bonds, according to long-awaited new draft guidelines published by the central bank on Friday.

www.reuters.com

 

[A Computer Guy]

That's the newspaper headline, anyway.

So, could the "global warming" crisis just be one big scandal?

From what I've read, the earth is actually due an ice age anytime now, which would kinda put a spanner in the works of the global warming advocates. Oh dear.

I'm not completely sure, but I'm leaning towards scandal. There's just too much power, politics and money corrupting the science with something like this. Looks like all those who suspected that the "global warming" crisis of the last 20+ years was just a scam to foist higher taxes and "green" policies aka austerity on everyone, may just be right.

Have a read and let us know what you think.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


UPDATE 18SEP17

I'm no longer leaning towards scam given the evidence all around me. See my full explanation here.

The earth is warming, and cooling, but the evidence of scandal is present in the behaviors of those who gain profit and power from convincing others to do things that can be measured to achieve no viable goal other than to increase their profit and power. The ideas of using only single or limited metrics (CO2 emissions) to make huge geopolitical decisions is really stupid nuts if you think about it.

There is no doubt humans can affect the environment. Most of it is trivial and limited compared to chaos of the universe we live in. There is so much naturally happening in the world, that we have no control over, inducing more devastating effects to our well being than what we can produce ourselves. Anybody ever put a camera on how much oil, ash, and CO2 , is dumped into the ocean by mother nature herself?

The real issue - we should be doing things to ensure the health of human society. In turn this comes down to doing things responsibly in the environment where we live so we are not living in our own filth. So we have earthly resources to survive including preserving the life of other species we discover helps ensuring our survival and well being. We don't need to save the earth we need to save ourselves from an environment that is 100% guaranteed to change no matter what we do.

That's all I've got to say.

 

[the54thvoid]

We don't need to save the earth we need to save ourselves from an environment that is 100% guaranteed to change no matter what we do.

That's all I've got to say.

The overwhelming evidence points to human action altering our environment. Sea level rise is the current issue and while it rises and falls over geological timescales, our action with regard to global warming is exacerbating it. That means coastal areas more prone to flooding, and unfortunately, a lot of the worlds population lives in coastal areas. Small changes in our environment, attributred to us, are felt when mother nature does her thing. We amplify the very things you mention. And as things get worse, our amplification will be far greater.

However, you're 100% right with the management of our world. Plastics, waste, over-consumption of resources. We're doing a shit job of responsibly 'harvesting' the planet. But that world becomes harder to manage because of the effects of global warming. We humans think in very short timescales. I'll not see devastating effects of our action on nature in my lifetime (I'm 46). But my niece might - she's 10. If she has kids - it will be a very different world. I read a recent review about wet-bulb temp limits and in some places it is nearing human physiological limits. In other words, parts of the planet are trending toward heat levels that will kill those without air-con all around.

But, I also beleive in 100 years fusion will be with us. And that will be a game-changer. Perhaps a little late to the party but I think humanity might just get by, as long it is continues to be responsible now. Of course, the greatest threat is the self-interest, as you say, of those who profit from those who manage the systems we require. And those people all manipulate government.

 

[Assimilator]

Most of it is trivial and limited compared to chaos of the universe we live in.

Educate yourself.

Anybody ever put a camera on how much oil, ash, and CO2 , is dumped into the ocean by mother nature herself?

Nowhere near as much as by humans.

Educate yourself.