The Reef Ain't Dead

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Per capita" and "cumulative historic" are moralistic arguments. Hardly relevant in the midst of our "existential crisis."

No, they are not moralistic and no, they are not arguments. They are simply quantitative units of measurement.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Morals are very much a part of the human psychic, and therefore an essential part of the decision process.

Agreed, except when they lead to an unrealistic decision process which does more harm than good. Wealthier, more technologically advanced countries consume more energy (i.e. fossil fuels) on a per capita basis. It's a given, just like it's a given that most of the world's technological innovation comes out of those same countries. We'll only figure out how to stop using fossil fuels when we become more realistic about both it's harms and its benefits.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

None, and don't go down your usual road of personalizing this when the discussion isn't going your way. It's just another form of the cancel culture you're otherwise so accomplished with. And yes, a multipronged approach is necessary of course. But I'm just not aware of any single other method other than fracking that has proven to be as effective. Are you?

Nuclear power


https://www.nei.org/resources/statis...ting-countries

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I can't vouch for that stunning picture, one way or the other, but I do "suspect' that Reef, and others, are correct.
However, Mt. Pico was (unusually) snow covered in 2018.

Had it not been for the cloud hiding Pico's distictive nipple I'd not have fallen for it..
https://youtu.be/V0QKJlbIQus

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

No, they are not moralistic and no, they are not arguments. They are simply quantitative units of measurement.

They promote stereotypes that it's all about uncaring Americans and other wealthy people choosing Escalades over CRV's (thanks L-E ), when the reality is that wealthier people and more prosperous nations consume more energy. It's always been this way and always will. But the stereotypes play to class warfare politics, seemingly never out of vogue.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Nuclear power

Agreed. Maybe you've read Shellenberger. Doesn't seem politically viable in these post-Fukishima days, and maybe for good reason. But from what I've read there has been quite a lot of technological improvements re: safety.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

None, and don't go down your usual road of personalizing this when the discussion isn't going your way. It's just another form of the cancel culture you're otherwise so accomplished with. And yes, a multipronged approach is necessary of course. But I'm just not aware of any single other method other than fracking that has proven to be as effective. Are you?

"ME" personalizing it? Again with the hypocrisy.


As per my link, it is not yet clear that fracking is viable in the long term, for economic reasons, let alone the challenges and consequences. The technical problems can likely be overcome, but the economic and geopolitical issues around fossil fuels, including natural gas, make fossil fuel investment increasingly risky. Whenever Saudi Arabia or Russia (Gazprom and oil) sneeze, global fossil fuel futures catch a cold. Let's watch for a bit.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

They promote stereotypes that it's all about uncaring Americans and other wealthy people choosing Escalades over CRV's (thanks L-E ), when the reality is that wealthier people and more prosperous nations consume more energy. It's always been this way and always will. But the stereotypes play to class warfare politics, seemingly never out of vogue.

Energy use is energy use. You decide - grocery shopping in your Esca should take priority over a South Asian family cooking dinner?

There are ways to keep all your luxuries and quality of life, while also using less energy. Is a Tesla SUV less posh than an Escalade? But you won't consider anything that involves the least little bit of self-control, effort, or investment, will you...

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Agreed. Maybe you've read Shellenberger. Doesn't seem politically viable in these post-Fukishima days, and maybe for good reason. But from what I've read there has been quite a lot of technological improvements re: safety.

Agree. Politics difficult. But Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were all very old and relatively unsafe designs.

I've added a chart to my earlier post showing that France is generating over 70% of its electricity from nuclear.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

They promote stereotypes that it's all about uncaring Americans and other wealthy people choosing Escalades over CRV's (thanks L-E ), when the reality is that wealthier people and more prosperous nations consume more energy. It's always been this way and always will. But the stereotypes play to class warfare politics, seemingly never out of vogue.

This debate is hard enough without devolving into nationalism, politics and right wing sloganeering ('class warfare'). Please give it a rest.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Thanks for this, exile. Your observation may be correct (please provide a citation or source for this) but for the sake of argument and to be generous, I will assume it is true for now.
Coal generates 0.36-0.38 kgCO2/KWHr
Natural gas generates 0.2
(my source was https://www.volker-quaschning.de/dat...ez/index_e.php )
So, that is a big difference and the shift from coal to natural gas has contributed to a decline in CO2/KWH. However, if you look at CO2 from electricity generation overall, we have made little overall progress on reducing output in the last 30 years (though some progress has been made since the peak in 2004-2007 year range). Source:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emis....php/index.php
(see figure 4).
In 2019 the US generated ~1 billion metric tons of CO2 from coal. Converting all of that to natural gas would reduce that to about 600 million metric tons. Since the total is currently ~5.1 billion metric tons, that would yield an overall reduction of ~11%. That just ain't going to do it.
Replacing just the current coal with solar/wind would yield a cut of the full 1 billion metric tons, or about 20% (denominator here is for electricity generation). That assumes you stick with current natural gas and petroleum electricity firing.

"in order to keep warming under the 2°C (3.6°F) threshold agreed on by the world’s governments at a 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will have to be 40 to 70 percent lower than what they were in 2010."
(Source: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...nge-ipcc-17300

Keep in mind here that reducing CO2 from power plants is a lot easier than, say, reducing it from air transport. Since air transport is so difficult to reduce, we need greater reductions from fixed power sources, such as electrical generation.

So it is true that coal to gas has reduced CO2 per KWHr
But it is false that coal to gas is going to be anywhere close to sufficient to get us to 'net zero'. Much more aggressive changes will be necessary.

Here's one source (from 2017) which uses World Bank data and explains some of the discrepancies produced by various other (more biased) sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...h=5416c44c3535

"Between 2005 and 2017, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12.4% on an absolute basis and by 19.9% on a per capita basis."

"According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union."

The articles also states that renewables and lower consumption accounted for a small part of the decline, but it was predominantly the result of natural gas replacing more expensive and higher polluting coal.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Agreed. Doesn't seem politically viable in these post-Fukishima days, and maybe for good reason. But from what I've read there has been quite a lot of technological improvements re: safety.

A point of agreement!
Humans and their governments are notoriously bad at objectively assessing risks that are very low in predicted likelihood but catastrophically severe. There is some very interesting behavioral economics data on this.
Nuclear may well need to be part of the mix (especially for supporting a primarily renewable grid that generates no juice if the sun is set and wind is not blowing). Battery capacity can play a role here as well - it will be interesting to see how that might play out.
There are actually two major rubs with nuclear. One is the catastrophic risks that you allude to. The other is dealing with the waste from normal operations - I don't know about France, but in the US, no one wants nuclear waste in their state. We know exactly how much such waste the plants generate and there is no solution to it on the horizon. We can't build nuclear plants if we have nowhere to put the waste. Some have pointed out that expired solar panels and wind blades are a waste problem - true, but that is nothing compared to nuclear.
I really, really hope ITER (fusion) can be made to work. No doubt it will be harder than it seems today and we can't bet the planet waiting for it. But it is a hopeful technology and could be awesome.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"ME" personalizing it? Again with the hypocrisy.


As per my link, it is not yet clear that fracking is viable in the long term, for economic reasons, let alone the challenges and consequences. The technical problems can likely be overcome, but the economic and geopolitical issues around fossil fuels, including natural gas, make fossil fuel investment increasingly risky. Whenever Saudi Arabia or Russia (Gazprom and oil) sneeze, global fossil fuel futures catch a cold. Let's watch for a bit.

Yes YOU. Can't think of anyone else on this forum who does it better. If you don't have the self-awareness then try knocking it off for awhile and see how quickly the civility of the discussion improves.

Depends how you define "long-term." Meanwhile we will need to transition for a lot of reasons, and the production of natural gas worldwide seems to be the most viable answer. At least right now. Certainly not the unprecedented export of coal plants to the developing world by China. Technology can (and eventually will) change that, certainly faster than shaming or alienating people because of their relative affluence or their politics.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Energy use is energy use. You decide - grocery shopping in your Esca should take priority over a South Asian family cooking dinner?

There are ways to keep all your luxuries and quality of life, while also using less energy. Is a Tesla SUV less posh than an Escalade? But you won't consider anything that involves the least little bit of self-control, effort, or investment, will you...

Remarkable.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here's one source (from 2017) which uses World Bank data and explains some of the discrepancies produced by various other (more biased) sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...h=5416c44c3535

"Between 2005 and 2017, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12.4% on an absolute basis and by 19.9% on a per capita basis."

"According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union."

The articles also states that renewables and lower consumption accounted for a small part of the decline, but it was predominantly the result of natural gas replacing more expensive and higher polluting coal.

All true enough, but two different kettles of fish. You are annotating past progress. I was projecting how that cannot be sufficient for what we need going forward. I acknowledged that coal to natural gas has helped with some metrics. It is mathematically impossible that that will do what we need going forward, even if coal goes to zero and is fully replaced by gas.