Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Energy - Fossil, Renewable, Nuclear

Jan 4, 2017#1

Eriol

An interesting controversy on this one in Ontario right now. Here's two different articles from major national chains:
Ontario Power Generation stands by plan to bury nuclear waste near Lake Huron

Surely in the vast land mass that comprises Canada, there must be a better place to permanently store nuclear waste than on the shores of Lake Huron," said U.S. congressman Dan Kildee.
...
No matter what process is followed, burying radioactive waste beside the Great Lakes, the irreplaceable drinking water for 40 million people, will always be a bad idea.

And the other:
Study shows deep nuclear waste vault at Bruce Nuclear poses no greater harm to Great Lakes than more remote sites

A joint review panel concluded the Bruce site – 1.2 kilometres from Lake Huron and 680 metres below the surface, in virtually impermeable sedimentary rock that hasn't moved in millions of years – would be ideal.

“You can look at this geographically or geologically,” Powers said. “Geographically, it's located 1.2 kilometres from the lake. Geologically, it is 450 million years from the lake.”

Notice the large difference in tones there? Read the whole of both articles for what seems to be a relatively complete picture of the dispute, but it does come down to one thing IMO: is any science good enough for storage, or is it all optics? I'm getting the feeling it's the 2nd. I think it's right to take into account any transportation risks versus a place on-site with regards to how "bad stuff" could happen in transport.

I'm clearly on the "side" of the 2nd article, because quite frankly they have the better catchphrase that's correct scientifically. It's interesting to me that the statement (from the official making the report) wasn't reported on by the CBC at all. Well, not surprising, but interesting that it's so blatant.

Also, why is a guy from the USA commenting on this and being given large press in Canada? That's unusual in itself. Yes it's a border lake, and it's somewhat logical, but it's WEIRD in Canada. Usually just being from the USA gets your opinion shouted down up here.

Jan 4, 2017#2

sixpackshaker

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

If you are going to bury the stuff, there are fare worse locations.

I am still upset that the US built a site to store ours then chickened out at the last minute.

Jan 4, 2017#3

Denbrought

Sweet, yet another excuse to link to my perennially favorite paper Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Sandia National Laboratories report.

This place is a message...and part of a system of messages...pay attention to it!
Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
This place is not a place of honor...no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here...nothing valued is here.
What is here is dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.
The danger is in a particular location...it increases toward a center...the center of danger is here...of a particular size and shape, and below us.
The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.
The danger is to the body, and it can kill.
The form of the danger is an emanation of energy.
The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

Jan 4, 2017#4

Eriol

I like the message at the end Den. Though the paper is a little big. Glad you posted that part, as reading the actual pdf is a bit... lengthy.

Jan 4, 2017#5

Denbrought

Eriol said:
I like the message at the end Den. Though the paper is a little big. Glad you posted that part, as reading the actual pdf is a bit... lengthy.

Took me a weekend of on-and-off reading, but it's such a fascinating exercise in thought.

Here is an excerpt site that I usually quote-mine to get people interested in reading the whole report: WIPP Exhibit: Message to 12,000 A.D.

Jan 4, 2017#6

Chad Sexington

I've got a parking stall but no car, you guys can put your nuclear waste there if you want.

Jan 4, 2017#7

PatrThom

--Patrick

Jan 18, 2017#8

Eriol

There wasn't another good "energy" thread that I saw right away, so I picked this one: Ontario’s crisis of unaffordable energy

For those non-Canadians here, the person they're referring to at the town hall commented that she's paying $900/m on her mortgage, and $1200/m on her electricity/heat.

The greater message of the article though is something that I think is often ignored: cheap energy virtually always means a more prosperous country. Everything just goes "faster" when energy is cheap, and it really impacts those at/near the bottom in awesome ways, like their heating/cooling bills, gas money, etc. A lot of the (wrong-headed IMO) push to "greener" technologies also means "more expensive." This is the idea behind a carbon tax, in that if you tax the carbon-sourced energy to be as expensive (or more) than the "green" tech (which often needs rare-earth materials dug up from horrifically unsafe and polluting Chinese mines, but that's a whole other topic), then the non-carbon sources will be economically viable, and a transition will happen. What this leaves out of course is that the end result is that energy is just more expensive for everybody, impacting quality of life for everybody.

Jan 18, 2017#9

GasBandit

Eriol said:
There wasn't another good "energy" thread that I saw right away, so I picked this one: Ontario’s crisis of unaffordable energy

For those non-Canadians here, the person they're referring to at the town hall commented that she's paying $900/m on her mortgage, and $1200/m on her electricity/heat.

The greater message of the article though is something that I think is often ignored: cheap energy virtually always means a more prosperous country. Everything just goes "faster" when energy is cheap, and it really impacts those at/near the bottom in awesome ways, like their heating/cooling bills, gas money, etc. A lot of the (wrong-headed IMO) push to "greener" technologies also means "more expensive." This is the idea behind a carbon tax, in that if you tax the carbon-sourced energy to be as expensive (or more) than the "green" tech (which often needs rare-earth materials dug up from horrifically unsafe and polluting Chinese mines, but that's a whole other topic), then the non-carbon sources will be economically viable, and a transition will happen. What this leaves out of course is that the end result is that energy is just more expensive for everybody, impacting quality of life for everybody.

A $1200 heating bill made me think she lived in (google, google google) Fort Severn or something, not Buckhorn. So, that's pretty ridiculous.

But yeah, this is basically what guys like me are talking about when we say "sure, you can enact that kind of energy policy, so long as you're willing to accept a complete and utter collapse of western civilization and our way of life."

Jan 19, 2017#10

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
A $1200 heating bill made me think she lived in (google, google google) Fort Severn or something, not Buckhorn. So, that's pretty ridiculous.

I haven't got a clue where Buckhorn is.

But I'm wildly confused about that electricity/heating bill, and have been wildly perplexed about all the similar stories from here in Ontario. My bill is like 6% of that. (Rounding up!)

Maybe I should've looked into this at some point, but I didn't so I'm still befuddled.[DOUBLEPOST=1484806240,1484805958][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, TIL there's a Fort Severn. I thought you'd mistyped Port Severn.

Jan 19, 2017#11

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
I haven't got a clue where Buckhorn is.

But I'm wildly confused about that electricity/heating bill, and have been wildly perplexed about all the similar stories from here in Ontario. My bill is like 6% of that. (Rounding up!)

Maybe I should've looked into this at some point, but I didn't so I'm still befuddled.[DOUBLEPOST=1484806240,1484805958][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, TIL there's a Fort Severn. I thought you'd mistyped Port Severn.

I had to google Buckhorn, too. It's about 50 mi NE of Toronto, apparently.

Jan 19, 2017#12

Gruebeard

Aye, I googled it afterwards.

I was expecting it to be out Kingston way (East end of Lake Ontario) for some reason.

Jan 19, 2017#13

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Aye, I googled it afterwards.

I was expecting it to be out Kingston way (East end of Lake Ontario) for some reason.

I've had over $1000/month electricity bill in Newfoundland. And on the southern part of it too (not high Labrador) during winter, so this story is unsurprising to me, especially if you have a Carbon Tax on top of other things in Ontario.

Jan 19, 2017#14

Gruebeard

The carbon tax only started this year, so it's not a contributor to any of these stories yet.

Jan 19, 2017#15

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
The carbon tax only started this year, so it's not a contributor to any of these stories yet.

No, but the phasing out of other energy sources for this cause IS a part of the story already. Less supply = higher prices in most cases, and this is one of them. If there were a glut of electricity, prices would fall, which is good for everybody (except the most extreme of the environmentalists).

Jan 19, 2017#16

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Less supply = higher prices in most cases, and this is one of them.

Are you sure this is one of them? Everything I hear about out electricity supply has been that we have significantly more capacity than demand.

And after a quick google, I found the site for the corporation that seems responsible for planning and managing Ontario's suppy. Here's some basic stats showing that we far more than enough capacity to supply what is being used, and if you click through some of the links you'll find they list Ontario's peak generating capacity at 36000 MW while the forecast peak energy use is 25000 MW (in bad weather, summer)

Jan 20, 2017#17

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
Remember Enron and how they manipulated the market to create phony electricity shortages in California? How do we know the same thing isn't still going on, just much less blatantly?

Well, the supplier is the government, so that means the market is definitely being manipulated.

Oh wait, that was Gas's line.

But yeah, Ontario has long been fucking up its electricty system in politically idiotic ways. Our current government spent around a billion dollars to not build a power plant. A previous government sold off bits of the infrastructure in a privatization kick that didn't workas intended. And several governments combined funneled endless cash into certain nuclear plants that just laid unused and apparently unfixable. I can't remember if that last issue was ever resolved.

It's a giant mess all its own, it doesn't need to be called an Enron.

*sigh*

Jan 23, 2017#18

Eriol

Again on energy, this time a Pipeline spill, complete with headline: 200,000 litres of oil spilled after pipeline leak in southern Sask. (Note for non-Canadians: Sask = Saskatchewan, one of our prairie provinces)

Notice they didn't say Barrels, which is the usual measure, but Litres, because the number is higher. Not just one source, all of them say this higher number. Now let's put that number in perspective. How many "normal" liquid train cars is that? I googled quickly, and came up with this article on wiki: DOT-111 tank car From the article, about 80% of the cars in Canada are this type, so it's PERFECTLY representative.

And the grand total is: Less than 2 cars. Its capacity is listed on wiki as 113,979L. So if there is a train derailment, instead of a pipeline leak, you only need TWO cars to be impacted to be WORSE than this. And usually... let's just say that trains carry one hell of a lot more than two cars typically.

Trying to sensationalize this is also almost-comedic:

Approximately 200,000 litres of crude oil was released onto agricultural land, but no oil entered any creeks or streams. Officials say the spill affects an area as much as 20 metres in radius.

20 meters is a bit more than 60 feet btw. My driveway is longer than that. That's maybe the length of my house, and in most places something that big would barely qualify as a pond.

You want biased reporting, you have it right here. This is pure anti-pipeline sensationalism. Every little "non-event" is massive news. This is actually a GREAT example of how WELL they work on making leaks small, as opposed to trains, or any other method of transport. That it was only that much is quite awesome actually.

Jan 24, 2017#19

Bubble181

That's a great interpretation you give there, dude, but it's also a very selective reading. If there's a 200K liter oil spill, they're very, very lucky it's all so frozen over it can't seep into the ground. Even so, a 20m spill will mean millions in damages. If it had reached a creek or the ground wasn't frozen, that'd have affected thousands of square meters of terrain.

Also, it's not exactly being blown up to epic proportions, is it? It's a small news item on some local networks. Are you suggesting it isn't worth reporting on at all?

Jan 24, 2017#20

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
Also, it's not exactly being blown up to epic proportions, is it? It's a small news item on some local networks. Are you suggesting it isn't worth reporting on at all?

CTV is one of our NATIONAL networks. So it's not local news. Remember, anything pipelines = bad, unless it's success, in which case, cover it like it's a failure. This should be covered about as widely as a garbage truck rolling over and spilling out, and instead it's (at least) national news.

I'm biased on this. I admit it. I used to be in that industry (not anymore), so I know the ins and outs. But remember that for a LARGE percentage of the energy you use in North America, it's either transported by pipeline, or by rail. There isn't an alternative, and pipelines are MUCH safer than rail. Sensationalizing non-events only helps the idiotic anti-pipeline stance that's shaped up out there.

Remember, it's not pipelines vs "nebulous cheap-as-oil-but-green" energy, and if we are obstructionist to pipelines the dream will dominate. It's pipelines versus HUGE energy prices because of lack of resources. Just talk to Ontario about that. Jobs are already leaving the province because of high energy prices. IMO they haven't seen ANYTHING yet. Cheap energy is the lifeblood of economies. Stories like this only hurt everybody.

Jan 24, 2017#21

Bubble181

Yeah, see, I assure you *my* energy is about 50/50 nuclear and wind, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Using oil just to burn it is a horrible waste of resources, in my opinion, as nuclear is easier, cheaper, and despite what a lot of people say, so far, less horrible for the environment. Also, we need oil for other things like making plastics.

Jan 24, 2017#22

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
Yeah, see, I assure you *my* energy is about 50/50 nuclear and wind, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Using oil just to burn it is a horrible waste of resources, in my opinion, as nuclear is easier, cheaper, and despite what a lot of people say, so far, less horrible for the environment. Also, we need oil for other things like making plastics.

I'm one of the most pro-nuclear people on this board, but the political environment over here just isn't going for it, because a lot of the companies over here are complete idiots and make the whole thing much more dangerous than it should be. Also a reluctance over here to fund alternative nuclear power sources (Thorium/LFTR) which is abundant, and you can't make bombs from.

As for Belgium (if that's not where you're from, forgive me), the Energy in Belgium article in wikipedia disagrees with you. Greatly. You're close with Nuclear (50-60% according to the article), but as of 2012, ALL renewables were in the 3-5% range, not 50%, with fossil fuels being over 20%. Something tells me it hasn't changed that drastically in 4-5 years.

Nice graph of that there too:

Jan 24, 2017#23

Bubble181

Yes, hi, I'm not a company. Domestic power use in Belgium is about 18% green as of this moment, and some people - like, you know, me, have a "green" tariffs which guarantee 100% green energy. Total Belgian power is around 10% green right now - four years is a lot in this sector as i'm sure you're aware.

Jan 24, 2017#24

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
Yes, hi, I'm not a company. Domestic power use in Belgium is about 18% green as of this moment, and some people - like, you know, me, have a "green" tariffs which guarantee 100% green energy. Total Belgian power is around 10% green right now - four years is a lot in this sector as i'm sure you're aware.

How good is the tracking on that kind of thing? I've always been deeply skeptical that power is actually allocated such that you can claim AT ALL TIMES that said capacity is going to those who request it, and that people aren't actually dipping into fossil-fuel capacity and such during stressful times. So that's always felt like a "I can pay more and be good" (ie: an indulgence) rather than actually changing the way you're getting electricity and who from. For example, about 10-15 years ago, there was a claim from where I lived that their transit was "riding the wind" and their energy was 100% wind power... except for the fact that there was only barely that much wind CAPACITY in the province (assuming it was blowing all the time, which it doesn't, and assuming that the bursts were actually leveled out to an average, which isn't how it works either), let alone all the times it was actually running, and combined with others who were paying more for it like you are.

Or is the tracking of such capacities (nationally) quite good where you are? From what I know about the electricity sector (not a lot, but not zero) I tend to the skeptical on that one, but I could be wrong on that in any specific case.

Jan 24, 2017#25

Anonymous

Well, that's always a bit up in the air, of course. One megawatt doesn't look different from another. A supplier has to prove they're providing whatever they claim as green in a green way, though. That is, if 10 MW of their clients' usage is sold as "green", they have to produce at least 10 MW green at that time. I suppose in the end it'll often just mean the energy their non-green clients are using ends up slightly less green than it might've been otherwise.

Jan 24, 2017#26

Bubble181

err,the Anonymous wasa misclick.

Jan 24, 2017#27

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
err,the Anonymous wasa misclick.

Figured, no worries. It's all related to the "peak" problem, how everybody uses lots right when they get home from work (cooking dinner) and such. Though that's not the "Real" peak either, since manufacturing and business usage is much greater than home usage, at least in the USA according to their EIA: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=86&t=1

If you click through the 3 categories there, home, business (buildings mostly) and manufacturing, the numbers are 10 Quadrillion BTU, for homes, 7 for non-manufacturing business, and 19 for manufacturing. 10 vs 7 vs 19. Or 10 vs 26 if you prefer.

Basically, the big machines involved in manufacturing (or even small ones, like arc welders) use a LOT of energy. Your home doesn't compare, and most of those costs aren't reducible by much, hence why higher energy prices suppress business/manufacturing activity so much, and thus economies in general.

Jan 24, 2017#28

Eriol

More pipeline/energy news, though IMO good news this time:
NYT Article - Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama
CTV News (Canada) - Trump signs Keystone order, but far from done deal
HuffPo - Trump Signs Executive Orders On Keystone XL, Dakota Access Pipelines

Figured best to give perspectives from each side of the border, plus an extra one.

What I found as a fascinating statement was this from the NYT article:

Anticipating criticism from advocates of tackling climate change, [Trump] added: “I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it. But it’s out of control and we’re going to make it a very short process. And we’re going to either give you your permits or we’re not going to give you your permits. But you’re going to know very quickly. And generally speaking we’re going to be giving you your permits.”

This is in reference for how long Keystone was in Limbo, from 2010 until 2015, which for just about any business is a damned long time to be up in the air. And I'm using 2010 not 2009, since it was 2010 when Canada gave approval, so you guys already had that year.

Edit: The differences in the articles are fascinating IMO. The types of reporting alone are probably worth a paper in media studies on which each emphasizes, and the difference therein. Interestingly, the spill I mentioned a few posts up is mentioned (and linked to) in the HuffPo article, but not in the others. With a bit of other correlation, the CTV article also talks about how the vast majority of the increase in oil exports to the USA has been via rail. And I mentioned above about how FEW cars are needed to make a spill larger than the one HuffPo linked to (for reference, if TWO (2) cars derail, the spill is bigger).

Anyways, interesting stuff!

Feb 1, 2017#29

Eriol

Interesting: Cameco threatening legal action after Japanese company cancels major uranium contract

TEPCO has its plants shutdown because of new regulations after Fukushima, and thus doesn't need uranium if the power plants aren't operating. The article says it best as to why the Canadian company is claiming bullshit:

The company is arguing the shutdown is a "force majeure" or unavoidable catastrophe that cancels the contract. However, Cameco disagrees, and plans to fight the company in court.

"We can't see how TEPCO can claim Force Majeure due to government regulations when other Japanese utilities have successfully restarted their plants," said Cameco president and CEO Tim Gitzel in a conference call. "Nuclear power is not prohibited in Japan. In fact, three are operating right now, and seven have been approved to restart."

Feb 1, 2017#30

mikerc

Eriol said:
What I found as a fascinating statement was this from the NYT article:

Anticipating criticism from advocates of tackling climate change, [Trump] added: “I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it. But it’s out of control and we’re going to make it a very short process. And we’re going to either give you your permits or we’re not going to give you your permits. But you’re going to know very quickly. And generally speaking we’re going to be giving you your permits.”

Quick process? Trump is going to make yea or nay decisions quickly so that companies aren't going to be left in limbo over whether they can go ahead with their developments or not? You know what could do with a quick decision? That Scottish Wind Farm off the coast of Aberdeen.

Mind you, that has had a quick decision. Multiple times. In government, in the courts, they've all looked at it & reasonably quickly decided "Yup, let's go ahead with that". Still hasn't gone ahead, because Trump's been fighting it since 2011. I guess he doesn't think we need quick decisions when those decisions go against him...

Feb 3, 2017#31

Frank

Eriol said:
Interesting: Cameco threatening legal action after Japanese company cancels major uranium contract

TEPCO has its plants shutdown because of new regulations after Fukushima, and thus doesn't need uranium if the power plants aren't operating. The article says it best as to why the Canadian company is claiming bullshit:

Foreign company suing a Japanese company in Japan. Good fucking luck.

Mar 9, 2017#32

Eriol

Big Tesla/Solarcity solar project opens on Kauai: Tesla's new solar energy station will power Hawaii at night

To me this is a "good news... but" kind of story, and I'll outline why:

What kind of subsidies did this get? Land, taxes, direct funding, etc. How do those compare to other power projects? If it's in-line to those, then OK, but still, I wonder.
How much did the project cost up-front and to whom at which levels of government/industry? Is this 100% private, with the power company on the island having a contract with Tesla and that's it? Seems unlikely, but technically possible.
What's the lifetime of the project, and replacement/maintenance costs of both the panels (glass breaks over time, though at least it's not an area known for hail... I think, they do get hurricanes now and then) and the batteries themselves. Thus if the batteries last 10 years, the cost of replacement should be factored in over that time, along with expected panel breakage/replacement/maintenance (cleaning off the panels of bird poop for instance).
Will this reduce power costs on the island at all? Often more supply = less price with many goods, but so many don't work that way either (usually due to subsidies and deals, see #1). Sometimes with renewables the power companies offer to "let" you pay MORE to say "you're getting your energy from wind" or whatever, even if sometimes that's obviously a lie.
What was this land used for before the project went in? Lots of Kauai is undeveloped (I've been there BTW), but still, this looks like it could have been agricultural land. Was it? Or just natural land that has been cleared and re-purposed? That has an impact as well, but it's not all the same.

So this could be an example of solar being used with storage for good purpose, but it could also be massive subsidies in action.

And on the other hand, why haven't other methods been supported on the Hawaiian islands so far? In another comment set on this article elsewhere, people mention at a minimum Ocean temperature methods, as well as geothermal. I know the volcano is extinct under Kauai, but can you dig down non-trivially far and get a similar benefit, or no? Why that isn't ALREADY 100% of the power generation on Hawaii (big island I mean) is something that boggles my mind (Kilauea has been erupting continually since like '84 or something).

Mar 9, 2017#33

MindDetective

Eriol said:
Big Tesla/Solarcity solar project opens on Kauai: Tesla's new solar energy station will power Hawaii at night

To me this is a "good news... but" kind of story, and I'll outline why:

What kind of subsidies did this get? Land, taxes, direct funding, etc. How do those compare to other power projects? If it's in-line to those, then OK, but still, I wonder.

How much did the project cost up-front and to whom at which levels of government/industry? Is this 100% private, with the power company on the island having a contract with Tesla and that's it? Seems unlikely, but technically possible.

What's the lifetime of the project, and replacement/maintenance costs of both the panels (glass breaks over time, though at least it's not an area known for hail... I think, they do get hurricanes now and then) and the batteries themselves. Thus if the batteries last 10 years, the cost of replacement should be factored in over that time, along with expected panel breakage/replacement/maintenance (cleaning off the panels of bird poop for instance).

Will this reduce power costs on the island at all? Often more supply = less price with many goods, but so many don't work that way either (usually due to subsidies and deals, see #1). Sometimes with renewables the power companies offer to "let" you pay MORE to say "you're getting your energy from wind" or whatever, even if sometimes that's obviously a lie.

What was this land used for before the project went in? Lots of Kauai is undeveloped (I've been there BTW), but still, this looks like it could have been agricultural land. Was it? Or just natural land that has been cleared and re-purposed? That has an impact as well, but it's not all the same.

So this could be an example of solar being used with storage for good purpose, but it could also be massive subsidies in action.

And on the other hand, why haven't other methods been supported on the Hawaiian islands so far? In another comment set on this article elsewhere, people mention at a minimum Ocean temperature methods, as well as geothermal. I know the volcano is extinct under Kauai, but can you dig down non-trivially far and get a similar benefit, or no? Why that isn't ALREADY 100% of the power generation on Hawaii (big island I mean) is something that boggles my mind (Kilauea has been erupting continually since like '84 or something).

I bet you could tweet some of those questions right to Elon Musk and get some responses. He's very active/responsive on Twitter.

Mar 9, 2017#34

Eriol

MindDetective said:
I bet you could tweet some of those questions right to Elon Musk and get some responses. He's very active/responsive on Twitter.

That would require me to do more than lurk on Twitter. Be a true Twit....ter user. Nah.

Mar 9, 2017#35

Krisken

Eriol said:
That would require me to do more than lurk on Twitter. Be a true Twit....ter user. Nah.

So you're saying you don't really care enough to ask.

Mar 9, 2017#36

Eriol

Krisken said:
So you're saying you don't really care enough to ask.

I'm not willing to put myself out to what's "essentially" the world stage by asking a celebrity (essentially) an open question that then people will pile on to in every direction. Not interested.

In "relative private" here, where the people are remarkably well-informed (on the whole) and I can usually get answers without such exposure? Sounds a LOT better.

Mar 9, 2017#37

PatrThom

That's what throwaway accounts are for.

--Patrick

Mar 9, 2017#38

Gruebeard

I should have tweeted Taylor Swift today to ask her to wish my bartender a happy birthday.

Mar 9, 2017#39

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
I'm not willing to put myself out to what's "essentially" the world stage by asking a celebrity (essentially) an open question that then people will pile on to in every direction. Not interested.

In "relative private" here, where the people are remarkably well-informed (on the whole) and I can usually get answers without such exposure? Sounds a LOT better.

After multiple deleted attempts at a reply, I'd better just go with...

Mar 24, 2017#40

Eriol

Keystone XL 'approved'
State Department to approve Keystone pipeline permit
The U.S. State Department approves TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline

I put "approved" in quotes above because apparently it's a leaked announcement, and the "Real word" will be at 10:15am EST according to one of the articles.

Apr 21, 2017#41

mikerc

UK does not generate any electricity with coal on Friday. This is believed to be the first time Britain has gone 24 hours without any coal powered electricity generation since 1882. Before anyone gets too excited about renewables though it's worth noting that roughly half of the electricity generated was still done so via fossil fuels - natural gas. And another quarter came from Nuclear power stations. We're still a long long way from being able to meet all our energy demands via "green" energy.

Apr 21, 2017#42

DarkAudit

In a related story, Bob Murray and Don Blankenship (from prison, thank God) demand the Trump administration declare war on the UK.

Apr 21, 2017#43

mikerc

DarkAudit said:
In a related story, Bob Murray and Don Blankenship (from prison, thank God) demand the Trump administration declare war on the UK.

Crap! Unlike with North Korea I think he can actually find us on map as well.

Apr 21, 2017#44

DarkAudit

mroosc1979 said:
Crap! Unlike with North Korea I think he can actually find us on map as well.

Unless Russia pays him not to.

Apr 22, 2017#45

Gruebeard

mroosc1979 said:
UK does not generate any electricity with coal on Friday. This is believed to be the first time Britain has gone 24 hours without any coal powered electricity generation since 1882. Before anyone gets too excited about renewables though it's worth noting that roughly half of the electricity generated was still done so via fossil fuels - natural gas. And another quarter came from Nuclear power stations. We're still a long long way from being able to meet all our energy demands via "green" energy.

Yeah. Not-Coal doesn't mean green. Ontario's been coal-free for about 3 years now, and most (more than half) is nuclear, with hydrelectric and natural gas plants taking up nearly the rest of the burden.

One big improvement, though, seems to be an absence of smog in Toronto. The air has been much nicer thhe last few years.

Apr 22, 2017#46

GasBandit

Not burning coal is a non-trivial contribution to improving air quality, but also bear in mind one of the big reasons why natural gas has become much more viable as a fuel source is because its cost has dropped and its availability has skyrocketed since we started fracking. So, pick your poison, environmentalists, cause there's no such thing as a free lunch (or free energy for that matter).

Apr 22, 2017#47

DarkAudit

And once they've finished fracking your neck of the woods, they move on and don't come back. So good luck filling all those extra hotel rooms you built thinking the gas field workers would always be there.

Apr 23, 2017#48

Frank

DarkAudit said:
And once they've finished fracking your neck of the woods, they move on and don't come back. So good luck filling all those extra hotel rooms you built thinking the gas field workers would always be there.

You build hotels for workers?

Fuck, we just have mobile camps.

Apr 23, 2017#49

DarkAudit

Frank said:
You build hotels for workers?

Fuck, we just have mobile camps.

For a few years most of the available hotel rooms in the area were filled with gas field workers. But now all those jobs have gone elsewhere.

Apr 23, 2017#50

Hailey Knight

When someone says fracking, my mind will always go to Battlestar Galactica's word for fucking before it goes to the real thing.

May 9, 2017#51

Dei

So I posted in another thread about a home explosion in my town, because a cut pipe that wasn't sealed off from a well piped unrefined natural gas right into the soil around their basement. Colorado is now trying to pass legislature saying that all the oil and gas companies need to map their lines and make them accessible to the public. This is especially important where I live, because there are a lot of horizontal fracking wells set up going through residential areas, and a lot of older wells that may not be properly mapped. However, it looks like the energy lobby is paying a lot of money to see this not happen.

May 9, 2017#52

Frank

Energy lobby is by and large scum and should be hanged (along with most lobbies). But that's not news.

May 9, 2017#53

Eriol

Dei said:
So I posted in another thread about a home explosion in my town, because a cut pipe that wasn't sealed off from a well piped unrefined natural gas right into the soil around their basement. Colorado is now trying to pass legislature saying that all the oil and gas companies need to map their lines and make them accessible to the public. This is especially important where I live, because there are a lot of horizontal fracking wells set up going through residential areas, and a lot of older wells that may not be properly mapped. However, it looks like the energy lobby is paying a lot of money to see this not happen.

Dei, sorry to say you're being given the old bait-and-switch tactic here.

Fracking wells are nearly 8000 feet deep ON AVERAGE: Source(this is NOT a pro-oil website, the opposite in fact)

From the link you gave, if you follow the chain of links, you get to this statement

The uncapped, abandoned line was about 5 feet from the foundation of the home, investigators said.

So if a (typical) foundation goes no deeper than 10 feet, and this line was BELOW it (it's unclear, who's to say it wasn't to the side?) then this line was about 15 feet down at maximum. In other words, it had ZERO to do with fracking, or anything related to exploration, or even mass-scale transport of natural gas. This was the same depth as any lines that would be going to/from your house if you were hooked up to gas for heat/cooking. So it was somebody probably already breaking a regulation about how/where pipes can go, and how they should be capped, etc. But it has ZERO to do with fracking. Could be from any type of gas well.

The issue on whether the public should have easy access to the maps of where the lines are at all times seems to me like a red herring. Do you have that for the electric company's buried (or even on poles if it's a remote area) transmission lines? How about the water and sewer lines? WHY does the public as a whole need them easily accessible? As long as you can call a number and get people out there to tell you where you can't dig (which is typical in cities, the "call before you dig" thing), then what's the issue? Seems like a "now we know where to protest (or worse stuff)" type of enabling bill, as opposed to having actual utility.

May 9, 2017#54

Dei

Eriol said:
Dei, sorry to say you're being given the old bait-and-switch tactic here.

Fracking wells are nearly 8000 feet deep ON AVERAGE: Source(this is NOT a pro-oil website, the opposite in fact)

From the link you gave, if you follow the chain of links, you get to this statement

So if a (typical) foundation goes no deeper than 10 feet, and this line was BELOW it (it's unclear, who's to say it wasn't to the side?) then this line was about 15 feet down at maximum. In other words, it had ZERO to do with fracking, or anything related to exploration, or even mass-scale transport of natural gas. This was the same depth as any lines that would be going to/from your house if you were hooked up to gas for heat/cooking. So it was somebody probably already breaking a regulation about how/where pipes can go, and how they should be capped, etc. But it has ZERO to do with fracking. Could be from any type of gas well.

The issue on whether the public should have easy access to the maps of where the lines are at all times seems to me like a red herring. Do you have that for the electric company's buried (or even on poles if it's a remote area) transmission lines? How about the water and sewer lines? WHY does the public as a whole need them easily accessible? As long as you can call a number and get people out there to tell you where you can't dig (which is typical in cities, the "call before you dig" thing), then what's the issue? Seems like a "now we know where to protest (or worse stuff)" type of enabling bill, as opposed to having actual utility.

What you have to understand is that there are a lot of old vertical wells in Colorado, and housing development and these wells are very close to each other. Right now, those lines aren't part of public record, and houses are being built and sold without full disclosure to the people buying then. I worry less about the new horizontal wells (There are two sets of these right by my neighborhood) but they don't make up the bulk of wells yet. The conflict between development (Colorado has a housing shortage right now) and drilling is a huge point of contention right now, because state regulations are trumping local regulations, and the line that wasn't capped was incredibly negligent.

Jun 2, 2017#55

Eriol

Interesting article about the Ontario electricity market: Ontario’s Fair Hydro Act ‘a Ponzi scheme’

Anybody from Ontario have a bill they can scan in or whatever (black out your personal stuff) and post here? I'm afraid I don't understand what they're talking about. What percentage of your fees are this "Global Adjustment" charge? Is it taking your prices from $0.10/kWh to $0.30/kWh or is it only like $0.02? That's still a 20% increase for nothing, but I wanted to ask for clarity here.

For reference, in NS I'm paying $0.15/kWh. Which sucks, considering it's my heat too.

Jun 2, 2017#56

Gruebeard

I'll tell you the change if I ever think to do so when I'm at home..

But most - so very much - of Ontario's energy comes from its nuclear, hydro, and gas generators, that I'm rather sure that paying only market value for the "green" stuff will have a negligible effect.

The real problems we've been having go back decades, from the massive waste (of money) spent on our nuke plants, from privatizing the delivery services, and then the repayment surcharges that get tacked onto our bills that probably just go into the government's general funds.

The Sun is just using this to attack the Liberals, but the Conservatives and even the NDP are to blame for our energy shit too. And the NDP hasn't been in power for nearly 30 years.

Jun 2, 2017#57

Gruebeard

So,

a Global News article suggests that the global adjustment charge actually accounts for about 75% of our price per kilowatt-hour (and doesn't show upon our residential bills separately)

And then actually looking at what this GAC actually is, it turns out that it's really just a fancy phrase that translates into marking up the price to make a profit earmarked for maintenance and expansion.

That is, we're gonna be paying this money in taxes this way or another.

Jun 2, 2017#58

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
So,

a Global News article suggests that the global adjustment charge actually accounts for about 75% of our price per kilowatt-hour (and doesn't show upon our residential bills separately)

And then actually looking at what this GAC actually is, it turns out that it's really just a fancy phrase that translates into marking up the price to make a profit earmarked for maintenance and expansion.

That is, we're gonna be paying this money in taxes this way or another.

Ya but the difference is that if it's on income tax, low-income people aren't hammered with it like they are now. That the NDP isn't all over this for exactly that reason boggles my mind, but they have too many Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) in their party, and thus energy cost up = good to them, because then more are dependent on the government to give BACK the money via rebates/programs, rather than having it cheap to begin with.

Remember for the NDP and those further "left" that any program that makes you more dependent on government decisions is a GOOD thing.

Edit: link on the global story please? I'd like to read about how you're paying 4x what your actual cost should be because of government contracts. That seems very quotable.

Jun 2, 2017#59

Gruebeard

The market value of generated electricity is apparently less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour (that's from that global news article saying the GAC jacks up the price threefold). So your province is jacking up the price, too.

I imagine every jurisdiction in North America charges a mark up.

I have no idea what to say to this other than "yeah, I've thought for a long time that electricity should be provided by the government similar to how our road network is, or our police and fire services. That it's such a fundamental aspect of our society that it needs to just be."

But damn, we spend a fortune on our road system, too. We don't bitch about it the same because we don't see the bill.

Jun 2, 2017#60

Gruebeard

But I'm rushed to get to work right now, so I can't provide a more thoughtful response.

Jun 6, 2017#61

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Anybody from Ontario have a bill they can scan in or whatever (black out your personal stuff) and post here?

Well, I'm rather surprised I actually got around to this. Not that I think you find it illuminating.

Jun 6, 2017#62

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Well, I'm rather surprised I actually got around to this. Not that I think you find it illuminating.

View attachment 24350

Ya, not very helpful unfortunately, but thanks for going through the extra effort.

Jun 12, 2017#63

Eriol

I thought this article would be complete biased bullshit, but it actually wasn't: Opinion: Pipeline approvals based on faulty assumptions

One of the key assumptions made in approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion was that Alberta’s bitumen is being unfairly discounted by U.S. buyers and that its price can be maximized by getting it to tidewater and then to Asian markets.

The federal and Alberta governments and the oil industry argue that expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline would unlock Asian markets and result in a revenue windfall. However, a review of international and North American oil prices reveals that a significant ‘tidewater price premium’ doesn’t exist.

Government and industry enthusiasm for tidewater pipeline access arose from a large premium that existed between international and North American oil prices between 2011 and 2014 due to a pipeline bottleneck in the U.S. caused by a rapid increase in U.S. oil production. This bottleneck has since been eliminated and the price differential retreated to just US$0.82 per barrel in 2016. Given the higher transportation costs of exporting oil to Asia compared with the U.S., Canadian producers are likely to receive less from oil sold in Asia than if the oil was sold to U.S. refineries.

I think not having all your eggs in one basket (the USA) is a good idea, and thus it should be built on that idea alone, but the points raised aren't all bad. Some of the others below there about Climate Targets and reductions in production (ya right) I think are... naive, but that just IMO.

Either way, not a bad point, but what happens if the bottleneck they mentioned re-asserts itself? Or if greater growth in Asia spurs greater demand versus USA? There's just a number of good reasons to not have only one buyer, even if they're relatively equal. What's true today won't necessarily be true in the future, and if somebody thinks they can make money off of it, all the better.

Jul 14, 2017#64

Eriol

Wasn't sure of the best thread to post this in, but it's definitely energy-centric, so I'm putting it here: Key Republicans call for probe to see if Russia funded anti-fracking groups

The letter pointed to reports that Russian entities may have funneled millions through a Bermuda shell company, Klein Ltd., to the Sea Change Foundation in San Francisco, which has in turn provided grants on anti-fracking groups like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund.

...

Allegations of a connection between Russian president Vladimir Putin and environmental advocacy groups are hardly new.
In 2014, former U.N. Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Russia has “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a private 2014 meeting that Russia had funded “phony environmental groups” to fight pipelines and fracking, according to an email leaked last year by WikiLeaks from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s account.

Bolding is mine

Thoughts? Obviously not just Republicans who have accused Russia of doing this, and IMO it makes sense for them to do so.

Jul 14, 2017#65

PatrThom

Weird. I mean, the best reason I can think of for doing so would be to increase market demand for "Soviet" oil, but that seems a stretch.

--Patrick

Jul 14, 2017#66

blotsfan

Fracking has dramatically lowered oil prices which has badly hurt the russian economy.

Jul 15, 2017#67

PatrThom

blotsfan said:
Fracking has dramatically lowered oil prices which has badly hurt the russian economy.

That's more the Saudi's fault than fracking. I mean, they're the reason that tar sands took a tumble.

--Patrick

Jul 15, 2017#68

Eriol

blotsfan said:
Fracking has dramatically lowered oil prices which has badly hurt the russian economy.

I think it's more accurate to say it's dramatically reduced the price of natural gas which has then by proxy reduced the demand for oil, which has then lowered that price. But I could easily be wrong there.

Jul 15, 2017#69

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
Weird. I mean, the best reason I can think of for doing so would be to increase market demand for "Soviet" oil, but that seems a stretch.

--Patrick

Well, Russia's been acting for decades to harm the US in various ways. This would be just one little salvo in their attack on your economy.

Jul 26, 2017#70

Eriol

Definitely Canadian politics, but also definitely energy: Supreme Court quashes seismic testing in Nunavut, but gives green light to Enbridge pipeline

Given the past history of the Supreme Court, I found this a refreshing check on indigenous rights:

The court sent a shot across the bow in its ruling, warning the NEB and energy project proponents that "any decision affecting Aboriginal or treaty rights made on the basis of inadequate consultation will not be in compliance with the duty to consult."

But the ruling said consultations are a two-way street and Indigenous Peoples alone should not be given the final say on whether a project should proceed. Aboriginal rights must be balanced against "competing societal interests," the court said.

"This does not mean that the interests of Indigenous groups cannot be balanced with other interests at the accommodation stage," the justices wrote. "Indeed, it is for this reason that the duty to consult does not provide Indigenous groups with a 'veto' over final Crown decisions."

However:

The top court found that the NEB, acting as an agent of the crown, simply did not do enough in the Clyde River case, holding only one meeting with the community where officials from the oil company could answer few pressing questions.

So ya. Refreshingly balanced actually. If you do lots of consulting, it's enough to satisfy, but it's also clarified explicitly by our Supreme Court that the indigenous do not have a veto over pretty much everything in our country, which IMO is a good thing.

Sep 1, 2017#71

Eriol

I'll just leave this one here: Yet another renewable energy boondoggle

Sep 1, 2017#72

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
I'll just leave this one here: Yet another renewable energy boondoggle

A climate change denial blog? Not going to bother.

Sep 5, 2017#73

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
A climate change denial blog? Not going to bother.

Because remember, only read what you agree with. Then you'll never need to think about WHY you agree with it, supporting evidence, etc.

I'll just leave these graphs here from this article on the "denial blog" as you call it:

But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic.
...
Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).

The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming.

You can read the rest of the article if you wish. You can believe that everything there is 100% manufactured to confuse you.

Or you can think about what it says, and keep reading. Up to you.

Sep 5, 2017#74

Bubble181

I'm not going to say it's all made up - I don't have the time or the energy to devote to it.
However, I will point out that pretty much all climate scientists agree that going over the 2°C threshhold will cause a runaway effect where the heating up will self-propagate and self-reinforce. Due to, amongst others, melting ice caps, changing ocean currents, and so on. If we reach the 2° point, it's proably nearly impossible to keep it from going over 3° and permanently altering the planet.
Already you can see climate change in action - and anyone who's claiming four once-every-500-years storms in one year is normal just doesn't want to listen.

I don't know how far human action has caused and/or can stop or slow climate change. I do know CO2 is a ridiculous measurement. I don't know whether or not "clean power" is the solution.
But claiming we should just go on as we're going because all is fine and the climate isn't chaning at an accelerated rate, is plain madness.

Sep 5, 2017#75

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
However, I will point out that pretty much all climate scientists agree that going over the 2°C threshhold will cause a runaway effect where the heating up will self-propagate and self-reinforce. Due to, amongst others, melting ice caps, changing ocean currents, and so on. If we reach the 2° point, it's proably nearly impossible to keep it from going over 3° and permanently altering the planet.

This is a HUGE "citation needed" section here. Is it from the same people who said 97% of climate scientists agree on the general issue? If so, read this (or this, showing it's more like 0.3%, from the SAME DATA) and the links in there too.

Bubble181 said:
Already you can see climate change in action - and anyone who's claiming four once-every-500-years storms in one year is normal just doesn't want to listen.

Media hyperbole on every new storm does not mean it's 100, 500, or whatever year storm.

Bubble181 said:
I don't know how far human action has caused and/or can stop or slow climate change. I do know CO2 is a ridiculous measurement. I don't know whether or not "clean power" is the solution.
But claiming we should just go on as we're going because all is fine and the climate isn't chaning at an accelerated rate, is plain madness.

It's NOT "changing at an accelerated rate" it's just changing, all the time, and we have LITTLE to do with it.

You want environmental problems? How about the "island" of plastic in the pacific? Or 1000s of other big issues that are being sacrificed on the altar of "carbon" and awareness of such. That's completely to the side of the increased prices on energy that all this is causing, which is driving people into energy poverty as well.

Sep 5, 2017#76

mikerc

Eriol said:
This is a HUGE "citation needed" section here. Is it from the same people who said 97% of climate scientists agree on the general issue? If so, read this (or this, showing it's more like 0.3%, from the SAME DATA) and the links in there too.

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on your 2 links here. For your first link here is a statement dated eight days later by the authors of the study quoted showing how the attempt to read their paper as a denial of the consesus on climate change is misleading.

As for your second link that's a dishonest way you've framed it - although since that's the same way the author of your link framed it I'll put the blame on him rather than you. The reason it's dishonest is that it is treating the 97% and the 0.3% as referring to the same thing. They're not. The 97% is the number of climate scientists that accept human caused climate change & the 0.3% is the number of papers that explicity state that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. You'll note that under this definition a paper that says that man-made climate change is real & another paper that says that climate change is real & dangerous could both be thrown into the 99.7% pile because they do not hit all 3 of his requirements 1) real, 2) man-made & 3) dangerous - when the reason it doesn't specifically hit the requirement it's missing is because that's something the paper wasn't specifically looking at (a paper that is asking if man-made climate change is real does not need to ask if it is dangerous, and one asking if is dangerous does not need to ask what the cause is). You'll note also that in his link he flat out says that he added 8000 papers to the sample that were not initially included because they did not give an opinion on the subject - perhaps because that is not a subject they were asking themselves?

Interesting that despite all his sleight of hand to try and push papers into the climate change isn't a thing bracket he still won't tell you how many of these papers actually agree with him. Maybe because that would be even less than 0.3% hmm?

Sep 5, 2017#77

PatrThom

Eriol said:
You want environmental problems? How about the "island" of plastic in the pacific? Or 1000s of other big issues that are being sacrificed on the altar of "carbon" and awareness of such. That's completely to the side of the increased prices on energy that all this is causing, which is driving people into energy poverty as well.

I rarely hear an argument that, at its heart, doesn't sound like, "we really should've started doing something about this fifty/seventy-five/a hundred years ago."
Well, we can't.

--Patrick

Sep 5, 2017#78

DarkAudit

Honestly, you couldn't be any more in the bag for the fossil fuel industry unless you were Bob Murray himself.

But yeah, doing the right thing by the planet is just TOO HARD, and it might cut shareholder dividends by 0.01%. Can't have that now, can we?

Sep 5, 2017#79

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
Honestly, you couldn't be any more in the bag for the fossil fuel industry unless you were Bob Murray himself.

But yeah, doing the right thing by the planet is just TOO HARD, and it might cut shareholder dividends by 0.01%. Can't have that now, can we?

I assume you're talking to @Eriol.
Personally, I'm for doing what we can now, yes even if it hurts, and have already gone on record as such. Even if it IS physically impossible to prevent the cascade, we might still slow it enough to give us the time to make a technology breakthrough that WILL allow us to avert disaster.

--Patrick

Sep 5, 2017#80

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
I assume you're talking to @Eriol.
Personally, I'm for doing what we can now, yes even if it hurts, and have already gone on record as such. Even if it IS physically impossible to prevent the cascade, we might still slow it enough to give us the time to make a technology breakthrough that WILL allow us to avert disaster.

--Patrick

Yeah. the flashing neon sign gets bigger every post.

I want coal to die. Preferably quickly in order to lessen the pain, but it has to die if this state has any future left. They've put all the eggs, and all the bacon and sausage, too, in the coal basket. To speak of a future without coal is blasphemy in Charleston. So cold, dead hands it is.

Sep 6, 2017#81

Eriol

mikerc said:
Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on your 2 links here. For your first link here is a statement dated eight days later by the authors of the study quoted showing how the attempt to read their paper as a denial of the consesus on climate change is misleading.

As for your second link that's a dishonest way you've framed it - although since that's the same way the author of your link framed it I'll put the blame on him rather than you. The reason it's dishonest is that it is treating the 97% and the 0.3% as referring to the same thing. They're not. The 97% is the number of climate scientists that accept human caused climate change & the 0.3% is the number of papers that explicity state that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. You'll note that under this definition a paper that says that man-made climate change is real & another paper that says that climate change is real & dangerous could both be thrown into the 99.7% pile because they do not hit all 3 of his requirements 1) real, 2) man-made & 3) dangerous - when the reason it doesn't specifically hit the requirement it's missing is because that's something the paper wasn't specifically looking at (a paper that is asking if man-made climate change is real does not need to ask if it is dangerous, and one asking if is dangerous does not need to ask what the cause is). You'll note also that in his link he flat out says that he added 8000 papers to the sample that were not initially included because they did not give an opinion on the subject - perhaps because that is not a subject they were asking themselves?

Interesting that despite all his sleight of hand to try and push papers into the climate change isn't a thing bracket he still won't tell you how many of these papers actually agree with him. Maybe because that would be even less than 0.3% hmm?

Mike, I'll give you lots of credit for this reply. You went and read the articles, and came up with something else to rebut with rather than just saying "A climate change denial blog? Not going to bother." You took the time. I applaud that. I'd rather have a discussion than people just shouting at each other, nobody listening

Addressing your argument directly now, what's being said by the link you gave, and what I linked, are not mutually exclusive. The charts I posted above show a human contribution to Climate Change. It's a fraction of a degree, but it's there. I'll acknowledge that. What I am trying to show that "acknowledgement of ANY effect" and "agreement with catastrophic results" are two VASTLY different things. Read extremely carefully through what you linked and you'll see that any qualitative standard is not stated by the author. Under his stated criteria, I would qualify for agreeing with the statement. I'm obviously saying something quite different than the "consensus" but it shows how "weasel-like" you can be with picking your questions and stating statistics off of them.

DarkAudit said:
I want coal to die. Preferably quickly in order to lessen the pain, but it has to die if this state has any future left. They've put all the eggs, and all the bacon and sausage, too, in the coal basket. To speak of a future without coal is blasphemy in Charleston. So cold, dead hands it is.

Coal has enough reasons to die IMO without the hysteria of Climate Catastrophe added in. The mercury emissions ALONE into our atmosphere from burning most of it is enough reason to say "ya... no" to using it IMO. If there were low-mercury forms, with sufficient filters for the particulate matter (that second part exists) then I don't have a particular problem with it. But even then it can still have some of the horrific worker practices you've reported DarkAudit (and I've seen elsewhere), which again makes it undesirable for those other reasons. But that is far different than saying the FUEL itself is bad because it's burned. I say it's bad because of the mercury content. In any particular mining project you can say it's bad because of the effect it has on workers. Unfiltered and/or low-tech coal power plants can release a lot of OTHER stuff into the environment that is bad too.

But I don't say Coal is bad because it releases CO2, because CO2's impact on the climate is near-negligible. That's my point with the graphs above.

Sep 6, 2017#82

DarkAudit

You keep dismissing the rest of us with "bias! Invalid!" when we post links to support our position, and then proceed to nitpick the articles to death. But it's okay for YOU to post a simple "wind kills birds" cartoon? Nope. You're carrying the fossil fuel industry's water, and I'm not going for it.

Sep 6, 2017#83

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
You keep dismissing the rest of us with "bias! Invalid!" when we post links to support our position, and then proceed to nitpick the articles to death.

??? I don't think I mentioned bias at ALL in my post above, but hey, whatever.

As for linked articles... ya, you're supposed to tear apart what people link with either logical argument, or other publications that contradict the assertions as presented. That's kind of what debate IS. So am I "dismissing" you with accusations of "bias" or am I logically tearing apart (apparently that's "nitpicking" now) articles? Pick one. I guess it's possible to do both, but given the lack of accusations of bias from me above... what's up DA?

DarkAudit said:
But it's okay for YOU to post a simple "wind kills birds" cartoon? Nope. You're carrying the fossil fuel industry's water, and I'm not going for it.

Ya, the fossil fuel industry fuels our LIVES. It's NOT a demon killing the planet. Are some practices bad? Hell yes they are, just like any other industry, but it is not by definition bad. And the "alternatives" are having massive unintended consequences, from bird destruction, to skyrocketing energy prices, to mining in "interesting" countries causing BAD environmental destruction (or other bad things from a humanitarian perspective too).

And as long as you (and others) keep posting about how there's an impending CATASTROPHE unless we all change radically RIGHT NOW (and remember, don't question giving all your money to the government to fund all of this), I don't need to link on all of those (though they are easy enough to google), nor on every little thing I post, just like anybody else. I'll link some things, state others, just like everybody else.

Gah, that last paragraph is way more extreme than usual, but I'll give you this DA, you know how to push my buttons. Apparently I'm pushing yours too today, so maybe I don't feel bad about it.

Sep 12, 2017#84

Eriol

On the issue of unintended consequences: Concern that wind turbines are polluting ground water

Industrial strength wind turbines are making a lot of people worried.

Installing those turbines means pile-driving massive steel beams into the bedrock.

The problem is that the bedrock is made of Kettle Point black shale and is known to contain uranium and arsenic. Vibration from the pile-driving breaks up this toxic shale below the groundwater and contaminates it. Area residents can’t drink, bathe, or wash their clothes because of this. Water wells are being poisoned as the government continues to allow the pile driving.

This last part is echoing other things: (emphasis mine)

You can bet that, if an oil company were somehow polluting ground water, the uproar would be deafening.

If animal species were harmed by a quarry, a mine, or a pipeline, we’d never hear the end of it.

Well, in this case, clean energy technology is contaminating farmers’ wells, and the main animal species affected is the human species.

Will the government do the right thing, find out what is going on, stop the contamination of our ground water?

Will the government put a moratorium on turbine development until scientific evidence disproves the claim that industrial wind turbines are polluting the environment?

Sep 12, 2017#85

MindDetective

Would the author call for such a moratorium for the quarry, mine, or pipeline or are they just feigning concern themselves in order to point out a possible, although as yet unfounded, hypocrisy?

Sep 12, 2017#86

Eriol

MindDetective said:
Would the author call for such a moratorium for the quarry, mine, or pipeline or are they just feigning concern themselves in order to point out a possible, although as yet unfounded, hypocrisy?

I'm implying that the Precautionary Principal is RARELY even mentioned to begin with, usually only against oil & gas (endless Environmental Reviews with few set rules beforehand), and NEVER against so-called "green" technologies.

Sep 12, 2017#87

MindDetective

Eriol said:
I'm implying that the Precautionary Principal is RARELY even mentioned to begin with, usually only against oil & gas (endless Environmental Reviews with few set rules beforehand), and NEVER against so-called "green" technologies.

So just pointing out possibly hypocrisy. Got it.

Sep 12, 2017#88

PatrThom

Yes. Obviously what we need next is some nice, investigative environmental impact studies...studies funded by the wind turbine people, of course, because they're the ones who best understand how to measure what impact wind turbines will have on the environment. And any studies funded by any fossil fuel-related company will automatically be discounted because what can THEY possibly know about "green" energy?

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2017#89

D

Dubyamn

Eriol said:
On the issue of unintended consequences: Concern that wind turbines are polluting ground water

This last part is echoing other things: (emphasis mine)

Eriol said:
On the issue of unintended consequences: Concern that wind turbines are polluting ground water

This last part is echoing other things: (emphasis mine)

You can bet that, if an oil company were somehow polluting ground water, the uproar would be deafening.

If animal species were harmed by a quarry, a mine, or a pipeline, we’d never hear the end of it.

Well, in this case, clean energy technology is contaminating farmers’ wells, and the main animal species affected is the human species.

Will the government do the right thing, find out what is going on, stop the contamination of our ground water?

Will the government put a moratorium on turbine development until scientific evidence disproves the claim that industrial wind turbines are polluting the environment?

Click to expand...

I mean I know it's happening in Canada while my example happened in America.

But with Fraking we had people's water being lit on fire and it took ages for anybody in power to really check on that.

Oct 23, 2017#90

Eriol

I was so sure this was going to be a deliberately minimized headline, but it wasn't: CN train derails in Alberta, spills small amount of crude. What I mean is that so often reporting is done with litres or gallons if it's a pipeline, but barrels if it's trains or something else that isn't vilified (yet). In this case, the headline is completely accurate, and litres in this case is also correct IMO:

Authorities have begun to clean up an estimated 30 to 50 liters (8 to 13 gallons) of crude that leaked from the train.

Quite frankly I'm surprised this is more than a local story with THAT small amount spilled. I'm glad it's basically nothing. For reference, 1 standard oil barrel is about 159 litres.

Oct 28, 2017#91

Frank

The winds that caused those accidents were bananas. We had semis being blown off highways, trains getting derailed. Hurricane Alberta was nuts. The only thing that kept the trees from being blown to pieces is they'd already been decimated by the winds earlier this summer and most of the leaves were gone.

Nov 10, 2017#92

Eriol

Interesting case going to the Supreme Court: Supreme Court to decide whether companies can walk away from abandoned wells in Alberta

The Supreme Court of Canada says it will hear an appeal from Alberta’s energy regulator over a ruling that could allow energy companies to walk away from cleaning up abandoned oil wells. The decision could affect industrial sites across the country

This affects everywhere in the country, and is IMO a good thing if the Supreme Court reverses the lower court ruling. Basically, the lower court said that in bankruptcy the creditors (banks often) and shareholders get their cut, and THEN any money left goes to environmental cleanup (I have no idea where employee salary might be in the mix, not covered by the article). IMO bankruptcy order for corporations should be employee salary & severance, environmental cleanup, THEN everything else. This feels like small companies that can go bankrupt are basically liability dodging mechanisms for the big players that are producing. So I hope this goes a different direction and those that constructed things (or the beneficiaries of such) are forced to pay for cleanup.

I support development (and industrial development) of virtually every kind, but STRONG and enforceable laws need to be in place that cleanup is also done. If it's not economically viable to do the activity if you need to clean up as well, then it shouldn't happen at all. Similar to how you'd never buy a house if you couldn't afford fire insurance, the same principal applies here. Hence why I'm 100% OK with open pit mining (or other "destructive" activities), as long as all environmental stuff is done to reclaim it at the end, and it happens too. But too often mechanisms to pass off liability mean the government (aka the people) are left holding the bag, which is wrong IMO.

Nov 10, 2017#93

DarkAudit

When the official position of the state government is coal is all you've got, period, the end, is it really a good idea to brag about a huge natural gas deal with China that will likely kill coal for good?

It's all going to come to nothing, because WV is just that stupid. If not stupider.

Nov 12, 2017#94

DarkAudit

One bitcoin transaction uses as much energy as your house does in a week.

So why aren't states promoting this as a way to shore up their energy sectors. Looking at YOU, WV. Mining for cryptocurrency would burn through a lot of coal.

Nov 23, 2017#95

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
However, I will point out that pretty much all climate scientists agree that going over the 2°C threshhold will cause a runaway effect where the heating up will self-propagate and self-reinforce. Due to, amongst others, melting ice caps, changing ocean currents, and so on. If we reach the 2° point, it's proably nearly impossible to keep it from going over 3° and permanently altering the planet.

I'm quoting from above Bubble because pretty much all of your arguments are addressed in this article from Australia: Core of climate science is in the real-world data

Warning, that article is NOT short.

Dec 1, 2017#96

DarkAudit

Google now 100% solar and wind powered.

Closer to home, the gas deal WV had with China looks to be in trouble already.

Dec 1, 2017#97

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Google now 100% solar and wind powered.

Well, I mean, good for them investing in renewable energy and all, but that's not how that works. Wind Farms in South Dakota, Iowa, and Oklahoma don't provide the power in Mountain View, CA (where Google is HQ'd), or where their innumerable data centers are (which is all over the map from Oregon to South Carolina). Generating it is only half the battle - transmission to where it needs to be used is the other, and that's a very imperfect process. It's why we don't just carpet the Sahara in solar panels and call it solved.

So, yeah, putting X megawatts of wind power into the grid in Oklahoma doesn't mean their data centers in other places aren't running on coal.

Dec 1, 2017#98

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
Google now 100% solar and wind powered.

When they've literally disconnected from the mains, I'll believe it. Until then, they're still relying on conventional backup, and just "buying" more energy when they're not actually using it.

And here's a good article about the UK as to WHY this doesn't work: http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/

Dec 4, 2017#99

Eriol

NASA doing interesting stuff: Mars and beyond: Modular nuclear reactors set to power next wave of deep space exploration

Too bad there wasn't development towards smaller-scale nuclear on EARTH that was well-funded. You "probably" wouldn't want it at home-scale, because people are idiots (and/or fissile material being everywhere is also bad for reasons of BOOM), but more development into safer widespread nuclear would be great. If this technology can transition to this way, great, though something tells me this is more like a long-term nuclear battery, since there's no mention of how to GET the waste out, let alone anything after that.

Still, better power for space is great too.

Dec 4, 2017#100

PatrThom

ANYTHING that moves our power generation to a more decentralized model is welcome.

—Patrick

May 4, 2019#101

DarkAudit

Whoops.

@Eriol, I believe that's your cue. I'm neither Engineer, scientist, nor Canadian. Three strikes and I'm out. The floor is yours.

May 4, 2019#102

PatrThom

I thought everyone already agreed that tar sand extraction was a bad idea, there were just those who didn’t care because there was money to be made?

—Patrick

May 7, 2019#103

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
Whoops.

@Eriol, I believe that's your cue. I'm neither Engineer, scientist, nor Canadian. Three strikes and I'm out. The floor is yours.

How are a few flying samples more representative than what the companies say they're actually burning through things like fuel, which they have to buy and thus they know exactly how much they've bought, and therefore burned. And the taxes on such (which the government will know), and such? Calculating such isn't mysterious.

Basically, the original article is just anti-oilsands FUD. It's from the CBC, what do you expect?

Not that CO2 is dangerous at all of course (and you've been lied to about its effect - hint: logarithmic), but do you want to bring that into here? Don't we have another thread for that?

May 7, 2019#104

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Not that CO2 is dangerous at all of course

Yes, CO2 isn't dangerous at all... there's realy no reaosn to open that garage door while your car is running...

May 7, 2019#105

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Yes, CO2 isn't dangerous at all... there's realy no reaosn to open that garage door while your car is running...

The garage door thing is more about the danger of CO, not CO2.

--Patrick

May 7, 2019#106

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
The garage door thing is more about the danger of CO, not CO2.

--Patrick

True, CO will get you pretty fast since it basically stops your breathing at the blood level.

But CO2 will also kill you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

May 7, 2019#107

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
CO2 will also kill you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

It sure will, but you don't need a car for that, you can just put a plastic bag over your head.
The primary concern with cars (or generators, or grills) being used in enclosed spaces is the accumulation of carbon monoxide, which can go unnoticed until it's too late.

--Patrick

May 8, 2019#108

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
It sure will, but you don't need a car for that, you can just put a plastic bag over your head.

Dude, telling Eriol to do that seems a bit too personal... pls dial it down.

May 8, 2019#109

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Dude, telling Eriol to do that seems a bit too personal... pls dial it down.

It's true that I feel Eriol sometimes overlooks things I might consider obvious, or sometimes misinterprets what I say, but I doubt he read that and somehow thought I was saying ZOMG DRINK BLEACH LOLZ KTHX, just like I doubt he thought I was suggesting he go blow up a lake. At least, I hope he didn't.

--Patrick

May 8, 2019#110

GasBandit

Guess it depends on the situation you call "dangerous."

Carbon Dioxide is about as dangerous as water, in that yes, you can have too much of it and it can kill you, but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.

That's very different from carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount. Just because you can be smothered with a bed pillow doesn't mean it's in the same "danger" category as a ka-bar.

May 8, 2019#111

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount.

Carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin the same way oxygen does, which means your blood's ability to carry oxygen is impaired. Additionally, CO combines with hemoglobin hundreds of times more readily than oxygen, which means your treasonous blood cells will happily give up their ability to carry oxygen for hours, causing their overall oxygen-carrying capacity to drop. This can impair judgement and actively prevent you from moving somewhere safe. Your body is wired to respond to excessive CO2. If you stop breathing while asleep, you (usually) reflexively wake up enough to take a deeper breath (aka "sleep apnea"). But if you get too much CO while you're asleep, you just slip deeper into unconsciousness and die.

--Patrick

May 8, 2019#112

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Carbon Dioxide is about as dangerous as water, in that yes, you can have too much of it and it can kill you, but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.

Yeah, that's the point, we really need to stop adding water in the room... and saying it's just water isn't a good argument against people saying we should stop.

Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...

GasBandit said:
but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.

So you do admit global warming is man made after all...

GasBandit said:
That's very different from carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount.

Well, no, haemoglobin isn't that rare in your blood that "any" amount will kill you.

It's just a whole lot less then CO2.

May 8, 2019#113

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
It's true that I feel Eriol sometimes overlooks things I might consider obvious, or sometimes misinterprets what I say, but I doubt he read that and somehow thought I was saying ZOMG DRINK BLEACH LOLZ KTHX, just like I doubt he thought I was suggesting he go blow up a lake. At least, I hope he didn't.

--Patrick

Woosh?!

May 8, 2019#114

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Yeah, that's the point, we really need to stop adding water in the room... and saying it's just water isn't a good argument against people saying we should stop.

Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...

You keep flip flopping between two arguments... are you saying that you thought that why running a car in a closed garage kills people was because it global warmed them to death?

Best just cut your losses before everyone here thinks you're a complete waste of time to talk to.

Oh wait.

May 9, 2019#115

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
You keep flip flopping between two arguments... are you saying that you thought that why running a car in a closed garage kills people was because it global warmed them to death?

Analogies, how do they work? Truly a mystery for the ages...

Hint: the garage thing was about the claim that CO2 is safe... although, as pointed out, the better example would be putting a bag on your head... so it was literally a different argument then global warming itself.

GasBandit said:
Best just cut your losses before everyone here thinks you're a complete waste of time to talk to.

Oh wait.

Just because you don't (or refuse to) get an argument doesn't mean it's a bad one... see: anti-vaxxers & trump supporters etc.

May 9, 2019#116

Eriol

@Li3n said:
Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...

Ya about that: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/putting-the-brakes-on-acceleration/
(harder to find clean graphs that are newer, but 2011 is still fine)

Basically: it isn't accelerating. It hasn't since records have been kept. Somewhere between 1-2mm per YEAR, and it's been a remarkably constant increase. That's of course discounting local effects, which means we really only have satellite ones from recent decades, as the ground SINKING is the bigger problem in many many places.

May 9, 2019#117

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Hint: the garage thing was about the claim that CO2 is safe... although, as pointed out, the better example would be putting a bag on your head... so it was literally a different argument then global warming itself.

And yet you tried to use one argument to support the other. Kthxbye.

May 9, 2019#118

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
And yet you tried to use one argument to support the other. Kthxbye.

And, as we all know, arguments all exist in their own vacuum dimension, and could never do that...

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!

I mean, who tries to disprove one piece of evidence someone else presents in support of their claim, and then try to pretend that makes the whole claim have less evidence?

ONLY CRAZY PEOPLE!!!

Eriol said:
Basically: it isn't accelerating. It hasn't since records have been kept. Somewhere between 1-2mm per YEAR, and it's been a remarkably constant increase.

So is your argument that we're not drowning at an ever increasing rate, but a steady one?

And lets say you think they're overstating the problem... what exactly is the down side of having cleaner air, less garbage in the oceans and more plant life again?

May 9, 2019#119

Eriol

@Li3n said:
And lets say you think they're overstating the problem... what exactly is the down side of having cleaner air, less garbage in the oceans and more plant life again?

That the reduction of CO2 is an impediment to all of that is the downside. Cheap abundant energy enables being able to do those other things.

It's also anti-poverty, as carbon taxes are virtually ALWAYS regressive in nature as they increase the price of everything to a great degree. n addition, cheap energy also gets people in the 3rd world away from needing cookfires, which are HUGE causes of bad health. Mechanization of farming allows yields (and health) to skyrocket as well.

Do I need to go with all the benefits of having cheap energy? Since without HUGE subsidies, that all doesn't apply to renewables (except hydro, which is opposed by environmentalists as well). Natural gas, Oil, etc, are all GREAT for helping people out of poverty and bad health.

The one exception is Coal. Just from the distribution of Mercury into the atmosphere alone, its bad (and that's the primary thing for me why it's horrific). You won't see me arguing for that here, or anywhere.

May 9, 2019#120

blotsfan

Eriol said:
It's also anti-poverty

But you're a conservative so this should be a plus for you.

May 9, 2019#121

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Do I need to go with all the benefits of having cheap energy? Since without HUGE subsidies, that all doesn't apply to renewables (except hydro, which is opposed by environmentalists as well). Natural gas, Oil, etc, are all GREAT for helping people out of poverty and bad health.

What year are you currently in? Coz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fossil_fuel_subsidies

Also, there was always nuclear, so unless you're in pre-1950's, that was never true.

And why mention hydro just as something "the other ppl" are against? If it's better in your opinion, shouldn't you push for it?

May 9, 2019#122

jwhouk

Uh, a good chunk of my electricity comes from hydro and solar - a lot more than most of the rest of the US and maybe Canada.

May 9, 2019#123

Gruebeard

jwhouk said:
Uh, a good chunk of my electricity comes from hydro and solar - a lot more than most of the rest of the US and maybe Canada.

It totally depends on the province.

Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear, with a fair chunk of hydro (Niagara Falls!), and using natural gas as the source to deal with the the fluctuations in demand throughout the day.

I think Quebec uses significantly more hydro.

May 9, 2019#124

Gruebeard

And looking it up . . . Yeah, Quebec is like 98% hydro.

Ontario's 55% nuclear, 25% hydro, 10% natural gas, and 10% "green"

May 9, 2019#125

Eriol

@Li3n said:
What year are you currently in? Coz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fossil_fuel_subsidies

Whomever wrote that section has NO bias whatsoever, given the second sentence. Also, given that "subsidies" is often code for "They're not paying their "true" amount" (see Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the USA) I have never seen a good argument (including those links, which were mostly bullshit) that says it's true. Given that millions are paid for leases on Gulf of Mexico oil (recently) the definition of "subsidy" is usually fairly bogus in this context.

@Li3n said:
Also, there was always nuclear, so unless you're in pre-1950's, that was never true.

I can't tell which parts of my original argument you are conflating with nuclear. That it gets subsidies? Used to? What? They've been regulated into the ground (possibly legitimately, given the too-cavalier attitude of many operators in the past) but I didn't mention nuclear above. Overall I AM an advocate for Nuclear power, but more in things like LFTR or other safer alternatives to the Light-water reactor.

@Li3n said:
And why mention hydro just as something "the other ppl" are against? If it's better in your opinion, shouldn't you push for it?

Because in the early part of the 20th century in North America and Europe, just about everywhere that was practical to produce Hydro from was developed. Sure there's a number of sites that still aren't, but the majority of that capacity to generate electricity is tapped, and what little isn't is usually opposed on environmental grounds because it will destroy the upstream ecology (literally flooded out), and sometimes downstream as well (fish bypasses and such needed). So talking about "more hydro" is pretty much a "where?" question first. Hydro's great, but it's near its practical limit.

Oh and @Gruebeard be careful about "listed capacity" and "actually delivered" for solar/wind. Example graph for New Zealand for wind:

I haven't looked at whatever source you got for Ontario, but I'd suspect it's similar.

May 9, 2019#126

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Whomever wrote that section has NO bias whatsoever, given the second sentence. Also, given that "subsidies" is often code for "They're not paying their "true" amount" (see Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the USA) I have never seen a good argument (including those links, which were mostly bullshit) that says it's true. Given that millions are paid for leases on Gulf of Mexico oil (recently) the definition of "subsidy" is usually fairly bogus in this context.

I can't tell which parts of my original argument you are conflating with nuclear. That it gets subsidies? Used to? What? They've been regulated into the ground (possibly legitimately, given the too-cavalier attitude of many operators in the past) but I didn't mention nuclear above. Overall I AM an advocate for Nuclear power, but more in things like LFTR or other safer alternatives to the Light-water reactor.

Because in the early part of the 20th century in North America and Europe, just about everywhere that was practical to produce Hydro from was developed. Sure there's a number of sites that still aren't, but the majority of that capacity to generate electricity is tapped, and what little isn't is usually opposed on environmental grounds because it will destroy the upstream ecology (literally flooded out), and sometimes downstream as well (fish bypasses and such needed). So talking about "more hydro" is pretty much a "where?" question first. Hydro's great, but it's near its practical limit.

Oh and @Gruebeard be careful about "listed capacity" and "actually delivered" for solar/wind. Example graph for New Zealand for wind:

I haven't looked at whatever source you got for Ontario, but I'd suspect it's similar.

My source is Ontario, itself, giving actual usage stats for the year 2015

When it comes to capacity, not usage, my link says this:

Since the 2013 LTEP, the share of wind, solar and bioenergy capacity in our supply mix has grown from 9% to over 18%. At the end of June 2016, the 4,500 MW of installed wind capacity represents the largest source of our non-hydro renewable generation. Approximately 1,600 MW of additional wind capacity is under contract and under development

May 9, 2019#127

jwhouk

Hm. Interesting. According to www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ, 32.9% of my electricity comes from Natural Gas sources, 32.7% from Nuclear (fun fact: Palo Verde is the largest nuclear power plant, largest net generator of electricity, and second-largest power plant by capacity of any kind in the nation), 25.7% from coal, and only 5.1% from Hyrdo. Non-hydro Renewables makes up 3.6%.

May 9, 2019#128

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
My source is Ontario, itself, giving actual usage stats for the year 2015

Grue, that's the problem. Example: https://blog.ospe.on.ca/featured/on...-energy-in-2016-enough-to-power-760000-homes/

So your link doesn't say about "the plated capacity is X, it actually generated Y amount" of energy.

If you want a world-wide view on this, end of 2018, lots of graphs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/21/another-look-at-the-fuel-mix/

May 9, 2019#129

Gruebeard

jwhouk said:
Hm. Interesting. According to www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ, 32.9% of my electricity comes from Natural Gas sources, 32.7% from Nuclear (fun fact: Palo Verde is the largest nuclear power plant, largest net generator of electricity, and second-largest power plant by capacity of any kind in the nation), 25.7% from coal, and only 5.1% from Hyrdo. Non-hydro Renewables makes up 3.6%.

It's always a bit of a blow when you get the facts from the source for the first time, eh?

(I was surprised that Hydro didn't account for more of Ontario's power back when I first started paying attention)

May 9, 2019#130

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Grue, that's the problem. Example: https://blog.ospe.on.ca/featured/on...-energy-in-2016-enough-to-power-760000-homes/

So your link doesn't say about "the plated capacity is X, it actually generated Y amount" of energy.

If you want a world-wide view on this, end of 2018, lots of graphs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/21/another-look-at-the-fuel-mix/

Click on the link, read the first couple paragraphs, and then tell me doesn't say it actually generated Y amount of energy.

Err, the first couple paragraphs after the first couple charts.

May 9, 2019#131

jwhouk

Same source says Wisconsin had 49% of its power come from coal.

May 10, 2019#132

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Click on the link, read the first couple paragraphs, and then tell me doesn't say it actually generated Y amount of energy.

Err, the first couple paragraphs after the first couple charts.

Grue, if you mean this:

Includes electricity produced to meet Ontario demand, including embedded generation (which brings the total to 143 TWh in 2015), and exports (17 TWh in 2015).

Nuclear generation provided the biggest share of Ontario’s electricity in 2015, producing 92.3 TWh of electricity. That was followed by the 37.3 TWh provided by hydroelectric generation, 15.9 TWh generated from natural gas, and non-hydro renewables such as wind, solar and bioenergy that provided 14.2 TWh.

While Ontario generated 160 TWh of electricity last year, it has the ability to produce more. The installed capacity of the province’s generating fleet totals 39,393 MW.

Since the 2013 LTEP, the share of wind, solar and bioenergy capacity in our supply mix has grown from 9% to over 18%. At the end of June 2016, the 4,500 MW of installed wind capacity represents the largest source of our non-hydro renewable generation. Approximately 1,600 MW of additional wind capacity is under contract and under development.

A few problems here:
1. They don't break out Wind, Solar, and Bioenergy from each other. i.e. if you burn wood to boil water, to turn a turbine, it's the same as wind in this calculation.
2. The link I provided above said "The province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity". In the link they go more into how that was wasted and what I means, but combined with what your link says, it means that more than HALF of the "renewables" generated went to 100% waste. And that's not even considering the amount that got exported at a loss!

And even though that was what was generated, it doesn't do a nice "here's what the plate capacity of it is, and here's what percentage actually got generated by it." So let's do some math!

From here: http://www.aweo.org/windunits.html

1 MW × 0.25 × 365 days × 24 hours = 2,190 MWh

That's 25%. So 6 hours a day at full capacity. Times by 4 to get "full" usage: 8760MWh Your link from the government above claim 4,500MW of non-hydro renewables. So multiply the capacity by the 8760 (since it's for 1) and we get: 8760*4500=39,420,000MWh = 39.42TWh (1TW = 1,000,000 MW)

So now divide the 14.2 (which includes biomass, not just wind/solar) by that number: 14.2/39.42=36% or 8 hours a day of FULL wind. But of course if you took out biomass, it'd be even LESS, so the graph above from New Zealand is probably accurate! Less than a third (closer to 25%) of the plated capacity is what you actually have.

So you have a third of the capacity you say you do. Whereas the hydro, nuclear, and gas is 100% of the plated capacity. And it's not reliable to be there when you need it.

If you want real fun, start calculating the economics of wind/solar if you're required to have on-site storage capacity for a week of "non-functional" and how uneconomic it gets. You know, like a REAL power plant needs fuel on-site.

The way we're contracting wind/solar right now is insane. If you treated them like any other producer and required them to provide stable power, then they could be counted in the mix, but it's completely uneconomic to do so. So everybody gets hosed on higher power prices.

May 10, 2019#133

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Grue, if you mean this:

A few problems here:
1. They don't break out Wind, Solar, and Bioenergy from each other. i.e. if you burn wood to boil water, to turn a turbine, it's the same as wind in this calculation.
2. The link I provided above said "The province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity". In the link they go more into how that was wasted and what I means, but combined with what your link says, it means that more than HALF of the "renewables" generated went to 100% waste. And that's not even considering the amount that got exported at a loss!

And even though that was what was generated, it doesn't do a nice "here's what the plate capacity of it is, and here's what percentage actually got generated by it." So let's do some math!

From here: http://www.aweo.org/windunits.html

That's 25%. So 6 hours a day at full capacity. Times by 4 to get "full" usage: 8760MWh Your link from the government above claim 4,500MW of non-hydro renewables. So multiply the capacity by the 8760 (since it's for 1) and we get: 8760*4500=39,420,000MWh = 39.42TWh (1TW = 1,000,000 MW)

So now divide the 14.2 (which includes biomass, not just wind/solar) by that number: 14.2/39.42=36% or 8 hours a day of FULL wind. But of course if you took out biomass, it'd be even LESS, so the graph above from New Zealand is probably accurate! Less than a third (closer to 25%) of the plated capacity is what you actually have.

So you have a third of the capacity you say you do. Whereas the hydro, nuclear, and gas is 100% of the plated capacity. And it's not reliable to be there when you need it.

If you want real fun, start calculating the economics of wind/solar if you're required to have on-site storage capacity for a week of "non-functional" and how uneconomic it gets. You know, like a REAL power plant needs fuel on-site.

The way we're contracting wind/solar right now is insane. If you treated them like any other producer and required them to provide stable power, then they could be counted in the mix, but it's completely uneconomic to do so. So everybody gets hosed on higher power prices.

Dude. You're arguing with me over a whole topic that was an afterthought.

You know, I started by saying that Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear and hydro, with a bit of natural gas thrown in. Then I figured I'd back that up with the most basic of stats - energy generated. I only even bothered mentioning "Green" sources so the percentages would hit 100. It was an afterthought.

Pretend I had originally said "Other (not coal)" instead of "Green" and leave me out of your Quixotic crusade.

May 10, 2019#134

Gruebeard

jwhouk said:
Same source says Wisconsin had 49% of its power come from coal.

I've said it before (probably in this thread), Toronto's air got so much cleaner after Ontario stopped burning coal. There used to be so many smog days throughout the summer, air advisory warnings, that endless brown haze on the skyline.

Best thing any large population can do is stop burning coal.

May 10, 2019#135

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
Best thing any large population can do is stop burning coal.

Well, unless every RTS/4X ever has been lying to me, the best thing that any population can do as it climbs the tech tree is to abandon the less efficient, higher-pollution methods as more efficient and cleaner methods become available.

I suddenly have an idea for a new RTS/4X, one where as you climb the tech tree, every time you try to implement new technology, you have to fight against financial/political/regional pressures that work to keep you from scrapping your older, lower-tech facilities before you're allowed to put in the new ones, and even after you do, some of them will get sabotaged and have to be rebuilt. And all of this will still be happening from within even as the main aliens or whatever are trying to break through your front lines.

--Patrick

May 13, 2019#136

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Pretend I had originally said "Other (not coal)" instead of "Green" and leave me out of your Quixotic crusade.

Given I think that Wind Power is almost-always a HUGE waste of money, I give you credit for your far-beyond-appropriate Don Quixote reference.

/bow

May 13, 2019#137

PatrThom

Eriol said:
Wind Power is almost-always a HUGE waste of money

I don’t know the economics of the turbines, but just like boats, guns, engines, knives, and meal portions, bigger is not always better. Materials science says there are going to be limits.

—Patrick

May 13, 2019#138

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
I don’t know the economics of the turbines, but just like boats, guns, engines, knives, and meal portions, bigger is not always better. Materials science says there are going to be limits.

—Patrick

Also just plain practicality. To the best of my knowledge, the blades are still either one or two pieces - I've never seen one in three or more. Produced right on the coast and moved by boat you can get pretty big, but if moved by trucks, there's a pretty stiff upper limit to how big a blade can be and still be transported around by road. I think the largest I've seen were about 100m per blade - and those were at sea. I don't see how you'd get longer parts than that moved around on land.

May 13, 2019#139

jwhouk

...we have three-blade turbines all around this country. Hell, half of the Texas Panhandle is three-blade turbines.

May 13, 2019#140

PatrThom

jwhouk said:
...we have three-blade turbines all around this country. Hell, half of the Texas Panhandle is three-blade turbines.

He means that each blade itself comes either as a single, monolithic blade, or as two pieces that must be joined to form one complete blade.

--Patrick

May 13, 2019#141

jwhouk

Sorry, didn't get that from the post. Thought it meant number of blades on the turbine.

May 14, 2019#142

Bubble181

jwhouk said:
...we have three-blade turbines all around this country. Hell, half of the Texas Panhandle is three-blade turbines.

A windmill with only one blade would not spin, as Patrick said, I meant per blade.

May 14, 2019#143

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
A windmill with only one blade would not spin, as Patrick said, I meant per blade.

I mean, mono-bladed turbines do exist, but then we're back to that efficiency argument again.
The MUST HAVE MORE POWAH people can try to increase output by building turbines/engines bigger and bigger if they want to, but atoms stay the same (relative) size, so physics dictates that once you exceed a certain volume/mass, your power output scaling can't keep up with the ever-increasing chance for materials failure.

--Patrick

May 15, 2019#144

PatrThom

Oh, and this just in: Fourth-largest coal producer in the US files for bankruptcy
Formerly the third-largest, but they fell to #4 last year.

--Patrick

May 16, 2019#145

Eriol

@Li3n said:
What year are you currently in? Coz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fossil_fuel_subsidies

On this topic, given recent "news" https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Hit-52-Trillion.html that claims 52 Trillion in subsidies for Oil in 2017, I'm glad people have better responses than I: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/15/fossil-fuel-fake-subsidies-top-5-trillion-in-2017/

Short answer for those unwilling to click through to a "denier" site: the original article counts writing down business expenses as "subsidies." And a number of other things that all businesses in all industries do so that 100% of their revenue isn't considered income and/or profit. Good links there, including to EIA, which some others on here linked themselves for energy mix numbers.

Jun 24, 2019#146

DarkAudit

We were promised $84 billion in natural gas money from China. We've yet to see a penny.

Jun 24, 2019#147

@Li3n

Eriol said:
On this topic, given recent "news" https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Hit-52-Trillion.html that claims 52 Trillion in subsidies for Oil in 2017, I'm glad people have better responses than I: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/15/fossil-fuel-fake-subsidies-top-5-trillion-in-2017/

Short answer for those unwilling to click through to a "denier" site: the original article counts writing down business expenses as "subsidies." And a number of other things that all businesses in all industries do so that 100% of their revenue isn't considered income and/or profit. Good links there, including to EIA, which some others on here linked themselves for energy mix numbers.

Why would anyone trust a website they wouldn't be willing to visit? And why wouldn't you question why you have to resort to those sort of websites to support your position?

As for tax write-off, yeah, that's how most modern corporate subsidies work.

Also, coal is really dying, isn't it...

Jun 24, 2019#148

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Also, coal is really dying, isn't it...

We can hope.

--Patrick

Jun 24, 2019#149

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
We can hope.

--Patrick

And the ones unwilling to let it go are either too stupid, too cheap, or too lazy, or all of the above, to try to profit off of the newer sources.

Jun 25, 2019#150

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
And the ones unwilling to let it go are either too stupid, too cheap, or too lazy, or all of the above, to try to profit off of the newer sources.

Too selfish, in my opinion.
Here is this thing that currently requires an enormous outlay to operate.
Someone has to dig the coal, drill the oil, pump the gas, whatever.
Then someone has to transport it to where it needs to go.
Then it has to be consumed and converted to electricity, creating pollution and (usually) toxic waste.
Compare that to something like solar, which (for sake of argument) has about the same expenditure/equipment outlay/environmental impact.
...but then you get to use that finished product for ~20 years before it will need to be replaced.

The fossil folks just aren't willing to let go of their $tatu$ quo. Ideally, they should just be like, "Damaging our environment was necessary to get to this point, but now that something has finally came along that's cleaner and less expensive over the long run than what we've been doing, we can finally put this expensive monster to rest."

But nope.

--Patrick

Jun 25, 2019#151

Dave

The worst part about coal is that a lot of the places were offered free retraining to help them transition to new jobs and they all turned them down.

Jun 25, 2019#152

DarkAudit

Dave said:
The worst part about coal is that a lot of the places were offered free retraining to help them transition to new jobs and they all turned them down.

And then they were complaining about how it was "threatening our way of life."

THAT IS WHY THIS STATE IS 49TH IN EVERYTHING.

Jun 25, 2019#153

Eriol

@Li3n said:
Why would anyone trust a website they wouldn't be willing to visit? And why wouldn't you question why you have to resort to those sort of websites to support your position?

All they do actually on this one is link to a government of the USA document from 2016: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

And ah yes, "resort to" a really good aggregator to find this stuff from the USA government.

Jun 25, 2019#154

@Li3n

Eriol said:
All they do actually on this one is link to a government of the USA document from 2016: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

And ah yes, "resort to" a really good aggregator to find this stuff from the USA government.

Point was, you could just link to it's sources, so we don't see that you visit that type of "aggregator".

....

Also, from the gov doc (pg. 3):

"In FY 2016, nearly half (45%) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy, and 42% were associatedwith energy end uses."

Which implies the rest 55% isn't in renewables. And:

"Among renewable technologies, biofuels received the only incremental increase in FY 2016 subsidy support, driven by greater domestic biomass-based diesel production and foreign imports of these products that resulted in an approximately $1 billion increase in tax credits from FY 2013 levels."

So it's not even clean renewables.

And of course "Coal delenda est!"

Jun 25, 2019#155

Eriol

@Li3n said:
Also, from the gov doc (pg. 3):

"In FY 2016, nearly half (45%) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy, and 42% were associatedwith energy end uses."

Which implies the rest 55% isn't in renewables.

Umm, no. The last half of the sentence says that the lion's share of your 55% is NOT associated with production at all. So 45+42=87%, so 13% something else. And at least some of that is probably transmission lines for electricity. Or maybe that's part of the 42%. Either way, 45% associated with renewable (despite being a negligible percentage of actual production), 13% with something that isn't renewable, and isn't "end uses" either. Which covers a lot

@Li3n said:
And of course "Coal delenda est!"

Actually you can credit @DarkAudit with getting me firmly anti-coal from the Mercury emissions alone. So look back, you won't find me defending Coal for many many years.

Jun 25, 2019#156

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Umm, no. The last half of the sentence says that the lion's share of your 55% is NOT associated with production at all. So 45+42=87%, so 13% something else. And at least some of that is probably transmission lines for electricity. Or maybe that's part of the 42%. Either way, 45% associated with renewable (despite being a negligible percentage of actual production), 13% with something that isn't renewable, and isn't "end uses" either. Which covers a lot

There nothing that requires "energy end uses" to add up to the 45% that are for renewables, since they're different things.

So 55% are not for renewables, and 58% are not for using the "energy".

Jun 25, 2019#157

Eriol

@Li3n said:
There nothing that requires "energy end uses" to add up to the 45% that are for renewables, since they're different things.

So 55% are not for renewables, and 58% are not for using the "energy".

The only assumption I made was that the 45% on that line was not a part of the 42% on the same line. They actually could overlap, but I doubt one is a component of the other. That's not what I was saying (and I didn't say that). When you said "add up to the 45%" did you mean "add with" as a component of the 100%? That's the assumption I made, which may not be true.

Re-reading it though, any of the above is possible. But 55% "isn't in renewables" is all I was arguing against. If there's a subsidy for a power line that carries both, how would that be counted? It's just not enough information.

Jun 25, 2019#158

@Li3n

Eriol said:
The only assumption I made was that the 45% on that line was not a part of the 42% on the same line.

Which i tried to point out it's not supported, since end-use can be done for both renewables and everything else.

Eriol said:
But 55% "isn't in renewables" is all I was arguing against.

And you where wrong because otherwise the analysis is useless if it randomly mixes and matches what it measures.

Eriol said:
If there's a subsidy for a power line that carries both, how would that be counted?

That's exactly why end-use is counted differently, and 45+42=87 doesn't work.

Of course, since it's only 42% for end use, it's unlikely that it's about a power line (unless there's local subsidies for mains electricity, but then it seems excesive that that many people need them), and it's more likely about fuel (which could also include biofuel).

Post automatically merged: Jun 25, 2019

Eriol said:
Actually you can credit @DarkAudit with getting me firmly anti-coal from the Mercury emissions alone. So look back, you won't find me defending Coal for many many years.

BTW, that was a joke about how the document is basically showing coal is in bad shape.

Mar 28, 2020#159

DarkAudit

This is happening...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bitumen-wcs-wti-oil-1.5511386

Mar 28, 2020#160

PatrThom

"This will be catastrophic for Alberta!"
You mean more catastrophic than strip mining the tar sand and setting up facilities to process it?
Color me unconvinced.

--Patrick

Apr 21, 2020#161

DarkAudit

"You can't give this stuff away!"

Oil prices have turned negative.

Apr 21, 2020#162

GasBandit

Apr 21, 2020#163

ThatNickGuy

"Watch closely as Grampa topples an empire by changing a one...to a zero."
- Rick Sanchez, Rick & Morty.

Apr 21, 2020#164

Dave

God I hate that meme so much. I don't know why but it just bugs me.

Apr 21, 2020#165

blotsfan

Conversely, I literally cannot get enough of it.

Apr 21, 2020#166

PatrThom

Dave said:
God I hate that meme so much. I don't know why but it just bugs me.

I had a similar issue with the Rickroll, but I grew out of it.

--Patrick

Apr 21, 2020#167

Bubble181

blotsfan said:
Conversely, I literally cannot get enough of it.

I want the full version of their music as a euro dance party hit.

Apr 21, 2020#168

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
I want the full version of their music as a euro dance party hit.

You're in luck!

--Patrick

Apr 21, 2020#169

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
You're in luck!

--Patrick

I knew I'd get it within minutes after posting here

Apr 21, 2020#170

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
I knew I'd get it within minutes after posting here

You're lucky I looked it up a couple days ago. Baader-Meinhof is your friend.

--Patrick

Apr 21, 2020#171

GasBandit

The version used in most of the original memes though appears to be some remix with more bass in the EQ that I haven't located yet.

Apr 21, 2020#172

GasBandit

Dave said:
God I hate that meme so much. I don't know why but it just bugs me.

I mean, it IS just the "To Be Continued..." Jojo meme with EDM instead of Roundabout.

Apr 21, 2020#173

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
The version used in most of the original memes though appears to be some remix with more bass in the EQ that I haven't located yet.

The closest version I've found so found is the Stephan F 2K19 edit, though it still isn't quite same.
It's weird, usually I find these kinds of tracks to have a bit too much bass, and for this all versions I find have a fairly weak bass.

Apr 21, 2020#174

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
I mean, it IS just the "To Be Continued..." Jojo meme with EDM instead of Roundabout.

That's how KYM describes it, too.

Bubble181 said:
The closest version I've found so found is the Stephan F 2K19 edit, though it still isn't quite same.

Closest at short notice is

All from the KYM page linked above. Man I had no idea this thing had been remixed so much before the meme.

--Patrick

Apr 21, 2020#175

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Man I had no idea this thing had been remixed so much before the meme.

Oh yeah, every halfway decent EDM tracks gets like a half dozen remixes before it even gets out the door, it seems like.

Apr 21, 2020#176

figmentPez

Apr 21, 2020#177

PatrThom

AGH so many memes!

—Patrick

Apr 21, 2020#178

GasBandit

figmentPez said:

To this day, I can't unhear:

Dance on my balls
Cat fucking a handbag
Yours only yours
I own a single dance band
It's no lie
Lisa in the crowd said,
"Look! Danny had a vagina malfunction!"

Apr 21, 2020#179

Bubble181

This just goes to prove that American shale oil was never a sensible business proposition on its own, just something that was economical because of deliberate choice. OPEC and Russia could've competed it out of the market at any point they wanted to.
Note that European oil, Russian oil and middle eastern oil aren't selling for negative prices. All-time lows that area below cost, yes - but there's a big difference between selling at $18 and selling for $-35.

Apr 29, 2020#180

DarkAudit

Oil, oil everywhere...

Apr 29, 2020#181

Bubble181

I feel the need to point out that the origins of the data have pointed out this is a misleading tweet, as those are all oil tankers, not just the stranded ones.

Apr 29, 2020#182

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
To this day, I can't unhear:

Dance on my balls
Cat fucking a handbag
Yours only yours
I own a single dance band
It's no lie
Lisa in the crowd said,
"Look! Danny had a vagina malfunction!"

Nah, it's mos def "Dance on me balls!"

She's clearly scotish...

Also:

"I own a single band stand"

and

"Look! Danny had a vagina maltownsend!"

And, no, i have no idea what a maltownsend is either....

Apr 29, 2020#183

@Li3n

In other news, guess what, it's not the consumers after all:

The world is on lockdown. So where are all the carbon emissions coming from?

The air is clear, the roads are clear, and dammit greenhouse gases are stubborn.

grist.org

It's all industry and power production.

Apr 29, 2020#184

GasBandit

And cows are still farting.

Apr 30, 2020#185

@Li3n

figmentPez said:

And now i'm hearing "I bought a stable dance band!"

Dammit Gas, why'd you have to do this to me....

Edit:

And it's Annie, not Danny, for sure...

WHY CAN'T I STOP LISTENING TO THIS THING?!?!?!

May 25, 2020#186

ThatNickGuy

This is extraordinary. I've wondered if windows could be converted into solar panels and apparently that technology is now in the works. And solar cloths, even clothing, is being worked on. Amazing.

This technology is still being worked on, of course, and isn't available commercially, but imagine the possibilities if it was? Windows that generate electricity. Solar-powered canopies and tents. Jackets that could charge your smart phone right in your pocket.

May 25, 2020#187

PatrThom

I haven't watched the video yet, but I know that there are people working on transmissive panels, ones that convert SOME light into power, but let the rest through. We're also hearing about smart glasses from companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, and more.

Imagine that leading to getting prescription sunglasses that automatically darken in sunlight...darken because they are sensing an opportunity to ramp up the charging of their built-in SmartLenz™ AR functionality.

--Patrick

May 29, 2020#188

PatrThom

Recent research is now strongly suggesting that the extinction event at the end of the Devonian period (which most people know as the end of most of the trilobites) was caused by a warming climate that contributed to the destruction of Earth's ozone layer which resulted in the Earth being irradiated by UV radiation which either killed or sterilized most surface life.

Boy, it's a good thing that can't happen again.

--Patrick

Jul 5, 2020#189

DarkAudit

Breaking news...

Energy companies cancel construction of Atlantic Coast Pipeline | CNN

Dominion Energy and Duke Energy have canceled their Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, a natural gas pipeline that was to stretch hundreds of miles across West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, citing “legal uncertainty.”

www.cnn.com

Jul 6, 2020#190

PatrThom

I wonder if by "legal uncertainty" they mean "we mighht dig ourself a hole so deep we might never get back out of it again."

--Patrick

Jul 6, 2020#191

ScytheRexx

In similar news.

Sep 23, 2020#192

PatrThom

From Forbes:
When and how will oil prices recover?

Answer: They won't. The future of the industry is officially dead (at least as a motor fuel).
California bans new internal combustion engines, starting in 2035
No word on how this will affect things like lawn mowers, generators, etc.
I'm very interested to watch what happens to oil stocks over the next couple of days.

--Patrick

Jan 2, 2021#193

PatrThom

Massachussetts joins California, no sales of new gas-powered cars starting in 2035
Oil stocks were already falling when CA announced their plans, but prices climbed back up ahead of increased cold-weather demand. There is a 14-year clock ticking, though. 14 years to transition their entire lines over to ~~alternative fuels~~* electric powerplants.

--Patrick
*I'm not sure whether the prohibition is solely on engines powered by fossil fuel or on any internal-combustion engine, which would also rule out CNG, ethanol, diesel, etc. We'll see.

Jan 2, 2021#194

blotsfan

Any pledge that doesn't require action until the people writing the pledge aren't responsible for implementing it means nothing to me.

Jan 19, 2021#195

DarkAudit

Biden plans on canceling the Keystone XL pipeline as part of his first week in office.

Jan 19, 2021#196

Frank

DarkAudit said:
Biden plans on canceling the Keystone XL pipeline as part of his first week in office.

Oh yeah, our premier is fucking panicking and begging our prime minister (the one he's blamed for literally every problem Alberta has) to do something. Hee-larious. Or it would be, if it wasn't likely that Alberta government pension money hasn't been massively tied up in it.

Have I mentioned that Alberta fucking sucks?

PS Fuck Keystone XL.

Jan 19, 2021#197

PatrThom

Global warming continues to worsen. California and Massachusetts have already drawn lines in the sand. Studies continually discover new ways that extraction methods are screwing over the environment. Other studies show how we've already reached and passed the tipping point where renewables are less expensive (and less burden) than fossil generation.

If you're still stumping on any kind of platform involving coal, oil, or other fossil fuel, then you need to be cast aside and pushed into a tar pit like the dinosaur you are.

--Patrick

Jan 19, 2021#198

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
Global warming continues to worsen. California and Massachusetts have already drawn lines in the sand. Studies continually discover new ways that extraction methods are screwing over the environment. Other studies show how we've already reached and passed the tipping point where renewables are less expensive (and less burden) than fossil generation.

If you're still stumping on any kind of platform involving coal, oil, or other fossil fuel, then you need to be cast aside and pushed into a tar pit like the dinosaur you are.

--Patrick

Hey! The dinosaurs didn't abuse fossil fuels!

Jul 2, 2021#199

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
If you're still stumping on any kind of platform involving coal, oil, or other fossil fuel, then you need to be cast aside and pushed into a tar pit like the dinosaur you are.

Canada (the entire country) to ban sale of NEW [emphasis mine] fuel-powered cars and light trucks starting in 2035.
Guess they really don't need to dig up the tar sands and lay a pipeline any more. Oh well!

--Patrick

Jul 21, 2021#200

PatrThom

An unexpected barrier to the adoption of solar power...it's too cheap!

The lurking threat to solar power’s growth

Plummeting sunny day solar prices are undermining the economic case to build more solar farms – and putting climate goals at risk.

www.technologyreview.com

It could become difficult to convince developers and investors to continue building ever more solar plants if they stand to make less money or even lose it.

In other words, we have the capability, RIGHT NOW, to build enough solar capacity to supply THE ENTIRE WORLD with electricity that costs PRACTICALLY NOTHING, but the reason we won't do that is because SOME PEOPLE WON'T MAKE ENOUGH PROFIT.

In other other words, we are literally on the cusp of Utopia-esque free (or nearly free) electricity for the entire human race worldwide, but we're not gonna get that because "Ooo, sorry...that would mean the loss of too many jobs!"

--Patrick

Jul 22, 2021#201

ScytheRexx

This is how things work. Back in the early 1900s after the invention of the light bulb, engineers were able to make a bulb that could last decades. All the guys funding the development were like "woah woah woah, how are we going to get people to buy more bulbs if they last that long? Unacceptable. Make it worst." and then in the background made a pact with each other to all make worst lifetime limited bulbs so that the money would keep flowing in. They did the same thing to electric cars, and other great advances, because of what it would do to profits.

It sucks, because capitalism can push innovation when a good idea becomes viable, but it also has the habit of kneecapping the full potential of those innovations in the interests of dragging out revenue for as long as possible.

Jul 22, 2021#202

Frank

And now our civilization is going to die.

Jul 22, 2021#203

ThatNickGuy

Capitalism has destroyed our world. Greedy, short sighted assholes are the reason we're now having an existential crisis.

Jul 22, 2021#204

@Li3n

And the thing is, it doesn't even need to be an intentional thing on part of the producers of goods.

It's just that the ones making the stuff that lasts a life-time never get repeat business from the same buyer, and it probably costs more to make, while the ones that last a lot less guarantee the buyer has to buy more soon™, and have less costs because the prime material doesn't need to be very good anyway, sso it's probably cheaper.

Jul 22, 2021#205

HCGLNS

Sell a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you've lost a customer.

Jul 22, 2021#206

PatrThom

Nowhere near the first time we've discussed this, but here's some from just over a year ago.

--Patrick

Jul 22, 2021#207

PatrThom

ScytheRexx said:
capitalism can push innovation when a good idea becomes viable, but it also has the habit of kneecapping the full potential of those innovations in the interests of dragging out revenue for as long as possible.

This is the literally the point where the government is supposed to step in and be like, "Is Big Business too timid to take those last few steps into the future? Nobody wants to go first? Well FUCK those guys! If they don't get moving and build out enough capacity to supply this fine country with all the power it'll ever need EVEN IF it means not making as much money as they want, we're gonna go eminent domain on those assholes and make 'em do it anyway for even less! By the time we're done, every building in America will be able to continuously run their furnace and air conditioning simultaneously and the electricity to do so will cost less than $5/mo! So what'll it be, power people? El Cheapo or El Repo? Get with the program, or Uncle Sam is gonna come for the keys to your kingdom!"

I mean, if the government's primary focus was where it's supposed to be, which is on things like, I don't know, PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE or some shit, then that's what would happen.

Alas.

--Patrick

Jul 22, 2021#208

Tress

You’re right. And if money, lobbying, and fucking bribery hadn’t been enshrined as a valid form of speech, there’s a good chance that the government would step in and do all that. But the various robber barons of our world have a stranglehold on Washington D.C. and won’t let that come to pass until we’re all fucking dead.

And with their last dying breath, they’ll say it was someone else’s fault all along.

Jul 31, 2021#209

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
In other other words, we are literally on the cusp of Utopia-esque free (or nearly free) electricity for the entire human race worldwide, but we're not gonna get that because "Ooo, sorry...that would mean the loss of too many jobs!"

In case I'm not clear on why I am so frustrated by this, keep in mind that almost all of North America is on the verge of transitioning pretty much all private transportation from internal combustion-powered to electric over the next 25 years or so, and having such an abundant electric supply would be like if gas prices suddenly fell to 20 cents/gal (€0.04/l).

--Patrick

Sep 1, 2021#210

figmentPez

The last country on earth to use leaded gasoline, Algeria, has finally stopped producing it and has run out its supply.

A century of mass producing leaded gasoline is finally over. Here's the asshole who started it:

Read the thread, it's a doozy.

Sep 2, 2021#211

ThatNickGuy

This is an incredible video. The Orkney Islands have an issue where their various sources of renewable energy, especially wind, generate TOO much power.

I'm not an expert, of course, but they mention three possible local changes: switching more cars to electric, switching ferries to electric, and switching oil heated homes to electric. And maybe I'm wrong, but would the latter not be the easiest transition?

They also mention building a new interconnected cable to the British National Grid and sell energy to places outside the island. But doing so would cost close to a quarter of a billion pounds (!!).

Imagine if one of those rich assholes like Elon Musk funded that new interconnector with their pocket change, bringing massive amounts of renewable energy to Scotland and maybe other parts of the UK?

Sep 2, 2021#212

PatrThom

ThatNickGuy said:
Imagine if one of those rich assholes like Elon Musk funded that new interconnector with their pocket change, bringing massive amounts of renewable energy to Scotland and maybe other parts of the UK?

PatrThom said:
we have the capability, RIGHT NOW, to build enough solar [EDIT: and wind] capacity to supply THE ENTIRE WORLD with electricity that costs PRACTICALLY NOTHING, but the reason we won't do that is because SOME PEOPLE WON'T MAKE ENOUGH PROFIT.

I mean, what is there to spur the rich assholes to do it, exactly? Altruism? Pfaugh!

--Patrick

Sep 2, 2021#213

ThatNickGuy

PatrThom said:
I mean, what is there to spur the rich assholes to do it, exactly? Altruism? Pfaugh!

--Patrick

See, what I don't understand, aside from the building cost issue, of course, is why we don't see more solar panels on buildings. Instead of building these giant solar farms, why not have as many houses and buildings with solar panels on them? Individually, they MIGHT be able to power a low-energy household, but combined? Along with energy efficient renovations and other sources? You could probably power a whole city and still have power to spare. Heck, combine it with the smaller wind turbines you could put on many houses and you have back up energy on top of that for less sunny days.

I don't know. In a perfect world, I imagine nearly every roof with solar panels and wind turbines. And converting as many roofs - commercial and residential - into green roofs.

EDIT: I fully admit my way of thinking is completely naïve and probably unrealistic. Especially convincing major oil corporations to reasonably accept "Yeah, no, we're not going to burn oil anymore for our energy." Of course, I also firmly believe we need to greatly reduce the need for individual cars and move towards more infrastructure for public transport and cycling. Which again, I admit is naïve.

Sep 2, 2021#214

PatrThom

Putting panels/turbines on buildings would require the permission of each individual homeowner, but more importantly it would require each homeowner to manage the maintenance of "their" equipment. Not only that, but the best place(s) to put houses won't always be the best place(s) to put solar/turbines. Solar/wind farms are just like other farms in that they gain efficiency by dedicating large areas of land to a single purpose. Canada in general has issues due to its high latitude resulting in less overall sunlight exposure (or at least less-dependable exposure), but I don't know to what degree wind would make up for that. They do tend to be complementary.

As for funding, I completely see committing large sums of money to projects like this being the sort of thing a rich asshole would do, BUT only once they are laying on their deathbed, and only as a way to screw over all the other still-living rich assholes under the guise of "getting into Heaven."

--Patrick

Sep 4, 2021#215

Frank

Don't give in to doom @ThatNickGuy

It's exactly what they want.

Climate Deniers Shift Tactics to 'Inactivism'

Fossil fuel interests are trying to blame climate change on individuals while also sowing division, says Michael Mann, one of their prime targets

www.scientificamerican.com

Sep 4, 2021#216

evilmike

ThatNickGuy said:
Imagine if one of those rich assholes like Elon Musk funded that new interconnector with their pocket change, bringing massive amounts of renewable energy to Scotland and maybe other parts of the UK?

Elon would only be interested if he could build a tunnel to the mainland and move the electricity in charged batteries carried by Teslas.

Sep 15, 2021#217

PatrThom

Massachusetts? California? Hah! They are but mere amateurs who only wish to ban sales of new internal-combustion engines. New York state, however, plans to ban new vehicles that run on any type of fossil fuel. And it's not just cars, the law also requires all new off-road vehicles and equipment must be zero-emission, and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles must* be ZEVs within ten years after.

That's only 14 years, folks. Might want to start putting $20/wk into your mattress NOW so you'll be ready to buy your new ZEV** in 2035.

--Patrick
*"where feasible"
**or you'll at least have a ~$14000 down payment.

Sep 15, 2021#218

HCGLNS

So, limping in, and going with the same target the rest of the world is going towards. Bah.

Sep 15, 2021#219

jwhouk

I've seen this game before. It's called "kick the can."

Jan 11, 2023#220

figmentPez

With stroke of his pen, Gov. Mike DeWine defines natural gas as green energy

"COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation that broadly expands the ability to drill for oil and gas in state parks and also legally redefines natural gas as a source of 'green energy.' ”

Jan 11, 2023#221

Dave

When the republicans talk, you know the stupid is going to be off the charts.

Jan 11, 2023#222

Bubble181

figmentPez said:
With stroke of his pen, Gov. Mike DeWine defines natural gas as green energy

"COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation that broadly expands the ability to drill for oil and gas in state parks and also legally redefines natural gas as a source of 'green energy.' ”

It's the Democrats' fault we all have to go outside with gasmasks and rebreathers, because of their desire to *rolls dice* allow transpeople to get married!
Don't take muh guns!
Ooh-Rah U-S-A-U-S-A!

I don't mind people being more or less cnservative. I understand some people being uncomfortable with the world changing faster (and them having to accept changes faster) than what they can cope with. What I really do get worked up about is people so blatantly and obviously consistently voting against their own best interests;, though. And I don't mean in a "but allowing everyone full expression will set you free too!" BS way - in a "this party is literally saying they're going to detroy the woods you're hiking in and they're telling you to your face they want to tax other people less and you more".

Jan 11, 2023#223

ThatNickGuy

The sad thing is, of the fossil fuels, natural gas is the greenest. It's still not "green" energy by any definition, but it has the lowest carbon emissions compared to coal or oil.

Of course, this just sounds like he's making excuses to "drill, baby, drill."

Jan 15, 2023#224

PatrThom

PatrThom said:
Massachusetts? California? Hah! They are but mere amateurs who only wish to ban sales of new internal-combustion engines. New York state, however, plans to ban new vehicles that run on any type of fossil fuel.

Wyoming has seen the writing on the wall, has heard the distant cries, and...

Wyoming wants to phase out sales of EVs by 2035 to "ensure the stability" of the oil & gas industry

Wyoming is considering phasing out the sales of electric vehicles by 2035 to "ensure the stability" of its oil and gas industry.

www.teslarati.com

...oil and gas production has been one of the state’s proud and valued industries, creating “countless jobs” and contributing “revenues to the state of Wyoming throughout the state’s history.” [...] The bill praises gas-powered vehicles for allowing the state’s industries and businesses to flourish and criticize the use of batteries in electric vehicles due to the critical minerals contained in them.

...I'm sorry, what now?
EDIT: So Wyoming, where the population of the ENTIRE STATE is about 1/3 that of just Manhattan, is going to step in and single-handedly rescue the oil and gas industry. Riiiiight.

--Patrick

Jan 15, 2023#225

HCGLNS

When are people gonna learn that electric cars are coming because the 1% want to crush us underfoot even more. Christ sakes America, NOTHING gets done in your country unless it makes rich people richer!

May 28, 2023#226

figmentPez

Inductive charging highway section to be built in Florida

A one mile stretch of Florida highway is planned to be fit with inductive charging.

"In addition, the system (on the infrastructure side) is supposed to be maintenance-free after installation."

Maintenance-free? HOW? In what world is anything installed in a road maintenance-free? There are so many red flags about this proposal.

May 28, 2023#227

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
There are so many red flags about this proposal.

Not the least of which is simple physics!
Look, you can only do one of two things.
-You can let the cars charge themselves by converting their forward momentum into stored energy, but we've already discussed this one, and all that would do is place drag on the cars, slowing them down, which would be counterproductive.
-OR you can put energy into the cars while they drive, which requires that the road has to somehow know how much energy to "broadcast" into the car, which means there has to be some kind of handshake between the road and the car that educates the road on how much energy the car needs/is capable of absorbing/etc.

This is not merely a simple matter of laying down a stretch of powered rail, Florida! We're talking about a system that could conceivably EMP a car (and its contents!) if done incorrectly.

--Patrick

May 28, 2023#228

Bubble181

"see? All this woke electric nonsense is dangerous and useless! We need our gas guzzlers!"

May 28, 2023#229

Frank

Florida is about the last state I would trust with implementing that.

Fuckin' might have sensors to detect if the passengers are trans and execute them on contact.

May 28, 2023#230

PatrThom

I'm imagining the state government putting out an apology after accidentally boosting the power and turning it into an impromptu railgun.

--Patrick

May 30, 2023#231

MindDetective

What can you even do with one minute of inductive charging?

May 30, 2023#232

HCGLNS

C'mon guys lets not be too hasty. It will more than likely just sterilize anyone driving over it, and fewer Floridians is something we can all agree upon, yes?

Jul 4, 2023#233

ThatNickGuy

"We're phasing out coal!"
"Yay!"
"And replacing it with heavy fuel oil!"
"Boo!"

NS Power plans to produce electricity with fuel oil until 2050 instead of with coal

HALIFAX — Nova Scotia’s power utility plans to convert a coal-burning electricity station in Cape Breton to burn heavy fuel oil once federal regulations phase out coal entirely in 2030. The proposal has raised the eyebrows of one utility review board member and was characterized as “disturbing”...

halifax.citynews.ca

Jul 4, 2023#234

MindDetective

ThatNickGuy said:
"We're phasing out coal!"
"Yay!"
"And replacing it with heavy fuel oil!"
"Boo!"

NS Power plans to produce electricity with fuel oil until 2050 instead of with coal

HALIFAX — Nova Scotia’s power utility plans to convert a coal-burning electricity station in Cape Breton to burn heavy fuel oil once federal regulations phase out coal entirely in 2030. The proposal has raised the eyebrows of one utility review board member and was characterized as “disturbing”...

halifax.citynews.ca

But the heavy fuel oil comes with a free frogurt!

Sep 10, 2023#235

GasBandit

Lithium discovery in US volcano could be biggest deposit ever found

Find could point to new ways to prospect for material in high demand for batteries.

www.chemistryworld.com

Sep 10, 2023#236

ThatNickGuy

That's pretty great. Although there have been an increasing number of alternatives to lithium for batteries. They're all still being researched and prototyped, mind you. So they're still a ways away from being viable on the market.

Sep 10, 2023#237

bhamv3

I feel like "mining out a volcano" sounds like the start of a sci-fi disaster movie.

Sep 10, 2023#238

GasBandit

bhamv3 said:
I feel like "mining out a volcano" sounds like the start of a sci-fi disaster movie.

At least it isn't in the Yellowstone Supervolcano....

Sep 10, 2023#239

Dave

GasBandit said:
At least it isn't in the Yellowstone Supervolcano....

Yet. If regular volcanoes have lithium, maybe SUPERvolcanoes have SUPERlithium!

Sep 11, 2023#240

ThatNickGuy

Dave said:
Yet. If regular volcanoes have lithium, maybe SUPERvolcanoes have SUPERlithium!

I read this in Krillen's voice from Dragonball Z Abridged.

"Maybe what we need is a SUPER Namekian!"

Sep 11, 2023#241

PatrThom

bhamv3 said:
I feel like "mining out a volcano" sounds like the start of a sci-fi disaster movie.

I feel like "mining out an American Indian reservation" could be the start of a different kind of movie. But I can't seem to get a straight answer out of the Internet as to whether it is on protected land.

--Patrick

Sep 11, 2023#242

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
I feel like "mining out an American Indian reservation" could be the start of a different kind of movie. But I can't seem to get a straight answer out of the Internet as to whether it is on protected land.

--Patrick

Naturally they're being very cagey about the exact location, but they do say it's in the McDermitt Caldera, and there IS a reservation there (Fort McDermitt). I'd be willing to bet there's going to be some drama.

Apr 28, 2024#243

figmentPez

Read this Twitter thread from Hank Green:

For those who can't/won't use Twitter, I'll try to remember to copy or summarize it here later.

Apr 28, 2024#244

Tress

figmentPez said:
For those who can't/won't use Twitter, I'll try to remember to copy or summarize it here later.

Thank you. I refuse to get an account, and Musk has made it so only people with accounts can read replies to tweets.

Apr 28, 2024#245

PatrThom

At first glance, I thought it was comparing presidential effect on CO2 emissions against that of a department store chain.

Tress said:
Thank you. I refuse to get an account, and Musk has made it so only people with accounts can read replies to tweets.

I have an account, and I still refuse to allow Musk the pleasure of my eyeballs.

--Patrick

Apr 28, 2024#246

Ravenpoe

Tress said:
Thank you. I refuse to get an account, and Musk has made it so only people with accounts can read replies to tweets.

Only some tweets, for some reason. I don't have an account, but all of this thread shows for me

Apr 28, 2024#247

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
I have an account, and I still refuse to allow Musk the pleasure of my eyeballs.

If you have an account, you're letting him inflate his numbers. Not giving him your eyeballs just means you're saving him database/bandwidth overhead.

Apr 28, 2024#248

figmentPez

figmentPez said:
Read this Twitter thread from Hank Green:

For those who can't/won't use Twitter, I'll try to remember to copy or summarize it here later.

Here are all of Hank Green's tweets:

"Can we...just accept that we suck at this?

I want to tell you a story that has made me kinda hopeless about Twitter's ability to affect positive things happening, and it starts with this tweet from Hillary Clinton.

It was (and I understand why) widely mocked. The graph is confusing and bad, especially the part where it flattens out in 2030 (which is when most of the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate change bill in the history of Earth, expires.)

Some of the people making fun of the tweet were like "How do I vote for Target" which is a good joke. But the majority of the popular tweets about it were like "This is the problem with Democrats, they will only ever be just a little better than Republicans."

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 1.jpg

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 2.jpg

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 3.jpg

This is very demonstrably not the case if you pay attention at all, and I will explain why, but all of these tweets got over 10,000 likes.

There's also this take, (this one with 11k likes) which is just incorrect. The 2050 goal was set by the Paris Agreement, and Biden's 2030 goal is more aggressive than the 2030 goal set by the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement's goal is to limit warming to 1.5C.

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 4.jpg

Anyway, the fact that people misinterpreted a graph which would be better represented as the below graphs (created by @nolightupstairs
and @jaxroam respectively) isn't what makes me so sad and frustrated.

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 5.jpg

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 6.jpg

I mean, it does frustrate me...like, people see what they are primed to see and obviously a lot of progressives are primed to see the Biden Administration as half-assed on climate. But here's what really frustrated me.

A couple days after this Bad Hillary Tweet went viral on progressive Twitter, the Biden Admin and the EPA announced their new CO2 rules for the power sector, regulating the ability of coal fired power plants to EXIST ANYMORE.

Coal plants are just 20% of our power mix right now, but because it's so dirty, it's still more than half of the power sector's CO2 emissions. The new rules say that coal fired power plants need to capture all of their CO2 by 2032 or close by 2039.

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 7.png

This is a big deal that will dramatically increase our chances of hitting the 2050 target. The rules also say that this switch away from coal can't be accomplished by just building base-load natural gas plants (unless they are not emitting CO2.)

This is amazing news. It's a massive change that the fossil fuel industry is going to hate and attack Biden over RELENTLESSLY. But the story of how we got here is interesting and important, so please stick with me.

It began in 2005 when the Massachusettes sued the EPA saying, "You have to regulate harmful emissions and CO2 is a harmful emission." The Supreme Court agreed and the EPA sent their findings to the Bush administration which REFUSED TO OPEN THE EMAIL and stalled until Obama.

he Obama admin quickly interfaced with the EPA and attempted to do the obvious thing...create a carbon market where different sectors could trade credits so we could decarbonize as efficiently as possible.

But then the Supreme Court (with justices appointed by GWB) stopped the regulation from going into effect, and eventually said, "OK, you can regulate CO2, but you can't create a carbon market. You can only regulate individual power plants."

But then Trump was president and he of course scrapped everything. So, Biden's EPA had to figure out how to do it in a way that fit with court precedent, and that meant keeping it a regulation that affected individual power plants, which mean't "capture carbon or close."

But if the coal companies could credibly say "No, carbon capture isn't ready yet, you're asking us to do something we can't do." Then the court would just overturn it, so the Biden Admin first had to pass laws that developed and supported CO2 capture technology.

They did this with the IRA and the Infrastructure Law (a move that a lot of progressives disliked, but was part of these machinations.) Because Trump appointed so many conservative justices, they had to get that passed before they could legally justify the new rules.

The coal lobby has always said "Carbon Capture is the Future" so the Biden Admin is saying "OK, 2032 sounds like the future to me....here are the tools to get there. If it isn't the future, then stop emitting CO2 by shutting down."

They worked for years to make a legally strong case that the EPA has the ability to regulate the majority of our power sector's CO2 emissions out of existence and it ALMOST DIDN'T HAPPEN and it's a testament to hard, smart, long work that it did.

Now, do you think I found out about it when tens of thousands of people shared tweets about it? Yeah, of course not. The Sierra Club and NRDC and Earth Justice all tweeted excitedly about it and got...dozens of likes. Governor Jay Inslee GOT RATIOED OVER IT!

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 8.jpg

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 9.jpg

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 10.jpg

Hank Green environmental Twitter kerfuffle 11.jpg

I found out about it this weekend because I listen to the dorkiest, most inside-baseball climate podcast on Earth, Shift Key. (If you want to actually care about climate change, this (and Volts from @drvolts) are the podcasts!)

So why is the Biden Administration working it's ass off to get to the 2050 target when: 1. It is going to increase power costs, providing ammunition to conservatives. 2. It's a huge pain in the ass because conservative justices keep getting nominated.

3. The people who actually care about climate change WILL NOT EVEN KNOW IT HAPPENED, DO NOT CELEBRATE IT, AND INSTEAD WILL FOCUS ON A MISINTERPRETED GRAPH AND OWNING HILLARY CLINTON.

The only answer I have for this question is because the Biden folks don't want the fucking world to end. They want to hit the Paris Agreement targets and so that America can lead by example, even if there is a political cost and very little gain.

So, I guess, we're just all very lucky to have people working their asses of to address climate change even though, apparently, it will go unnoticed and not sway anyone to vote for them because we're too busy being snarky on a website. "

--

Emphasis mine.

Apr 28, 2024#249

D

Dubyamn

Awful lot of work to just say the graph is awful.

Also breaks my heart how no matter how well Biden laid the groundwork to defend it legally when SCOTUS has never and will never give a single fuck about the law except how to bend it towards their desired outcomes. So if it goes in front of a SCOTUS that looks anything like the current set up it's dead on arrival.

Apr 28, 2024#250

figmentPez

Dubyamn said:
Awful lot of work to just say the graph is awful.

I think the point is more about how being snarky and dunking on mistakes is repeatedly overshadowing any discussion of progress and actual accomplishments.

Apr 29, 2024#251

MindDetective

Dubyamn said:
Awful lot of work to just say the graph is awful.

Also breaks my heart how no matter how well Biden laid the groundwork to defend it legally when SCOTUS has never and will never give a single fuck about the law except how to bend it towards their desired outcomes. So if it goes in front of a SCOTUS that looks anything like the current set up it's dead on arrival.

I got a lot more out of it than "the graph is awful". Maybe you knew all of that already but I didn't.

Apr 29, 2024#252

D

Dubyamn

figmentPez said:
I think the point is more about how being snarky and dunking on mistakes is repeatedly overshadowing any discussion of progress and actual accomplishments.

It’s not an accomplishment until it goes into effect. Which means it needs to get through the Supreme Court which I don’t believe it will and then Democrats need to win three presidential elections in a row which hasn’t happened in my lifetime.
Meanwhile Clinton’s post was clearly stupid as hell. And will probably end up discouraging voters who believe that climate change is important.

Jul 27, 2024#253

PatrThom

Technically not "enshittification" if we go by the (Urban?) Dictionary definition of the term, but definitely still worthy of the term.

Customers who save on electric bills could be forced to pay utility company for lost profits • Louisiana Illuminator

Louisiana utility companies still want to charge customers for the costs of a new energy efficiency program and for the electricity no longer needed due to that program.

lailluminator.com

While [the LPSC’s new energy efficiency program] might seem like a straightforward solution to cut back on waste, utility company executives aren’t very happy with it. In general, utility companies earn more profit when homes and businesses waste electricity. Less waste leads to lower electric bills, which could mean lower profits for the utilities.
[...]
Even though customers are covering all the costs of the program, the utility companies could end up squeezing them for lost profits with so-called “under-earning” fees. The utility companies lobbied the LPSC to keep a provision that allows them to tack on additional charges to make up for profits they miss out on when their customers no longer waste electricity. In other words, the utilities want their customers to pay fees for both the energy efficiency program and for the electricity they will no longer use because of the program.

Yet another example of an entity trying to privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Do some layoffs? Reduce unnecessary heirarchy? Contract workforce and infrastructure as relevance declines? Heck no! That would mean less money for ~~our shareholders~~ MEEeee...

--Patrick

Jul 27, 2024#254

HCGLNS

We had a program to get every one using CFL bulbs then LED bulbs, when it was successful in lowering the demand for electricity, NS Power charged everyone more so their revenue went up...

Forums