Earth's Atmosphere

[tvstrip]

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...imate-change-ahead-glasgow-summit-2021-09-17/

Biden announced in April a new target to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 50%-52% by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.

I saw in my research this 50% goal floated by several countries, including Japan, Canada, and South Korea. The problem is that none of these countries have shown any progress in emission levels that would suggest that they would be on track for this kind of reduction in less than 9 years.

Increasing the price on pollution IMO isn't going to do too much. Think about it: the last time gas prices skyrocketed, what did you do?
Did you buy an electric car? Did you start biking or taking the bus to work?
Chances are You Might have made some small changes, but probably not enough to cut your carbon footprint by half. Instead, you may have cut back in other areas of your budget.

And that's the problem with a carbon tax; people may just end up paying more for gas instead of cutting back on emissions.

 

[mikexmoran]

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...imate-change-ahead-glasgow-summit-2021-09-17/


I saw in my research this 50% goal floated by several countries, including Japan, Canada, and South Korea. The problem is that none of these countries have shown any progress in emission levels that would suggest that they would be on track for this kind of reduction in less than 9 years.

Increasing the price on pollution IMO isn't going to do too much. Think about it: the last time gas prices skyrocketed, what did you do?
Did you buy an electric car? Did you start biking or taking the bus to work?
Chances are you might have made some small changes, but probably not enough to cut your carbon footprint by half. Instead, you may have cut back in other areas of your budget.

And that's the problem with a carbon tax; people may just end up paying more for gas instead of cutting back on emissions.

I’ve seen your point presented in a few ways and I think it is a good point. I also don’t think it should deter us from attempting to reduce emissions.
I was reading an article last week on nuclear being an answer. I’m not sure how I feel about that, but it made a certain amount of sense. The arguments I’m sure would come pretty fast against nuclear as a key component.

https://urnmetf.com/posts/electric-vehicles-drive-demand-for-nuclear-uranium

Saw someone post this article and it is somewhat counterintuitive, but Elon is thinking EVs will reduce the demand for nuclear. I’m not sure I’m there, but am not betting against him.

Tangentially, I’ve been following the AI progress on the Tesla’s and I think its Impressive. The Tesla overall is impressive and I’m close to pulling the trigger on getting one.

 

[tvstrip]

I absolutely agree with you that we need to strive to reduce emissions, and also that government intervention is needed for this. Self regulation doesn't work - emitters aren't going to stop polluting unless they're forced to.

That said, I hate when people make lofty goals they have no intention (or no reasonable plan) to achieve.

Say a 500 pound person announces on facebook they are going to lose 250 pounds in 9 years.
-Not reducing their weight will likely kill them, and they're probably already experiencing the effects of it now.
-So there's no doubt that this is a good idea.
-But they don't tell you how they intend on doing it. They don't have any plans to exercise, change their diet etc. They do however, enjoy all the "likes" they get in making the announcement.
-They have been obese for most of their life, and while they said they were going to lose weight about 10 years ago, they've never stuck to it or made any progress. In fact, they have kept gaining more weight in the last 10 years.
-No one is going to hold them to that goal or penalize them if they don't achieve it. There is no consequence other than the side effects of obesity to that person.

As an outsider looking at this person, how would you react? Personally, I would want them to succeed, but I would be very skeptical of the likeliness or their ability to do so.

I would much rather them make a plan to lose weight, and based on that plan, which they can and intend to see through, estimate what they can lose. To me, that's the way to an achievable, realistic goal.


Yeah, nuclear is a tough one. Anyone who has played SimCity knows the dilemma LOL. Seriously though, the risk is real as we saw with Fukushima.

More focus on other clean sources will probably help, and I think that's where the governments of the world Look at Wind power in Denmark. Geothermal in New Zealand. Hydro-Electric in North America (e.g. Niagara Falls). Heck, Canadians refer to household electricity as "hydro" because that's how most of it is produced. No matter how big of a tree-hugger you are, unless you're literally living in a cave, you are going to be consuming electricity. So it only makes sense that we need to stop (or at least work to minimize) outdated forms of production like coal, because electricity use isn't going to be going down anytime in the future.

 

[mikexmoran]

I absolutely agree with you that we need to strive to reduce emissions, and also that government intervention is needed for this. Self regulation doesn't work - emitters aren't going to stop polluting unless they're forced to.

That said, I hate when people make lofty goals they have no intention (or no reasonable plan) to achieve.

Say a 500 pound person announces on facebook they are going to lose 250 pounds in 9 years.
-Not reducing their weight will likely kill them, and they're probably already experiencing the effects of it now.
-So there's no doubt that this is a good idea.
-But they don't tell you how they intend on doing it. They don't have any plans to exercise, change their diet etc. They do however, enjoy all the "likes" they get in making the announcement.
-They have been obese for most of their life, and while they said they were going to lose weight about 10 years ago, they've never stuck to it or made any progress. In fact, they have kept gaining more weight in the last 10 years.
-No one is going to hold them to that goal or penalize them if they don't achieve it. There is no consequence other than the side effects of obesity to that person.

As an outsider looking at this person, how would you react? Personally, I would want them to succeed, but I would be very skeptical of the likeliness or their ability to do so.

I would much rather them make a plan to lose weight, and based on that plan, which they can and intend to see through, estimate what they can lose. To me, that's the way to an achievable, realistic goal.


Yeah, nuclear is a tough one. Anyone who has played SimCity knows the dilemma LOL. Seriously though, the risk is real as we saw with Fukushima.

More focus on other clean sources will probably help, and I think that's where the governments of the world Look at Wind power in Denmark. Geothermal in New Zealand. Hydro-Electric in North America (e.g. Niagara Falls). Heck, Canadians refer to household electricity as "hydro" because that's how most of it is produced. No matter how big of a tree-hugger you are, unless you're literally living in a cave, you are going to be consuming electricity. So it only makes sense that we need to stop (or at least work to minimize) outdated forms of production like coal, because electricity use isn't going to be going down anytime in the future.

I think I’d have the same thought.
I lost 15 lbs that I picked up over the years. I’m fairly active. I bike, walk, go to the gym, been going to my friend’s dojo for the past 25 years, and I scuba. So, it wasn’t that. I stopped eating the crap. Cut out the crackers, chips, and cookies. Keep my calorie count down.

To your apology, we a energy addicts, like we are food addicts. We need it to survive.
I run my air 4 months of the year. Maybe we need to close Florida and Texas. It’s just too hot to live there.
Kidding aside, perhaps part of the equation is to develop Produces that people want that use less and emit less that are attractive. My solar panels were paid for largely by a tax break and have me just about off the grid. I’m not sure if the net net is good for the environment (materials), but it is good for my wallet.

I think you’re making sense.

 

[tvstrip]

My solar panels were paid for largely by a tax break and have me just about off the grid. I’m not sure if the net net is good for the environment (materials), but it is good for my wallet.

I think you’re making sense.

Stuff like this makes sense and a step in the right direction. It's the carrot or the whip again. Punishing carbon emitters with higher costs might work, but it's likely going to be far more enticing if the government chips in (significantly) for the public to take up these measures.
True, there may be some negative effects with the materials, but you changing over to renewable energy sources is definitely a good thing. Electricity production IMO is an area we need to address, and governments absolutely have the power to create incentives for consumers to make this change.

I know it's a pipe dream, but imagine if the government said they'll pay 80% of the cost to buy a new electric car if you trade in your current gas guzzler. I'm sure a lot of people would jump on that deal and the effect on carbon emissions would be enormous. I'm not saying that's particularly a feasible solution, but I'm sure they could come up with something that would really entice the public and have a similar positive effect.

 

[tvstrip]

This accurately sums up how I feel about COP26. It's not specific to the Aussies, pretty much every country there is enacting policies which contradict their "green schemes".

 

[tvstrip]

The unintended consequences of the Trudeau government banning gas-powered cars by 2035 (msn.com)

For the average Canadian, one of the most impactful planks of the federal government’s newly released Emissions Reduction Plan was a 2035 pledge to ban all sales of private vehicles running on internal combustion engines (ICE). While there will be exceptions for semi-trucks and agricultural vehicles, in just 13 years it will become illegal to purchase a new car or truck powered by gasoline or diesel.

I legit thought I was reading an April Fools article. It's insane.
Think about where we were 13 years ago and how much progress we've made in changing over our cars into EVs or even hybrids. And they think this is realistic?

 

[Tokaji]

The unintended consequences of the Trudeau government banning gas-powered cars by 2035 (msn.com)



I legit thought I was reading an April Fools article. It's insane.
Think about where we were 13 years ago and how much progress we've made in changing over our cars into EVs or even hybrids. And they think this is realistic?

Was reading about Tesla's GigaFactories in Germany, China, and Texas in the US. Interesting.
Elon seems genuinely interested in figuring out how to power the Tesla Charging Stations with Solar, and reducing the impact of the batteries on the environment.'

 

[tvstrip]

Was reading about Tesla's GigaFactories in Germany, China, and Texas in the US. Interesting.
Elon seems genuinely interested in figuring out how to power the Tesla Charging Stations with Solar, and reducing the impact of the batteries on the environment.'

EV's are just way more expensive to buy and maintain. I remember doing the calculations, and even before the record-high gas prices, you'd need to be driving for a couple decades before even coming close to making back what you save in gas. So unless governments offer HUGE subsidies on the cost of ownership & purchase of EVs, there is going to be some huge resistance.

 

[Tokaji]

EV's are just way more expensive to buy and maintain. I remember doing the calculations, and even before the record-high gas prices, you'd need to be driving for a couple decades before even coming close to making back what you save in gas. So unless governments offer HUGE subsidies on the cost of ownership & purchase of EVs, there is going to be some huge resistance.

I agree (I can't like you, btw. Please take this as a like for a good post .) I'm not worried about the charging stations, it is the maintenance. I had just bought a new car about a year ago. I'm still burning fossil fuels. I don't put many miles on it. I keep looking at the Teslas thinking, perhaps when I'm ready to replace my car, the market will be at a place where maintenance would make sense.

I don't have great luck in general with cars. Even when I do my research, I get the lemon. Compound that by my absolute lack of know-how and skill with auto repairs and it is frustrating for me. All the more reason for me to wait for a Tesla.

I do like the way Elon thinks. I don't think he is just a huckster. He thinks 20 years out.

 

[Tokaji]

Not sure if you'll be able to read this NY Times Opinion Article on how Germany becoming Putin's prime enabler. A Russian embargo on natural gas is estimated to reduce Germany's GDP by about 2.1%, but they are avoiding it claiming that it will be a disaster. That probably isn't the case and makes Germany a liability with the environment and security.

I was following the thread as the day wore on today and the environment issues are real, as is the reality the the sanctions haven't had too much of an impact since the Russian economy has rebounded. Economically Russia has seemed to managed the sanctions by cutting interest rates.

Germany is a problem. Their environment and economic will are tied together. It highlights how the environment, energy, security, and politics all are intertwined.

Love to see how the GigaFactory in Germany progresses and I hope that Elon works with Spain. Hope and dreaming aren't bad things if they are followed by actions, even if we fall forward.

 

[Tokaji]

I highlight Germany as a liability and that is fair. I've been reading more about the environmental concerns, the Russian/Ukraine situation, and energy.
France's approach is to build more nuclear power plants. Europe is working towards the EU commitment to reduce greenhouse gasses in addition to the increased energy costs.
Carbon emissions are low for nuclear power. Risk is a concern. Frequency of incidents are low, but impact can be high. Nuclear has waste that is far from green.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china...ts-safety-rules-amid-reports-leak-2021-06-14/

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/11/business/nuclear-power-france/index.html

 

[Tokaji]

Just read that on 29 March, wind generated more power than coal and nuclear sources in the US for the first time over a 24-hour period (Scientific American).
March is a particularly windy month, so that may have helped.

There have been an increase in turbine installations and an added ~11 gigawatts of capacity to the US energy grid. (cue Dr. Brown from Back to the Future)

Over the past 10 years wind has risen from 2.3% to 9.2 % of electric generation.

It isn't without issues. Cost and supply chain issues are rising. Also, people don't want the turbines in their backyard.

People are getting creative. One design is a wind turbine wall, which looks pretty cool.

Overall this sounds promising to me, but I keep seeing twitter posts on how environmentally harmful wind is. Sounds counterintuitive. Waste from the oil that is required to run the turbines, waste from the materials, and the disruption the turbines create themselves. Still sounds like a good path to follow.

Pollution from Oil and Coal seems obvious. Nuclear waste still does not have a good solution for disposal. Batteries need a source to be charged and the material mining has not been good for the environment. Seems reasonable that wind is in the arsenal of sources for clean energy.

 

[tvstrip]

Just read that on 29 March, wind generated more power than coal and nuclear sources in the US for the first time over a 24-hour period (Scientific American).
March is a particularly windy month, so that may have helped.

There have been an increase in turbine installations and an added ~11 gigawatts of capacity to the US energy grid. (cue Dr. Brown from Back to the Future)

Over the past 10 years wind has risen from 2.3% to 9.2 % of electric generation.

It isn't without issues. Cost and supply chain issues are rising. Also, people don't want the turbines in their backyard.

People are getting creative. One design is a wind turbine wall, which looks pretty cool.

Overall this sounds promising to me, but I keep seeing twitter posts on how environmentally harmful wind is. Sounds counterintuitive. Waste from the oil that is required to run the turbines, waste from the materials, and the disruption the turbines create themselves. Still sounds like a good path to follow.

Pollution from Oil and Coal seems obvious. Nuclear waste still does not have a good solution for disposal. Batteries need a source to be charged and the material mining has not been good for the environment. Seems reasonable that wind is in the arsenal of sources for clean energy.

Lots of good points there!

The takeaway is that even renewable sources of energy have consequences for the environment. They are mostly better than that of oil/coal, but by no means perfect.
Like you said, wind has its drawbacks, not to mention its not the most efficient or reliable. But Denmark has been able to produce more than 50% of its energy from wind, so it is possible.

Hydroelectric power will affect the wildlife in the surrounding area as you're literally taking out water from a river and building an entire network of tunnels for the generators. You could also have issues with water during the winter if you're in a place that's an issue.

I think a good start is to figure out how to boost efficiency for these methods. Wind, solar, hydro all take up massive amounts of space - which make is unfeasible if land is at a premium. Lets not forget that we're facing a potential food crisis with the global population as well, so you'd also have to compete with farmland.

One thought I had was Africa. If they can get their shit together so that the populace isn't constantly at war with each other, they have huge potential for energy generation. Electricity transmission can be efficient up to 7000km, so they're not going to power the world, but I'd say it's a worthy investment.

 

[Tokaji]

Lots of good points there!

The takeaway is that even renewable sources of energy have consequences for the environment. They are mostly better than that of oil/coal, but by no means perfect.
Like you said, wind has its drawbacks, not to mention its not the most efficient or reliable. But Denmark has been able to produce more than 50% of its energy from wind, so it is possible.

Hydroelectric power will affect the wildlife in the surrounding area as you're literally taking out water from a river and building an entire network of tunnels for the generators. You could also have issues with water during the winter if you're in a place that's an issue.

I think a good start is to figure out how to boost efficiency for these methods. Wind, solar, hydro all take up massive amounts of space - which make is unfeasible if land is at a premium. Lets not forget that we're facing a potential food crisis with the global population as well, so you'd also have to compete with farmland.

One thought I had was Africa. If they can get their shit together so that the populace isn't constantly at war with each other, they have huge potential for energy generation. Electricity transmission can be efficient up to 7000km, so they're not going to power the world, but I'd say it's a worthy investment.

I agree. Would be nice to take part of an unused arid location and put up a bunch of solar panels.

Makes me wonder, if we did it, how long before someone blows the up.

Consider this a Thumbs Up. I can't like posts here.

<Insert Thumbs Up Emoji Here!/>

 

[tvstrip]

I agree. Would be nice to take part of an unused arid location and put up a bunch of solar panels.

Makes me wonder, if we did it, how long before someone blows the up.

Consider this a Thumbs Up. I can't like posts here.

<Insert Thumbs Up Emoji Here!/>

Have you talked to the mods about that? I didn't know that reactions could be restricted (or why).

 

[gmase]

Have you talked to the mods about that? I didn't know that reactions could be restricted (or why).

Reactions come with the advancement into the next group. 5 posts and a positive reaction score of 100 is needed.

 

[Tokaji]

I wasn't complaining and not enough interest to query.

I was just commenting that I thought tvstrip's comment was a quality one.

 

[gmase]

I wasn't complaining and not enough interest to query.

I was just commenting that I thought tvstrip's comment was a quality one.

Thanks, but I was helping @tvstrip. Hence why I quoted his post.

 

[tvstrip]

Keep at it @Tokaji , you're almost there!