Albert Einstein supposed wrote:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
Considering the issue of global warming, much of the developed world, and states like Washington and California, are acting kind of insane.
Western nations and the U.S. have spent trillions of dollars on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Washington State has spent billions through the controversial CCA (Climate Commitment Act) pushed by Governor Inslee and friends. Solar arrays and wind turbines have been distributed across the nation.
Did all this effort and loss of treasure accomplish anything significant?
Hard evidence suggests the answer is definitively no.
Consider the trends of the two main greenhouse gases, CO2 and methane (see below). (Remember, that a greenhouse gas warms the planet by absorbing and emitting infrared radiation.)
CO2 concentrations (and emissions) are going up steeply, with no reduction of the upward climb. Methane gas is going up faster than ever.
We are making no progress in reducing the upward climb of these two gases.
None. Zero. Zippo.
Mankind has made no progress at all.
Here in the U.S., many folks who think they are following the low-carbon lifestyle, by driving electric cars and using heat pumps, have huge carbon footprints due to all the flying they do and all the stuff they buy. Electric cars require large amounts of fossil fuels to create and often the electricity is from fossil fuel sources. Electric bicycles have the same problem.
Furthermore, many of the attempts to reduce emissions in places such as Washington State have been wasteful and ineffective.
Heavy, big tires, big battery. Not good for the environment
Furthermore, many of the attempts to reduce emissions in places such as Washington State have been wasteful and ineffective.
The poster child of such ineffective waste is Washington's CCA (which is being voted on next week). Billions are spent on a range of projects, without any requirement for reducing emissions or demonstration of reduced emissions. Most of the projects will have no impact on CO2 emissions. This waste is one reason I am voting for Initiative 2117 and so should you. The CCA is also profoundly regressive, hurting low-income people the most.
So What Do We Do?
In some places, solar energy and wind can be useful, but they are too intermittent and limited to solve the problem.
Want proof? During the past two days, solar and wind (green line), have produced less than our one nuclear plant (red line), and MUCH, MUCH less than hydro (blue line).
Only nuclear power is viable for a massive replacement of fossil fuels. Fission is available now and is not being applied sufficiently. Fusion power will be available within a decade or two.
MIT Fusion Project
Once we have fusion power, virtually limitless amounts of clean energy will be available. Such energy can be used to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Problem solved.
_________________
NOTE: I will hold a special online zoom session at 10 AM on Saturday for Patreon supporters. I will discuss the forecast for the upcoming winter and answer your questions.
Currently the US imports a quarter of its nuclear fuel supply from Russia, even with all the sanctions in place. Solve that problem...
ReplyDeleteHow is that possible? Nuclear power plants go decades between refuelings. It's not like it comes in every week like oil.
DeleteNuclear power plants typically need to be refueled every 2 years (US Department of Energy, Ultimate Fast Facts Guide to Nuclear Energy).
DeleteIt's not "decades between refuelings"!
The main reason to vote against 2117 is because it bans any attempt to implement any new cap-and-trade tax on carbon emissions. While CAT taxes are not the whole solution to tackling climate change, they can be part of the solution. CCA is poorly implemented, but banning any other attempts is not helping the problem.
ReplyDeleteCap and trade is a flawed approach, a carbon tax is more straightforward and effective. I was a strong supporter of the carbon tax initative 8 years ago.
DeleteWhat is the advantage of a carbon tax over cap and trade?
DeleteThe advantage of a carbon tax is that it taxes the producer of the CO2. So the tailpipes of F-150's and BMW's would pay exactly for what they produce.
DeleteThe system now
The system
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Cliff,
ReplyDeleteI understand the argument that big heavy cars, even electric ones, are not as good as smaller cars with our current grid. I'm not understanding the argument that a 50-100 pound electric bike is bad for the environment. It's dramatically lighter than any small car, so proportionally it should be better than a car.
For example, my Rad Wagon goes ~30 miles on a charge, weighs ~400 pounds with me and my two kids, and uses 0.5kWh of electricity for about 60mi/kWh. This is way more efficient than my (relatively efficient) Model 3 that gets, at best, 5mi/kWh.
I bike with a 16 lb road bike, a 30 lb mountain bike, a 70 lb Rad Runner (to carry 1-2 kids), and a 100 lb Rad Wagon (to carry 2-3 kids). None of these have an effect on my power bill. If I commute with my electric car, I can see the effect on my power bill.
Maybe I'm missing something? Do you have a peer reviewed study that you are indirectly referencing about how e-bikes are bad for the environment?
The comparison is with human-powered bikes that require far less energy to build and which don't require electricity to run. Furthermore, electric bikes generally go to fast on places like the burke-gilman trail, not only breaking speed limits but endangering pedestrians and normal bikes.
DeleteI should disclose:
DeleteI'm a runner and on the Burke I've had a bike run over my foot. It hurt for a couple of weeks and I was frustrated.
My neighbor was killed by a driver in Seattle when she was biking to work.
My sister was hit by a truck when she was cycling and she got a concussion and thankfully didn't die. The truck didn't stop.
My neighbor was hit by a bike over the summer (daytime, car's fault turning left and not looking for him).
There is a reason why cyclists ride on the Burke.
*They don't want to die.*
We should be on the same side of this! We both want safe ways to get around. The burke is now crowded because there are now more cyclists (with e-assist) than in the past. We should both want more bike paths! I'm just really confused about your apparent dislike of e-bikes.
Bicycles(human powered or e-bikes) should have no business sharing the roads with motor vehicles. It is extremely dangerous for the riders, as vehicle drivers have a hard time seeing them, there are more and more cars on the road, and drivers are becoming more and more distracted. Not only that, but bicycle and e-bike riders are not paying licensing fees, in effect getting a "free ride" while the folks driving the cars are paying those fees and the steep gas taxes to pay for road repairs and bike lanes. Licensing fees should be considered for road bikes, or consider removing them from the roads.
DeleteIf the comparison is with human-powered bikes, then you should have made that comparison.
DeleteBut the real question is what are they replacing -- cars or human-powered bikes. And studies indicate that they replace more car trips than they do human-powered bike trips.
Catguy- I agree that there is some danger riding a bicycle on the roads, especially in town, but it irritates me when someone proposes banning the right to use roads except in a motor vehicle. I have heard this before. Come on- we all pay for the roads, through property taxes if not the gas tax, and most bikers are also drivers. Would you require a jogger or dog-walker on a country lane to buy a license? How about children who need exercise and have only their parents' support? Bicycles do very little road damage- compared to cars, the damage they do is negligible. I am talking mainly about human powered bikes.
DeleteUntil we have a far more complete network of bike trails, bikes must, and will, use the roads, even arterials. They are, appropriately, banned from some places, such as interstate highways. And there are places where, though they may be legal, I don't ride, because I think it is too dangerous, such as Aurora Avenue. But risk is a personal choice. It is popular sport- get over it.
Dr Mass, you reason that the switch to electric vehicles in the west is offset by increase use of fossil fuels by third world countries. If the switch to electric vehicles hadn't been made, would that not have caused the rise in glasshouse gasses to be even higher?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but it takes energy to run the electric vehicles and to build them, so that contribution is very modest.
DeleteThe difference is not very modest though, it's actually pretty significant.
DeleteThat's true even if you go into the Customize menu and make things less advantageous than average for EVs:
https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore
Great summary of this global problem. One additional issue is the addition of about 2 billion more citizens to the global population in those developing countries you discuss.
ReplyDeleteThe rate of global population growth is historically small and has been declining for decades. In contrast, global C02 and Methane show no signs of slowing down, as Cliff showed above. This is not being driven by population growth.
DeleteI'm definitely voting YES on this particular initiative. When I took time to read through the actual legislation that created the "carbon trade market" that the I-2117 addresses (funded by a river of cash flowing-in on the backs of us "ordinary citizens") I could see how regressive the thing is. YES on I-2117 (and frankly, the other three initiatives, too). I've seen the ads on TV promoting a "no vote" and they're grotesquely dishonest IMHO.
ReplyDeleteI was also really worried that the Climate Commitment Act is regressive, so I looked into it a bit. I think basically it comes down to how the tax revenue is spent. If enough of the revenue goes back to the state's low- and moderate-income population, then they might actually get more money back than they lose from the tax.
DeleteDoing this in Washington state is a bit tricky, due to our lack of an income tax, but there are ways. For example, this year the CCA revenue paid for a $200 energy credit for qualifying households. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/washington-families-clean-energy-credits/ Of course, the timing of this rebate with respect to the election is a bit suspect, but I think the idea is a good one. If the CCA survives the election, I think we should lobby the state legislature (or submit more initiatives) to give more auction revenue back to the people.
What bugs me most about today's environmentalists is that no no dares talk about population anymore. World population is still rising, and less developed countries are mostly responsible. Carbon-free energy, yes; but we also need to help underdeveloped countries get their birth rates down.
ReplyDeleteThe way to get birth rates down is to allow people to be prosperous. Allow. We have ‘third world’ countries because of bad government, or no government, or government focused on a vendetta. In most countries with a reasonable amount of prosperity the birth rate has dropped. Why? Because women who get an education tend to follow that education into a career, narrowing their window of fertility. The key to stabilizing the world’s population is prosperity. Besides, destitute people tend to not have garbage service. That is a whole ‘nother kind of hit on the environment. The worst thing for the environment is war.
DeleteI agree, on both points.
Delete"Only nuclear power is viable for a massive replacement of fossil fuels."
ReplyDeleteReally off statement to read while sitting in a state that runs on 80% renewable energy.
Jerry... don't understand the relevance of your statement. Global warming is global problem and our state is fortunate to have substantial hydro..cliff
DeleteCliff, that would be a fair question if our state was an outlier, but that is no longer true. In terms of percentage of power from renewable sources, WA is ranked #3 among states. South Dakota is #2. The top 10 states also include Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma, which like SD are not famous for their hydro resources. Denmark has almost no hydro and gets 80% of its power from renewables.
DeleteI agree with you that nuclear power is a necessary component of future power generation, but it is far from the "only" viable component. Renewables are safe, reliable, and cheap. I don't understand the motivation for writing it off.
Jerry.... renewable sources have gone up dramatically but the problem remains.....global emissions of greenhouse gases are still going up rapidly. Renewables like wind and solar are intermittent--a major deficiency. Be careful about Denmark...they use renewables heavily for electricity but they still use large amount of fossil fuels. Their total emissions has only declined about 30%......useful but not what is needed.. The truth is that the only real solutions in the end are with nuclear and those thinking that renewables will do the problem often are getting in the way of the real solution..cliff
Delete"Denmark...they use renewables heavily for electricity but they still use large amount of fossil fuels"
DeleteThat would be equally true if electricity generation was 80% nuclear instead of 80% renewable.
I was in Copenhagen for a conference a couple years ago, and saw that nearly the entire Uber and taxi fleets were e-vehicles. My driver told that there is no "mandate", it's just more profitable for drivers to charge up than to gas up. As this trend spreads to the non-professional drivers, emissions will decline still further.
I agree that renewables have limitations but so does nuclear. It's expensive, it requires a fuel that needs to be mined or purchased, and the elephant is still in the room - there has been almost no progress on dealing with the waste disposal/storage issue.
Perhaps we're on the same page. The solution needs to be a diversified grid with both renewables and nukes.
Jerry...fusion is the future. Clean, unlimited power. If Denmark had more nuclear power they could decarbonize more of their economy....cliff
DeleteWhat ppl are truly unaware of especially in King County area, is that majority of the taxes scraped off the CCA and more so, Stormwater fees (SWM) go towards habitat improvement projects. Replacing culverts and planting a lot of trees. If that feels good to spend billions of dollars on, then fine. In Washington, an entire industry has been built around it. CCA is mostly a means to support more of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat about aerosol masking?
ReplyDeletethat has substantial dangers...such as altering the hydrological cycle
DeleteHasn't useable fusion energy been a decade or two away for the past seventy years? What makes the 2030s or 2040s different from, say, the 1970s?
ReplyDeleteFusion power has not been under development for 70 years. During the recent decade there have been major advances, including break even experiments. Where it is five years to 20 years away is not material....when it happens, the global warming problem is over
DeleteNot over. Stops getting worse, maybe - even once fusion becomes practical, it'll take quite some time to implement globally. But it's not like the climate change that will have already occurred by that point just vanishes. We're stuck with the consequences for a long, long time.
DeleteHowever long it takes to make fusion practical ...small fission plants (like what they use on ships) is very much perfected. Between hydro (which is fabulously neutral in respect to just about everything) and small-fission, we could still be entirely "green energy" and the planet's 'temperature' will always be in a state of flux due to complex variables. The "CCA" is (a) a cruelly regressive expense, and (b) it produces nothing but cashflow (no tangible environmental benefit). Small wonder that the bill passed at the time - $$ lobbyists are advertising like crazy to keep their pot of gold full, IMHO.
DeleteRecent advancements in fusion technology mean that whereas before, commercial fusion was always twenty years away, we can say today that the time to a successful implementation of commercial fusion has been halved and is now always only ten years away.
DeleteAnd, with many more billions of dollars of future investment, it may be possible to gain enough improvements in material science technology and in confinement physics technology so that commercial fusion is then always only five years away.
If one understands how much ground still needs to be covered in the areas of material science, and also the practical engineering facets of energy capture on a continuous basis, the fact is that many years will pass before a fusion reactor can do what a conventional fission reactor can do today, right now, if we are willing to go out and buy them.
And, as I have said any number of times here and elsewhere, going with nuclear is strictly a public policy decision. We buy nuclear for purposes of energy reliability and security, not because it is the cheapest means of generating electricity. If we want cheap electricity that isn't hydro, then we go with either natural gas or coal.
Why don't require carbon offsets for flying such as planting ten trees per one mile of flying and raising ticket prices to pay for it? All this flying is unnecessary. That's why they invented Zoom.
ReplyDeleteNot necessary for business meetings, but unfortunately, some of us like to travel for vacation, and visit different environments, from high mountains to tropical forests to tropical coral reefs... and yes, I do see the irony.
DeleteDana, roughly three percent of the world's carbon emissions come from jet airliners, and roughly half of the world's jet airliners are Boeing jet airliners. Some good number of those airliners were manufactured in the Puget Sound region.
DeleteWhy not go further and tell incoming Washington State governor Bob Ferguson that upon taking office, he should immediately issue an ultimatum to Boeing that if their next generation airliner design isn't powered by hydrogen, all financial and tax incentives for building their aircraft in Washington State will be withdrawn?
If nothing else, making that suggestion to Governor Ferguson, and his subsequent response (assuming one actually comes) would give us some indication as to whether or not our new governor is truly committed to a Net Zero future for our state.
Washington State has been ended years ago when Boeing lost the fight in the World Trade Organization against Airbus.
DeleteAirbus a
One key to understanding the impacts of atmospheric carbon is the data from the 2020 lockdowns. Industrial CO2 briefly plummeted across the globe. Was there any noticeable impact in atmospheric CO2? None. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/5ibtf74yq0
ReplyDeleteSo, what's the deal with the upward trajectory of CO2: oceans, big, large, Earth-encompassing oceans. Oceans are a CO2 sink and emitter. The great moderator. I mean seriously, could our little CO2 factories compete with scale of an ocean. Not to say I'm a fan of factories and concrete. I'd rather be barefoot on a trail.
Even if we got commercially viable nuclear fusion tomorrow, we would need to agree as a society that CO2 is enough of a man-made problem that we should direct a large portion of the newfound energy bounty towards it. Also, without some kind of market pricing on Carbon, Carbon capture is not likely to be profitable. This will not be trivial.
ReplyDeleteJust a reminder that the total CO2 emissions of an EV vehicle is far lower than an ICE vehicle for production and during normal driving usage.
ReplyDeleteMichael.... the difference is less dramatic than what you might expect (I checked the numbers). Creating electric cars requires a lot of fossil fuel expenditure. Even if the electricity used for charging is completely renewables, EVs are worse than internal combustion vehicles for the first 15K miles. If the electric is from coal, for the first 60,000 miles. So if you drive a lot, EVs will eventually be better, but the differences are not as dramatic as some make out..cliff
DeleteThe levelized cost of electricity per megawatt-hour in the United States is as follows:
ReplyDelete- Solar and Wind = $50-$60
- Nuclear = $175
You literally chose a generation source that is 3X the cost of renewables. Nuclear may indeed be a part of the solution, but it will not come cheap.
Nuclear is also slow to build. Even when it's done with bit government programs like in China and France.
DeleteIn round numbers, renewables globally are already producing as much electricity as 100 nuclear power plants. There are only 440 nuclear power plants in the world.
Renewables are being built at a faster rate than nuclear ever was. 500 MW of renewables were added in 2023 compared to 6 nuclear power plants.
I'm not against nuclear, but we shouldn't discount the fuel savings we get from renewables, and the simple fact that renewables are scaling faster than anything else we have.
Grids use a variety of resources to get the job done, and renewables are a successful part of that mix in many parts of the world, including in Texas, California, South Australia, and the UK.
As an aside, spending money on necessary new electricity infrastructure had to be spent whether it's spent on dirty power or clean power.
Does your levelized cost for wind and solar take into account the cost of a system to accommodate the intermittence of wind and solar?
DeleteBurban - very good points, thank you.
Deletedrgem - Electricity generation is usually tabulated over a period of a year, which would incorporate all kinds of weather.
"In 2023, about 4,178 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.18 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.1 About 60% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. About 19% was from nuclear energy, and about 21% was from renewable energy sources." (EIA/DOE)
I totally agree with Cliff. However, we were already told in the 80's and 90's by science teachers in school that fusion will be available in the next 20 years. I think we are getting closer, but one issue may be the high upfront cost.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a large part of CO2 emissions are from naval freight shipping. So yes, all the stuff we import from other countries.
good thing we are connected to a power grid that connects to where the sun does shine. currently renewables comprise 21% of electricity generated in US. Right now solar is 4%, Wind is 10% and Hydro about 6%.
ReplyDeleteEvery year solar efficiency increases and cost per watt goes down, while fusion and nuclear costs keep going up. I have been waiting for fusion for 50 years. The complexity inherent is a fusion plant is astounding. It could happen, but really, probably another 25 years at least for a commercial plant.
In many states they are building battery farms to complement wind and solar, for some reason there is opposition to that locally, which makes no sense for LIFPO4 battery chemistries, which are so safe you can shoot them with a bullet without any temp runaway. Lets move all low CO2, low carbon technologies forward, as well as societal changes that promote more efficiency with the energy we do use.
Over here in southeastern Washington State, the Benton PUD held a series of forums last week to inform its customers that affordable reliable electricity is in jeopardy in our state. I attended one of these forums. These topics were included:
ReplyDelete— Northwest is Close to Blackouts – How Did We Get Here?
— Washington and Oregon Clean Energy Policies – Global & U.S. Perspectives
— Washington Energy Strategy – Challenges and Concerns
— Where Do We Go From Here? – Near and Long Term
If you have been following the numerous issues surrounding the future of reliable electricity in the Pacific Northwest, you will find that many of the topics you’ve been reading about for the last ten years are included in the following two presentations:
Presentation Slides: Carbon-Free Electricity Policies Impacts and Perspectives
Presentation Slides: Q and A Session
Needless to say, the position the Benton PUD and its management is taking on these electricity reliability issues doesn’t sit well with the politicians on the west side of the state.
However, it is the west-siders in Oregon and in Washington State who are most likely to be first to feel the adverse consequences of the region’s Net Zero energy policies.
I will remark further that in my humble opinion, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and its supervisory agency, the Western Electricity Coordination Council headquartered in California, are both living in some kind of alternate universe where the hard reality of what is now facing us never intrudes.
If these Net Zero energy policies continue unchecked, we are in for a very rough ride indeed as the decade progresses into the late 2020's.
Not only here in Washington State, but also in every state and region in the Western US which counts on the Western Interconnect for a reliable supply of electricity.
Is the planet warming? Yes. Is man responsible? Maybe. Can Washington state alone stop the process? Unlikely. Population of WA state 8 million. Population of India 1.4+ billion. Population of China 1.4+ billion.
ReplyDelete15,000+ years ago where I live in WA, and where many people today live, was under 3,000 or more feet of ice. The peaks of the Olympics, Cascades and Rockies were islands in a vast sea of ice. The ice fields covered most of Canada and extended to the east covering much of the northern tier of the United State.
Then something changed and the ice began to melt leaving behind habitable, arable land far north into Canada. Now one has to travel hundreds of miles to the north into Alaska or Canada to see glaciers that are but a shadow of the ice fields that once encased the land where we live today.
3,000+ feet of ice melted in 15,000 years or less, or 0.2 inches or more a year. And for 98% of that time there were no coal mines, no oil wells, no steam or internal combustion engines and no SUVs. But now it is an existential crisis and we must abandon all the conveniences of modern life without any certainty that we can stop the change. I'll pass.
Washington state might have more influence than you think. The Climate Commitment Act is one of the country's most ambitious and creative carbon pollution reduction programs, so many other states in the U.S. are watching closely to see whether it lasts. (See: https://rmi.org/climate-goals-states-are-setting-for-others-to-follow/) If the CCA survives I-2117, then several other states will likely try to pass similar programs.
DeleteIn the long run, state leadership could lead to a nationwide carbon pricing program like the European Union's ETS. With appropriate border adjustments like the EU's CBAM, this carbon pricing system would motivate our trade partners to reduce their emissions as well. That would start to make a real dent in global pollution.
It's a long road, but it all starts in Washington state.
More energy leads to more growth, development, industry, consumption, etc. which then requires more energy to maintain. And what do we do with all our energy? We've polluted the entire planet, we're causing the sixth mass extinction, we've paved over or otherwise destroyed the habitat of countless species, we're destroying topsoil and sending huge amounts of nitrogen into waterways, and so on. More energy won't solve any of those problems. Nine out of every ten calories we eat is fossil fuels in the form of fertilized crops, and electricity won't solve that problem either. So, I completely agree with you about the problems of wind & solar, and EVs (with the mining for materials and metals to make these things and the massive installations destroying great swathes of habitat and soil), but while nuclear might be more energy intensive than wind and solar, and more reliable, nuclear won't help with these other issues. In addition uranium mining is devastating to the communities and environments it impacts, enriched uranium creates opportunities we'd rather not think about in nuclear weapons, and as of yet, we still have no good solutions for nuclear waste.
ReplyDeleteThe only real solution to "the energy problem" is to dramatically power down our way of life. Of course, everyone will laugh at that, because it is unthinkable in a society captured by the ideology of infinite growth.
Beth... I think much of your statement is inconsistent with the facts. Energy is reason why most of humanity is no longer in poverty, living longer, and are living more meaningful, productive lives. We are not in the apocalypse you describe..cliff
DeleteCliff, yes viewed from a human-centric perspective, things are (currently) looking good for humans. I recommend looking at the planetary boundaries framework for a deeper understanding of the pollution crisis and biosphere integrity crisis, and the Living Planet Index for a deeper understanding of the habitat and species loss crisis. From the perspective of non-humans, it is a catastrophe.
DeleteThe upward trends will look fantastic, until they don't, and then all of a sudden we will realize that destroying topsoils, old growth forests, prairies, wetlands, and rivers and the habitat for wildlife that goes with these ecosystems means, ultimately, that we've destroyed ourselves, too.
I love your weather blog, and I appreciate your very practical approach to global warming and the politics that goes along with trying to find a solution. I disagree that money spent on EVs, wind, solar, etc is a waste just because other parts of the global economy are growing and increasing their use of fossil fuels faster than we are reducing ours. I bet you remember what cellphones were in 1987.. ridiculous, heavy, expensive, and not nearly as useful as what we have today. Those gadgets created their own market, and led to all kinds of innovation, largely because a few gizmo junkies were willing to pay for the first few iterations. Plenty of other examples of when our country flailed around for a little while, and then came up with an excellent solution to a problem and changed the world. Alternative energy is mostly in this stage, and there is clearly huge potential. Fusion would be awesome if it can perform as advertised, but as others on this blog have posted, we have been hearing for decades that perfect unlimited fusion power is coming soon... btw it is unlikely that Albert Einstein coined that phrase!
ReplyDeleteMike...I am not saying that they are a waste.....but they are only a portion of the solution because they are not reliable. Nuclear has to be at the core of the solution...either fission or fusion..cliff
DeleteThis is what politicians do. If you keep voting for them they will do the same thing over and over and over again. True change always comes from the population.
ReplyDeleteRegarding colors of the BPA lines: The Red line is load, they try but do not explain it at my pay grade.
ReplyDeleteThe Green line (VER) is mostly wind and other variable sources. The nuclear line is the horizontal one the BPA calls "cobalt'. Brown is fossil/biomass. The rectangle at the top right of the page can be expanded and a sliver of solar shows as yellow.
Check the chart once a week to see the changes. It updates every 5 minutes.
One thing I noticed weather models don't always pick up the lightest precipitation. Is there any research being done to fix the problem?.
ReplyDeleteTim... Good coment... I am working on this problem....which deals with problems predicting warm rain..cliff
DeleteYou are constantly cheer leading for nuclear power, but you NEVER address it's problems, just gloss over the four main issues:
ReplyDelete1) nuclear waste - it's radioactive for thousands of years. No one wants it shipped through their front yard. No one wants it buried in their backyard. So right now, it's just staying at the nuclear power plant sites all over our nation, with no solution in sight.
2) terrorism - blow up a solar cell, and nothing happens. Blow up a nuclear plant, and everything is radioactive, for centuries. What would have happened if the 911 terrorists had targeted nuclear plants, Cliff?
3) nuclear fuel - we don't have enough nuclear material here in the USA to fulfill your fantasies of many more nuclear plants, do we Cliff? If we followed your advise, we'd be trading dependence on foreign oil for dependence on nuclear fuel. Russia has a lot, they say, so maybe we could bend the knee to them, right?
4) humans run the existing nuclear plants, humans move the nuclear materials, and humans build the new plants of your dreams - and humans make mistakes. Those 4 miles of flawed concrete track supports through Mercer Island and Seattle for Sound Transit- these same problems occur in the nuclear filed, but their impact is much more costly, and potentially much more deadly. See the unfinished TVA Bellefonte Nuclear Plant near Scottsboro Al for a real world example.
I know you say the 'new' plants and technology will solve this problem. That's vaporware, Cliff - it doesn't exists.
An improved electrical grid, and increased hydro, solar, wind and thermal power are the only real solutions. Nuclear is a dead end.
will..you are not correct in many of your points. Fusion power has no waste. Much of US uranium comes from Canada...in addition to domestic sources. Nuclear waste can be vitrified (turned to class) and buried deep in mountains. France is running on nuclear power...have you heard of any problems there. Everything has risks and issues, but if you are concerned with the risk of global warming, nuclear needs to be in the forefront of the solution..cliff
DeleteFirst off, climate change is not a problem with an answer or solution, it is a predicament with an outcome. The reason for this is because ecological overshoot is the predicament CAUSING climate change. ALL species which enter overshoot face collapse and die-off and humans are no exception to this simple rule. More energy, regardless of the source, will not solve anything because all that can accomplish is to INCREASE overshoot, not reduce it:
ReplyDeletehttps://problemspredicamentsandtechnology.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-biggest-issue-is-not-climate-change.html
I don't think fusion power isn't going to be panacea you think it is. It's going to require massive costs to implement and massive infrastructure to be built. [1]
ReplyDeleteHow many billions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane, other greenhouse gases (GHG) have we already poured into the atmosphere? The warmed planet isn't going to just suddenly re-freeze Siberia and other places where melting snow and ice have caused massive releases of GHG. [2] It will take some time for all those GHG to be re-absorbed by plants or by the oceans even if we suddently stopped emitting tomorrow.
Claiming climate change is 'over' when we finally make the breakthrough on fusion power* is seeing through rose-tinted glasses, I think. [3,4]
We're going to continue to deforest the continents faster than they are re- or afforested, at least if the trend continues. Some of those forests are being burned and cleared by machinery, releasing massive quantities of GHG. [5]
Also you fail to mention actual human and societal benefits from electrified transportation. While you claim it does take about 15,000 miles for the break-even effect to occur, many people drive that much in one year, or so. Many people also keep their cars for 5-10 years now, so for 80% or more of its life it wouldn't be combusting any fuel. Here in the PNW most of our electricity is produced by non-fossil sources, so the electricity from the grid powering those cars is quite clean once they've hit the 15k miles goldilocks point. That, and I'd rather be sitting in I-5 traffic surrounded by a bunch of quiet electric vehicles than noisy dino-burners...wouldn't you?
Further, seeing people ride e-bikes is an improvement over seeing them drive their cars...is that not nothing? Yes, there are issues to be addressed with shared paths and such, but this was a discussion about global warming.
Please don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good" or "better".
* = always a decade away, for several decades now...
[1] https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/03/16/fusions-future-u-s-could-come-down-dollars-and-cents/
[2] https://news.agu.org/press-release/new-yamal-craters-explanation/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/03/the-big-idea-will-fusion-power-save-us-from-the-climate-crisis/
[4] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2023/04/nuclear-fusion-is-not-the-holy-grail-of-clean-energy/
[5] https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change/ (Loss/Extent/Gain; MUCH more Loss than Gain)
Global warming failure is a failure of US foreign policy to pursue policy incentives to create low cost clean power generation such as nuclear mini reactors over coal. Meanwhile the neocons in charge in Washington DC have created ample incentives for nuclear weapons to settle territorial disputes and non-stop wars.
ReplyDeleteThe theory that Humans are causing climate change seems quite improbable when you consider how so much more “greenhouse” gas emissions are created and released into the atmosphere by the natural cycles of the Earth itself.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, few people understand that public policy is a cost-benefit analysis based on allocation of limited resources. It's very difficult for people to understand that (1) just because something does *some* good does not that it is worthwhile, and (2) throwing resources at a problem entails (opportunity) costs/resources that could better be allocated elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe current approach is just madness. It basically involves spending how-many trillions for very marginal carbon emissions reductions. A proper approach would consider (1) how much should be allocated to address global warming - for example, we need to allocate limited resources between education, heath, infrastructure, other environmental issues - etc and (2) how to best - or *most efficiently* spend those resources once they have been allocated for a specific purpose. In short, what's the best bang for the buck.
Even if global warming was an existential threat, climate/geo engineering would likely be the best approach. (We can’t go back to pre-19th century emissions for over 8 billion people without creating a humanitarian catastrophe). Based on the evidence you present regarding how much of a threat global warming actually poses, we should aim to make cost-effective changes that reduce emissions - as you noted - and use remaining resources to better protect ourselves against global warming (eg, protecting coastlines, reinforcing buildings etc).
Lastly, I'm amazed at how many of my fellow Seattleites express serious concern about the so-called global warming catastrophe but do absolutely nothing to change their personal behavior. I live in a trendy Seattle neighborhood filled with "We Believe" signs and yet I find myself in the minority of people that regularly takes public transportation or rides my e-bike in lieu of driving. Recently, we went to an event with a bunch of affluent We Believe people and my wife and I were the only ones(!) that took public transportation. I also e-bike to work every single day. (I do this primarily because I'm cheap and hate sitting in traffic, but the point still stands). Get on your e-bike, take the train, or shut up about global warming.
I voted yes to this initiative and was disappointed to see it defeated. I feel qualified to speak on it's ineffectiveness after installing a heat pump last year and receiving a $1300 check from PSE. Unfortunately my installer already knew about these credits and simply increased prices by $1300 to absorb the taxpayer funds. The heat pump also saved me little in energy costs since in Eastern WA when temperatures are 0 degrees it struggles to produce any heat so you need gas or inefficient induction heat.
ReplyDelete