|
CommieGIR posted:There were multiple attempts to reapply for the license. It was just convenient to them to appear to give in to protest demands. You mean the lawsuits they won already? It was because of cost, not hippies. You can blame the hippies all you want, but it was cheap natural gas that shut down that plant. If you want to point fingers, I'd look towards the failure of carbon pricing in the US.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
computer parts posted:"Rejected energy" is stuff lost to heat or any other inefficiencies. If that is the case, and the majority of energy loss is in electricity generation and transportation, then Inslee's plan for efficiency seems like a waste of time. Gov. Inslee's 2015 climate legislation posted:Energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways to cut emissions, reduce costs, increase our productivity and competitiveness, and accelerate the creation of thousands of jobs. To give him credit though, he does talk about transportation as part of clean energy section, but I am not sure if he is really talking about making the energy utilization more efficient. And there is a blurb in the clean energy section as well... Gov. Inslee's 2015 climate legislation posted:Carbon Emissions
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:If that is the case, and the majority of energy loss is in electricity generation and transportation, then Inslee's plan for efficiency seems like a waste of time. It sounds like the focus is more "reduction of usage of energy" rather than "reduction of waste of energy". That's also something you can probably squeeze a few percentages off of (and on an absolute scale that's a lot of energy) but it wouldn't be the main or ideal fix. It's basically the "how do you make money without spending much/any money" solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately they'll just get replaced with Coal or Gas. Vermont Yankee shutdown today and its likely going to be replaced with a Natural Gas Except out here in western Massachusetts every other house has a "Stop the Pipeline" lawn sign. People are pissed at the idea of expanding our natural gas capacity, even as our electric rates just shot up 40% due to a lack of capacity in the system. The Mt. Tom coal plant shut down a few months ago. Popular opinion has killed biomass, solar and wind projects. Even getting more hydro power runs up against opposition. In short, we demand safe, clean renewable power- just as long as somebody else has to look at it. If the rest of the country is like my neighbors we'll just keep watching the old power plants go offline with nothing new to replace them until... back to nature, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Odonata posted:... back to nature, I guess? Greenpeace would actually like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Odonata posted:Except out here in western Massachusetts every other house has a "Stop the Pipeline" lawn sign. People are pissed at the idea of expanding our natural gas capacity, even as our electric rates just shot up 40% due to a lack of capacity in the system. The Mt. Tom coal plant shut down a few months ago. Popular opinion has killed biomass, solar and wind projects. Even getting more hydro power runs up against opposition. In short, we demand safe, clean renewable power- just as long as somebody else has to look at it. Popular opinion can stop renewables but not natural gas? E: can also stop nuclear but not coal, oil or wars perceived as related to them? SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:If that is the case, and the majority of energy loss is in electricity generation and transportation, then Inslee's plan for efficiency seems like a waste of time. just... electrify everything and build low-carbon power stations. That's like 90% of the problem solved for the mid term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 09:05
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
katlington posted:Popular opinion can stop renewables but not natural gas? Strangely, yes, popular opinion is able to kill renewables. It's very easy to pressure the local selectmen into passing a local ordinance against solar or wind installations. While an individual might put solar panels on their home without a problem, for instance, plans to cover old landfills with large arrays of solar panels to power multiple homes are killed due to neighbors fussing about property values. Wind turbines are blocked for the same reason- we can't ruin our town with these eyesores! The natural gas pipeline in question isn't subject to local control. It's going to run from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania across New York and Massachusetts to end up by the coast where it will be available to both domestic and foreign markets. There's a lot of anger, both because of the source of the gas and because people are loosing their property through eminent domain. Local anger doesn't matter, though. I believe the town of Deerfield already tried to pass an ordinance to prevent the pipeline from going through and were basically told they don't have a say in the matter- this is up to the Feds to approve or deny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
So the federal government could overrule the nimbys tomorrow if it wanted to? Like it has with gas? It sounds like nimbys are allowed to stop renewables.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
katlington posted:So the federal government could overrule the nimbys tomorrow if it wanted to? Like it has with gas? It sounds like nimbys are allowed to stop renewables. If they wanted to. Issue is, to unite multiple branches of government around an issue is much harder than one would suspect, unless you're attempting to power an anti-Nazi death ray with your renewable energy. At a state level, you can create this will by mandanting that a minimum % of electricity consumed in your state must be generated through renewable sources not including LNG, with higher rates of taxation for energy sold by entities which do not meet your minimum renewable quota. In the current regulatory environment, far better to move towards LNG based upon market-orientated decisions than it is to maintain reliance upon coal. Venture capital has begun to enter the LNG power generation business in order to have fully vertically-integrated operations. When you own the fracking fields, the LNG pipeline and refinement facilities, the LNG power generation facilities, and have a long-term partnership for transmission access, you've increased your profit far more than you'd get with coal or nuclear. I wonder if anyone has done a study of the nuclear industry in America as a business, examining the corporate structures of nuclear plant operators and all levels of their procurement and distribution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
katlington posted:So the federal government could overrule the nimbys tomorrow if it wanted to? Like it has with gas? It sounds like nimbys are allowed to stop renewables. Popular opinion is ignored with everything else in this country - weed legalization, gay marriage, etc, why would power be any different? It's just the lobbyists whispering in politician ears that matter, and I guess the economics aren't profitable enough for some things right now. Anything else happen in the last 20 pages or is it the usual arkane trolling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
katlington posted:So the federal government could overrule the nimbys tomorrow if it wanted to? Like it has with gas? It sounds like nimbys are allowed to stop renewables. There's the problem of votes, though. If a Democrat politician came through a neighborhood and was like "hey by the way, we're going to build a shitload of things here all of you deliberately voted down in location elections" you can bet there'd suddenly be a lot more Republicans in the area next election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There's the problem of votes, though. If a Democrat politician came through a neighborhood and was like "hey by the way, we're going to build a shitload of things here all of you deliberately voted down in location elections" you can bet there'd suddenly be a lot more Republicans in the area next election. Like it has with gas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
effectual posted:Anything else happen in the last 20 pages or is it the usual arkane trolling? You want someone to sum up five months and twenty pages of posts you could read through yourself in less than half an hour. Ever wonder if this attitude is what keeps climate change as "debatable"? For fucks sake, why people won't just loving read I'll never understand. Yes nothing happened and it's all Arkane all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Yes nothing happened and it's all Arkane all the way down. ^ this but un-ironically
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
It was sobering to see this article on CBS today, predicting the end of most ocean life by 2048. Not sure if this is more environmental degredation as opposed to climate change, but CO2 levels definitely have a part to play in increasing acidity in the seas. It also could mean things like flooding that are already increasing because of climate change will get even worse. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-water-fish-extinction-seen-by-2048/ I can see why in the face of news like this many people are apt to deny climate change is happening. I hate reading these kind of articles, though I'm drawn to them when they're posted on social media. It seems like the world should be banding together right now to take on a host of very important issues that will irreversibly change our planet, but instead we're choosing to ignore the issues. Though the paper itself seems to point out that not all fish will be extinct, just the ones humans currently fish for food. But still, that's pretty terrible. Ccs fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Does anyone have any information on hydraulic fracturing? I watched gas land recently and was wondering how accurate it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
THE MOON! posted:Does anyone have any information on hydraulic fracturing? I watched gas land recently and was wondering how accurate it is. Like most documentaries it doesn't necessarily have any direct lies, but it frames a lot of stuff in such a way that the viewer draws up a lot of assumptions that are unwarranted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Ccs posted:It was sobering to see this article on CBS today, predicting the end of most ocean life by 2048. Not sure if this is more environmental degredation as opposed to climate change, but CO2 levels definitely have a part to play in increasing acidity in the seas. It also could mean things like flooding that are already increasing because of climate change will get even worse. Like I've said before... poo poo is hosed, and we're too stupid/easily misled to fix it. If you're going to be around after the next 15 years, you need to be ready. Save yourselves, 'cause we ain't saving this poo poo. Survivalists may be looked upon as weird now, but honestly? They probably have the right idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:My estimation on viable oil/shale is around 2035 or so, given population expansion and consumption changes. Seems like everything is going to be totally hosed around that time frame. Oh good, we're at the part of the thread where our resident depressed posters can circle jerk to the world ending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh good, we're at the part of the thread where our resident depressed posters can circle jerk to the world ending. Yes, looking at the state of what the world is doing to minimize climate impact (almost nothing) and concluding that it might end up making the world a harder place to survive in is now circlejerking to the end of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Have any better ideas? Everything has looked like piss for awhile. We need to face the fact that little is going to change in our trajectory and respond accordingly. Even if there was change, it's probably too late to mitigate a lot of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Yes, looking at the state of what the world is doing to minimize climate impact (almost nothing) and concluding that it might end up making the world a harder place to survive in is now circlejerking to the end of the world. There's no "might" about the conclusion, it's literally "go be a prepper because the world is hosed".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Have any better ideas? The reason people speak doom and gloom is because it might already be too late. But hey, look on the bright side, CEO Wealthy McRichpants bought his 17th house and 14th yacht this year!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's no "might" about the conclusion, it's literally "go be a prepper because the world is hosed". It's bad enough that the atmosphere will warm and all of those effects screw up stuff for us humans. If the oceans truly die, well... that's game over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Not necessarily 'go be a prepper RIGHT NOW' but do what you need to in order for your family to survive. Accumulating money/land would help. That would also help even if nothing changed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Ccs posted:It was sobering to see this article on CBS today, predicting the end of most ocean life by 2048. Not sure if this is more environmental degredation as opposed to climate change, but CO2 levels definitely have a part to play in increasing acidity in the seas. It also could mean things like flooding that are already increasing because of climate change will get even worse. I don't know if it's relevant or not, but that article is from November 2006.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I don't know if it's relevant or not, but that article is from November 2006. So things have gotten worse since then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
effectual posted:So things have gotten worse since then. Of course, the original article discusses how the impacts are reversible. But don't let that get in the way of doomdayism. 1. "Global climate change doesn't exist." 2. "Global climate change isn't human caused." 3. "Global climate change is human caused, but it's too late to do anything about it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Ccs posted:It was sobering to see this article on CBS today, predicting the end of most ocean life by 2048. Not sure if this is more environmental degredation as opposed to climate change, but CO2 levels definitely have a part to play in increasing acidity in the seas. It also could mean things like flooding that are already increasing because of climate change will get even worse. As you mentioned, the article headlines is "Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048" but the paper itself is mentioning collapse. That says something about how accurate the rest of the article will be. The author of the paper, Boris Worm, has a PhD, of Dalhousie University. On their homepage there is a follow up from 2008. http://www.dal.ca/news/2008/10/06/boris.html "Critics said researchers overstated the threat and were unduly alarmist. Ray Hilborn, a professor of fisheries management at the University of Washington, said the study was “probably the most absurd prediction that’s ever appeared in a scientific journal regarding fisheries.” "Now, two years later, a new study published in the September edition of Science shows trends are potentially reversible with an innovative yet contentious fisheries management strategy called “catch shares.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Semiperimeter posted:As you mentioned, the article headlines is "Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048" but the paper itself is mentioning collapse. That says something about how accurate the rest of the article will be. How exactly are 'catch shares' going to fight ocean acidification and death of the CO2 regulating portions of ocean ecology?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How exactly are 'catch shares' going to fight ocean acidification and death of the CO2 regulating portions of ocean ecology? I don't know, bit if there's one thing the global fishing industry is good at its implementing "innovative management strategies".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
It won't even take as long as that for certain fish populations. People in New England are already infuriated that NOAA shut down more of the Gulf of Maine to cod fishing since cod populations in the region have plummeted. I understand frustrations of those who's livelihood is dependent on fishing from Maine all the way down to Gloucester but it seems incredibly shortsighted when the same people upset about the closures are complaining about poor yields year after year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How exactly are 'catch shares' going to fight ocean acidification and death of the CO2 regulating portions of ocean ecology? In the CBS article, the cause of the extinction (collapse): "the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change." "Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves." Overfishing is something the 'catch shares' according to the abstract from the Science article "Implementation of catch shares halts, and even reverses, the global trend toward widespread collapse." can affect. So in present to 2048 timeframe (if the studie is correct) the implementation of 'catch shares' is important to avoid the death of portions of ocean ecology (including CO2 regulating). When it comes to acidification, I know to little to say why it was not mentioned in the abstract to the Science studie or in the CBS article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
CBS was probably taking more a "fair and balanced" view of climate change in 2006. Wikipedia also claims that the study that found that acidification was happening a lot faster than previously thought didn't come out until late 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
At the end of the day, overfishing is nothing next to the acidification of the ocean waters. That'll knock most if not all of the major ocean species in one fell swoop
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:At the end of the day, overfishing is nothing next to the acidification of the ocean waters. That'll knock most if not all of the major ocean species in one fell swoop poo poo, our deepening marine fiasco is almost worth a thread in itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:At the end of the day, overfishing is nothing next to the acidification of the ocean waters. That'll knock most if not all of the major ocean species in one fell swoop But on the other hand.. it's party time for the jellyfish!! http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/rise-of-jellyfish-reveals-sickness-of-world-s-oceans-1.1310029
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
blowfish posted:just... electrify everything and build low-carbon power stations. That's like 90% of the problem solved for the mid term. It's a problem of inertia and timing. Energy efficiency improvements can be implemented with immediate effect, generating demand reduction and reducing emissions. The immediacy comes from bringing in progressively tighter efficiency standards so that better vehicles, appliances and so on filter through the economy as they are purchased. Perhaps the most powerful efficiency gains are to be made at the point of consumption (i.e. how people interact with energy services, rather than the energy throughput of the services themselves). Decarbonising the power supply is a long term game. Existing power plants are locked into investment cycles and thus committed emissions. New power plants take decades to commission and build. To me it makes sense to simultaneously cut demand through efficiency standards and "finding better ways to live", while rolling out a low-carbon supply. Placing all bets on the latter seriously constrains your future choices (e.g. to CCS), due to aforementioned inertia and the cumulative effect of CO2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Once you electrify, how do you prevent the next chairman from scrapping all your copper while switching over to cheap fossil fuels? You can't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:57
|
|