7 ms·

Definitely worth the watch. here are my cliff notes: > human energy consumption, by means of burning fossil fuels, is the reason for green house gases, that i

Definitely worth the watch. here are my cliff notes: > human energy consumption, by means of burning fossil fuels, is the reason for green house gases, that in turn trap more heat, then our environment can sustain. > technology to reduce CO2 emission, assuming the same level of electricity consumption -- is far from being available. They had talked about Nuclear, sun, geo, nuclear fusion. >more efficient means to convert to electricity: >35% of coal energy is transformed to electricity > incandescent light bulb converts only 5% to light If larger city (NY, Moscow, Bombay etc) switch to better light bulb, 1 million ton of C02 emissions every year, each. > simply changing from coal to gas cuts carbon emission by 40% >half of worlds oil is used by 500mln road vehicles. 400 mln of those are private cars. each producing 4 times its weight in CO2, each year. Internal com engine is only 20% efficient. Cars can improve by 3 times (not clear, if they assumed electric only or not). > when gas is not available option, coal can be gasified > >Taxation can work both ways, already there is a talk of carbon tax. But how to achieve compliance across national borders. >Global warming calls for global response. but world is not a common market. Examples they used is Easter Europe, other developing regions. >How could this countries advance, but leap-frog energy developments? Future must be different, developing countries cannot take the same path as the developed countries in the past.

vmarsy 9y ago
Yes that's a nice summary. It's good to see that some of steps have already been taken (led instead of incandescent) and that at that time photovoltaic technologies weren't viable yet thus not mentioned in the video. Also I like the irony of showing Volkswagen cars when mentioning efforts from the E.U. to reduce car emissions :)
- adrianN 9y ago
  It is my understanding that with internal combustion engines there is a trade-off between NOx and CO2. The hotter you burn, the more efficient the engine, but you also create more NOx. Volkswagen chose to tune their engines for fuel consumption, reducing GHGs, but tried to cheat their way around the illegally increased NOx.
  - libeclipse 9y ago
    Isn't that the whole point of the catalytic converter?
    - adrianN 9y ago
      For Diesel engines you typically use Ammonia ("AdBlue") to get rid of NOx. Gasoline engines can use three-way catalytic converters.
sitepodmatt 9y ago
Private car ownership should be banned imho. People will claim that public transport including taxis isnt up to the task of point to point travel but Id wager this void would be quickly filled up by enterprising private companies. Vanity, materialism.. A bloody shame..
- JohnDotAwesome 9y ago
  I live in Texas. Private car ownership definitely has a materialistic component. However, owning a car is almost a necessity in every city in Texas. You see a lot of big, decked-out pickup trucks here (vanity). I drive a Prius because there aren't good public transit options (necessity) and I like to visit family in Dallas (I'm in Austin). I end up driving _a lot_. I understand that some governments have penalized car ownership by way of license plate restrictions and other tax situations (I've heard that license plates in China get auctioned for $12k USD because they're so rare). This turns owning a car into a vanity symbol for the wealthy. It may not even be an intentional symbol, but I'm sure that's the way it's perceived by those who don't own a car. My point being that for some, car ownership isn't so bad. No need to go shaming people.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    I think the idea is to penalize car ownership in places where you "shouldn't" need one. If you're courageous, you could live in downtown Dallas without a car (can move around a bit with DART). Making it harder to own a car (combined with more "dense-city" developments) doesn't seem like the worst idea. Mainly because we could recover the huuuge parking lots. And when you want to go to Austin for the weekend you can rent a car. In any case, even if the entire state is still very much "car necessary", you can still try to incentivise pockets of the state to be less so.
    - kolinko 9y ago
      In this spirit, some European cities have car-free zones, and narrow their inner streets.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
oblio 9y ago
Well, they aren't. I mean we all aren't taking the same exact path. For example: > technology to reduce CO2 emission, assuming the same level of electricity consumption -- is far from being available. They had talked about Nuclear, sun, geo, nuclear fusion. Solar and wind power are picking up steam (pun intendend :p). > incandescent light bulb converts only 5% to light If larger city (NY, Moscow, Bombay etc) switch to better light bulb, 1 million ton of C02 emissions every year, each. Incadescent light bulbs are largely obsolete. I'm sure they haven't been replaced 100% but they definitely are on their way out. > simply changing from coal to gas cuts carbon emission by 40% This is also happening cause gas is very cheap right now.
- Scarblac 9y ago
  > Solar and wind power are picking up steam (pun intendend :p). Yes, we produce more solar and wind power, but the level of electricity consumption has also increased. Are we outputting less CO2 for electricity, or does all the solar and wind just come on top of what we already had?
  - oblio 9y ago
    I can't find a source for global emissions, but for the EU the emissions are actually lower than in 1990: https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-at https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-greenhouse-gas-emiss... I expect China's emissions to be through the roof compared to 1990, on the other hand they've noticed the problem and unlike Trump's head in the sand approach, the vast majority of their energy investments are in renewables. So things are bad but they're looking up.
    - theparanoid 9y ago
      90% of China's energy consumption is from hydro-carbons [0]. Mostly coal. [0] https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN
      - 9y ago
Tepix 9y ago
> when gas is not available option, coal can be gasified That's an interesting point, does someone have the calculation on what the net benefits of this process are?
- adrianN 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification
dTal 9y ago
Re incandescent bulbs: increasing the efficiency of consumption of a resource usually increases the total consumption of that resource. Ergo, switching away from incandescent bulbs will actually accelerate global warming. This is known as Jevon's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  Ew, ok, but you get a lot more consumer surplus in the meantime and carbon taxes are much more palatable when costs are lower. This isn't a good reason to not invest in efficiency.

vmarsy 9y ago

Yes that's a nice summary. It's good to see that some of steps have already been taken (led instead of incandescent) and that at that time photovoltaic technologies weren't viable yet thus not mentioned in the video. Also I like the irony of showing Volkswagen cars when mentioning efforts from the E.U. to reduce car emissions :)

adrianN 9y ago
It is my understanding that with internal combustion engines there is a trade-off between NOx and CO2. The hotter you burn, the more efficient the engine, but you also create more NOx. Volkswagen chose to tune their engines for fuel consumption, reducing GHGs, but tried to cheat their way around the illegally increased NOx.
- libeclipse 9y ago
  Isn't that the whole point of the catalytic converter?
  - adrianN 9y ago
    For Diesel engines you typically use Ammonia ("AdBlue") to get rid of NOx. Gasoline engines can use three-way catalytic converters.

sitepodmatt 9y ago

Private car ownership should be banned imho. People will claim that public transport including taxis isnt up to the task of point to point travel but Id wager this void would be quickly filled up by enterprising private companies. Vanity, materialism.. A bloody shame..

JohnDotAwesome 9y ago
I live in Texas. Private car ownership definitely has a materialistic component. However, owning a car is almost a necessity in every city in Texas. You see a lot of big, decked-out pickup trucks here (vanity). I drive a Prius because there aren't good public transit options (necessity) and I like to visit family in Dallas (I'm in Austin). I end up driving _a lot_. I understand that some governments have penalized car ownership by way of license plate restrictions and other tax situations (I've heard that license plates in China get auctioned for $12k USD because they're so rare). This turns owning a car into a vanity symbol for the wealthy. It may not even be an intentional symbol, but I'm sure that's the way it's perceived by those who don't own a car. My point being that for some, car ownership isn't so bad. No need to go shaming people.
- rtpg 9y ago
  I think the idea is to penalize car ownership in places where you "shouldn't" need one. If you're courageous, you could live in downtown Dallas without a car (can move around a bit with DART). Making it harder to own a car (combined with more "dense-city" developments) doesn't seem like the worst idea. Mainly because we could recover the huuuge parking lots. And when you want to go to Austin for the weekend you can rent a car. In any case, even if the entire state is still very much "car necessary", you can still try to incentivise pockets of the state to be less so.
  - kolinko 9y ago
    In this spirit, some European cities have car-free zones, and narrow their inner streets.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

oblio 9y ago

Well, they aren't. I mean we all aren't taking the same exact path. For example: > technology to reduce CO2 emission, assuming the same level of electricity consumption -- is far from being available. They had talked about Nuclear, sun, geo, nuclear fusion. Solar and wind power are picking up steam (pun intendend :p). > incandescent light bulb converts only 5% to light If larger city (NY, Moscow, Bombay etc) switch to better light bulb, 1 million ton of C02 emissions every year, each. Incadescent light bulbs are largely obsolete. I'm sure they haven't been replaced 100% but they definitely are on their way out. > simply changing from coal to gas cuts carbon emission by 40% This is also happening cause gas is very cheap right now.

Scarblac 9y ago
> Solar and wind power are picking up steam (pun intendend :p). Yes, we produce more solar and wind power, but the level of electricity consumption has also increased. Are we outputting less CO2 for electricity, or does all the solar and wind just come on top of what we already had?
- oblio 9y ago
  I can't find a source for global emissions, but for the EU the emissions are actually lower than in 1990: https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-at https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/eu-greenhouse-gas-emiss... I expect China's emissions to be through the roof compared to 1990, on the other hand they've noticed the problem and unlike Trump's head in the sand approach, the vast majority of their energy investments are in renewables. So things are bad but they're looking up.
  - theparanoid 9y ago
    90% of China's energy consumption is from hydro-carbons [0]. Mostly coal. [0] https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN
    - 9y ago

Tepix 9y ago

> when gas is not available option, coal can be gasified That's an interesting point, does someone have the calculation on what the net benefits of this process are?

adrianN 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification

dTal 9y ago

Re incandescent bulbs: increasing the efficiency of consumption of a resource usually increases the total consumption of that resource. Ergo, switching away from incandescent bulbs will actually accelerate global warming. This is known as Jevon's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

aoeusnth1 9y ago
Ew, ok, but you get a lot more consumer surplus in the meantime and carbon taxes are much more palatable when costs are lower. This isn't a good reason to not invest in efficiency.