7 ms·

This is great news but I wish people would start talking about total energy and not just electric generation. They’re still using a ton of gas and oil for heati

This is great news but I wish people would start talking about total energy and not just electric generation. They’re still using a ton of gas and oil for heating and transportation. It would be good to be honest about this.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nateburke 7y ago
They are taking big steps to improve vehicle emissions, too, e.g. interest-free EV loans: https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/grants-loans/electric-vehicle-loan https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/grants-loans/elect...
hinkley 7y ago
I was kinda shocked to learn that long-haul natural gas pipelines are more efficient than long-haul power lines. They also tend not to fail during ice storms. The Greater Seattle Area has had whole areas without power for days or weeks within recent memory. It's not just an issue for old or rural areas. Putting all of your eggs into the electricity basket can get people killed. We should work on addressing these problems (or accepting energy diversity) sooner rather than later.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Energy diversity in a carbon constrained world mustn't embrace fracked natural gas. Methane leaks cause warming, and burning it still makes unacceptable levels of CO2. Diversity is valuable but we should install district heating systems and hydrogen pipelines and whatnot, not fracked gas plants.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- viburnum 7y ago
  Nope, we need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground or Earth won't be suitable for human habitation.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Eventually but that eventually is likely so far away that life will be very different from what we know. Unsuitable for human habitation is a very strong phrase. Humans are incredibly adaptable. It's all the other stuff we need to worry about.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      If you’re only thinking of temperature, sure, we can adapt. Trouble is, CO2 concentrations of 1500 ppm turn us into idiots, and from what I’ve seen we could reach that from just known reserves of coal and oil. Worse, if we don’t switch to renewables, exponential growth of energy demand means we burn all the known reserves in my lifetime.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        This is actually a very good point. The effects of CO2 on the human mind are probably the most pressing issue. However, we've spent 100 years going from 300 ppm to 410 ppm. It will still take a while even at faster rates to get there.
        ben_w 7y ago
        Exponential growth means the next doubling period is equal to everything before now. Wikipedia’s article on world energy consumption indicates I’ve overestimated the growth rate, and the real doubling period is 36 years — without decarbonisation, 2056 would be 520 ppm, 2092 would be 740 ppm. I’d been assuming the growth rate was more like double every 15, presumably because I’d mixed up “energy” and “money”. Oops.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Ok it will be unsuitable to humans who expect to live in an industrial nation. Subsistence farmers in Canada or Alaska will probably be fine.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  Maybe long-haul hydrogen from renewables and fission/fusion would be a better idea than digging ourselves deeper with FFs (natural gas, oil, etc.)? Another consideration against any kind of fuel pipeline: safety. They're pressure vessels containing vast amounts of energy in the fuel only missing an oxidizer. PG&E certainly can't be trusted to get natural gas pipelines right: remember them blowing-up a neighborhood near SF? (2010 San Bruno; 8 killed, 58 injured) Electricity and pipelines ultimately transfer energy from one place to another, so getting the fuel source, generator and points of consumption as close together as possible is a good idea from a cost-only perspective. There are other considerations, but renewables and nuclear near consumption is better than putting generation in remote areas... better still than remote gas-fired plants in say New Mexico fueled from gas pipelines from say Canada.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Hydrogen is just about the worst gas to transport, though. (With the possible exception of helium) You'd get so much leakage from a hydrogen pipeline that it'd probably be easier to just synthesize methane and transport that instead...
    - anonsivalley652 7y ago
      I implied, perhaps unclearly, that it would be a half-measure that I'm not married to. And, I wonder how or why Japan is so set on spending trillion/s of yen on building-out an entirely new infrastructure without any significant commitment to it from any other major country. I surmise one else is committing because rehabilitating the existing electricity grid with renewables seems the most sensible energy infrastructure policy, while grand, big dreams upfront is ri$ky.
    - hinkley 7y ago
      We talked this to death in the 90’s and early 00’s. Containing hydrogen is not a trivial task. Neither is detecting leaks (hydrogen sulfide is added to methane). Hey rockets use hydrogen, lets use it for everything. Rockets are some of the most expensive machines built by man and the hydrogen fuel lines and tanks - if they even use hydrogen - are measured in meters, not miles. There are many methods to generate methane. Some of them, IIRC, can even use waste heat from other processes. We don’t have to ransack the tectonic plates for every cubic meter of natural gas.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Do you have any numbers for that, because I really doubt it. HVDC has really low losses, natural gas leaks already when you get it out of the Earth. You can always bury your lines if you want them protected from the elements.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    Buried AC lines apparently have higher losses than high tension wires. But you might be right about HVDC. If you need to move methane a long way I believe you use a large diameter pipe rather than high pressure. You can’t do the same with high tension power lines (forest fires anyone?). And when the pressure drops? You burn some of the methane to boost the pressure.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    HVDC has really low losses but in practice 90% or so of the long haul grids are still AC, and the losses add up.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      In the US about 5% of the transmitted energy is lost. I wonder how much Methane leaks.
- qqqwerty 7y ago
  I am not quite sure I understand your point. Renewable electricity has the potential to be the most resilient form of energy we have ever had. You can already generate enough electricity for a typical home by putting solar panels on the roof. The main issue is storage but that is mostly an issue of cost not technology. For about 10-15k you can get enough storage to get you through a multi-day outage. And for double that you could probably go off-grid entirely.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    > You can already generate enough electricity for a typical home by putting solar panels on the roof. I looked at doing this recently in the Seattle area. There just isn't enough sunlight to get a payback within the life of a roof (25 years or so). In addition, electricity in the area is mostly from hydro, so it's both clean and cheap.
    - markvdb 7y ago
      Seattle is below Paris in latitude. Plenty of sunlight. That is definitely not the problem in terms of energy production. You have a point about the longevity of roofing materials though. You might want to use longer lived/higher quality roofing materials next time your have your roof renovated, and combine with solar then. Almost anything but asphalt shingles should do: epdm rubber, metal, tiles, slate, ...
      - hinkley 7y ago
        > Plenty of sunlight Have you been to Seattle? They don’t have Alaska levels of Seasonal Affective Disorder, but it’s pretty bad. Mountains on both sides shave a little time off sunrise and sunset, and partially cloudy is every day. People basically ignore astronomical events because they won’t be able to see them anyway, although we did luck out on the last solar and lunar eclipses. They have a special term for “overcast with a few moments of sun”: they’re called, “sun breaks”. Sun breaks. A break from clouds that lasts moments. Just a break, then back to work. The only time the sun comes out reliably in the winter is when the wind shifts to the north and an arctic blast comes through. If it looks sunny outside, put on your heavy coat.
- jes5199 7y ago
  methane leaks are real bad, though. And solar means we can put generation closer to consumption, so we need fewer long-haul lines.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
That's also nibbling around the periphery. The most pressing goal is NET negative total GHGs. This means BOTH sequestration and emissions cuts including going to clean energy, industrial processes and other large sectors like concrete and agriculture. We can't get there by #TeamTrees half-measures or ostensible tokenism like optional consumer-based recycling every now and then, or by allowing corrupt oligarchy/plutocracy to keep resisting taking action. To these ends, BioCCS is going to have to happen whether we like it or not because pumping and cracking CO2 from air is just too expensive. Ferrous ocean seeding and mega seaweed blooms (like the area from Mexico to Africa now) is going to have to happen if we want to get this under control. Harvest that and either sink it to the bottom of deep trenches or burn it in a sealed chamber and pump the gasses/ash deep underground. Concurrently and in parallel, we can and should switch to scalable renewables / non-FF like fission, solar and wind if/when/until fusion becomes a reality. All-in-all, rapid negative GHGs must be the goal because the ESAS/methane gun hypothesis maybe a Sword of Damocles over our heads that could really put us in a bad spot if it fell. We must get the Arctic sea ice in summer restored or the heating of Arctic Ocean will introduce so much additional energy into a viscous feedback loop that will disrupt weather and climate for the foreseeable future. Here are some other sucky truths that are necessary: - FF-based jumbo jets, trains and large cruise/cargo ships will need to find alternative means of locomotion. - Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. - Concrete (actually the clinker in Portland cement) and other industrial processes that pollute the air with enormous quantities of CO2, methane and/or other GHGs must capture their emissions and have them sequestered properly.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >- Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. I could see all the other stuff happening in my lifetime, but not this. There is simply no way that we will find a way to create animal proteins in enough quantities in a way that's safe and as nutritious that people will trust to eat. Perhaps some future society might have it, but definitely not ours in the foreseeable future.
  - jl6 7y ago
    We already have a solution to this: reduce consumption of animal proteins.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nateburke 7y ago

They are taking big steps to improve vehicle emissions, too, e.g. interest-free EV loans: https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/grants-loans/electric-vehicle-loan https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/grants-loans/elect...

hinkley 7y ago

I was kinda shocked to learn that long-haul natural gas pipelines are more efficient than long-haul power lines. They also tend not to fail during ice storms. The Greater Seattle Area has had whole areas without power for days or weeks within recent memory. It's not just an issue for old or rural areas. Putting all of your eggs into the electricity basket can get people killed. We should work on addressing these problems (or accepting energy diversity) sooner rather than later.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Energy diversity in a carbon constrained world mustn't embrace fracked natural gas. Methane leaks cause warming, and burning it still makes unacceptable levels of CO2. Diversity is valuable but we should install district heating systems and hydrogen pipelines and whatnot, not fracked gas plants.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
viburnum 7y ago
Nope, we need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground or Earth won't be suitable for human habitation.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Eventually but that eventually is likely so far away that life will be very different from what we know. Unsuitable for human habitation is a very strong phrase. Humans are incredibly adaptable. It's all the other stuff we need to worry about.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    If you’re only thinking of temperature, sure, we can adapt. Trouble is, CO2 concentrations of 1500 ppm turn us into idiots, and from what I’ve seen we could reach that from just known reserves of coal and oil. Worse, if we don’t switch to renewables, exponential growth of energy demand means we burn all the known reserves in my lifetime.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      This is actually a very good point. The effects of CO2 on the human mind are probably the most pressing issue. However, we've spent 100 years going from 300 ppm to 410 ppm. It will still take a while even at faster rates to get there.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        Exponential growth means the next doubling period is equal to everything before now. Wikipedia’s article on world energy consumption indicates I’ve overestimated the growth rate, and the real doubling period is 36 years — without decarbonisation, 2056 would be 520 ppm, 2092 would be 740 ppm. I’d been assuming the growth rate was more like double every 15, presumably because I’d mixed up “energy” and “money”. Oops.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Ok it will be unsuitable to humans who expect to live in an industrial nation. Subsistence farmers in Canada or Alaska will probably be fine.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
Maybe long-haul hydrogen from renewables and fission/fusion would be a better idea than digging ourselves deeper with FFs (natural gas, oil, etc.)? Another consideration against any kind of fuel pipeline: safety. They're pressure vessels containing vast amounts of energy in the fuel only missing an oxidizer. PG&E certainly can't be trusted to get natural gas pipelines right: remember them blowing-up a neighborhood near SF? (2010 San Bruno; 8 killed, 58 injured) Electricity and pipelines ultimately transfer energy from one place to another, so getting the fuel source, generator and points of consumption as close together as possible is a good idea from a cost-only perspective. There are other considerations, but renewables and nuclear near consumption is better than putting generation in remote areas... better still than remote gas-fired plants in say New Mexico fueled from gas pipelines from say Canada.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Hydrogen is just about the worst gas to transport, though. (With the possible exception of helium) You'd get so much leakage from a hydrogen pipeline that it'd probably be easier to just synthesize methane and transport that instead...
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    I implied, perhaps unclearly, that it would be a half-measure that I'm not married to. And, I wonder how or why Japan is so set on spending trillion/s of yen on building-out an entirely new infrastructure without any significant commitment to it from any other major country. I surmise one else is committing because rehabilitating the existing electricity grid with renewables seems the most sensible energy infrastructure policy, while grand, big dreams upfront is ri$ky.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    We talked this to death in the 90’s and early 00’s. Containing hydrogen is not a trivial task. Neither is detecting leaks (hydrogen sulfide is added to methane). Hey rockets use hydrogen, lets use it for everything. Rockets are some of the most expensive machines built by man and the hydrogen fuel lines and tanks - if they even use hydrogen - are measured in meters, not miles. There are many methods to generate methane. Some of them, IIRC, can even use waste heat from other processes. We don’t have to ransack the tectonic plates for every cubic meter of natural gas.
adrianN 7y ago
Do you have any numbers for that, because I really doubt it. HVDC has really low losses, natural gas leaks already when you get it out of the Earth. You can always bury your lines if you want them protected from the elements.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Buried AC lines apparently have higher losses than high tension wires. But you might be right about HVDC. If you need to move methane a long way I believe you use a large diameter pipe rather than high pressure. You can’t do the same with high tension power lines (forest fires anyone?). And when the pressure drops? You burn some of the methane to boost the pressure.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  HVDC has really low losses but in practice 90% or so of the long haul grids are still AC, and the losses add up.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    In the US about 5% of the transmitted energy is lost. I wonder how much Methane leaks.
qqqwerty 7y ago
I am not quite sure I understand your point. Renewable electricity has the potential to be the most resilient form of energy we have ever had. You can already generate enough electricity for a typical home by putting solar panels on the roof. The main issue is storage but that is mostly an issue of cost not technology. For about 10-15k you can get enough storage to get you through a multi-day outage. And for double that you could probably go off-grid entirely.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  > You can already generate enough electricity for a typical home by putting solar panels on the roof. I looked at doing this recently in the Seattle area. There just isn't enough sunlight to get a payback within the life of a roof (25 years or so). In addition, electricity in the area is mostly from hydro, so it's both clean and cheap.
  - markvdb 7y ago
    Seattle is below Paris in latitude. Plenty of sunlight. That is definitely not the problem in terms of energy production. You have a point about the longevity of roofing materials though. You might want to use longer lived/higher quality roofing materials next time your have your roof renovated, and combine with solar then. Almost anything but asphalt shingles should do: epdm rubber, metal, tiles, slate, ...
    - hinkley 7y ago
      > Plenty of sunlight Have you been to Seattle? They don’t have Alaska levels of Seasonal Affective Disorder, but it’s pretty bad. Mountains on both sides shave a little time off sunrise and sunset, and partially cloudy is every day. People basically ignore astronomical events because they won’t be able to see them anyway, although we did luck out on the last solar and lunar eclipses. They have a special term for “overcast with a few moments of sun”: they’re called, “sun breaks”. Sun breaks. A break from clouds that lasts moments. Just a break, then back to work. The only time the sun comes out reliably in the winter is when the wind shifts to the north and an arctic blast comes through. If it looks sunny outside, put on your heavy coat.
jes5199 7y ago
methane leaks are real bad, though. And solar means we can put generation closer to consumption, so we need fewer long-haul lines.

anonsivalley652 7y ago

That's also nibbling around the periphery. The most pressing goal is NET negative total GHGs. This means BOTH sequestration and emissions cuts including going to clean energy, industrial processes and other large sectors like concrete and agriculture. We can't get there by #TeamTrees half-measures or ostensible tokenism like optional consumer-based recycling every now and then, or by allowing corrupt oligarchy/plutocracy to keep resisting taking action. To these ends, BioCCS is going to have to happen whether we like it or not because pumping and cracking CO2 from air is just too expensive. Ferrous ocean seeding and mega seaweed blooms (like the area from Mexico to Africa now) is going to have to happen if we want to get this under control. Harvest that and either sink it to the bottom of deep trenches or burn it in a sealed chamber and pump the gasses/ash deep underground. Concurrently and in parallel, we can and should switch to scalable renewables / non-FF like fission, solar and wind if/when/until fusion becomes a reality. All-in-all, rapid negative GHGs must be the goal because the ESAS/methane gun hypothesis maybe a Sword of Damocles over our heads that could really put us in a bad spot if it fell. We must get the Arctic sea ice in summer restored or the heating of Arctic Ocean will introduce so much additional energy into a viscous feedback loop that will disrupt weather and climate for the foreseeable future. Here are some other sucky truths that are necessary: - FF-based jumbo jets, trains and large cruise/cargo ships will need to find alternative means of locomotion. - Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. - Concrete (actually the clinker in Portland cement) and other industrial processes that pollute the air with enormous quantities of CO2, methane and/or other GHGs must capture their emissions and have them sequestered properly.

Mirioron 7y ago
>- Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. I could see all the other stuff happening in my lifetime, but not this. There is simply no way that we will find a way to create animal proteins in enough quantities in a way that's safe and as nutritious that people will trust to eat. Perhaps some future society might have it, but definitely not ours in the foreseeable future.
- jl6 7y ago
  We already have a solution to this: reduce consumption of animal proteins.