12 ms·

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (or faster) than Europe. That trend will continue. So what will Paris actually do in practical terms? The problem is that after transitioning away from coal, there isn't a clear answer about the next step. Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload ... not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States#/media/File:Per_Capita_CO2_by_Region.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States#/media/File:Total_CO2_by_Region.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

FerretFred 6y ago
>coal to natural gas Fossil fuel to .. fossil fuel. Sigh.
- est31 6y ago
  CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e.png https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e...
  - sampo 6y ago
    > CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. Unfortunately there are methane leaks in the systems, and it is quite possible that when accounting for the methane releases, natural gas has equally bad climate effect (emissions of CO2 and CH4 combined) as coal.
    - est31 6y ago
      Good point. CO2 equivalents are a better measure than CO2. I think fixing leaks is an easier task than reducing the coal CO2 footprint. We'll have to figure this out somehow anyways, because a lot of methane will be going into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost, both on land and in the seas.
      - Qwertious 6y ago
        It's not easier - as I understand it, the leaks are tiny amounts along the entire length of the pipelines. Getting an absolutely perfect seal is something that's expensive to do, whereas in theory the CO2 footprint of coal is concentrated and therefore much easier to capture. In practice, doing either of those will spike the price of the energy, and the only reason to use them over renewables is their being cheap, so it won't happen.
    - thehappypm 6y ago
      It's a step, though. Methane is inherently unstable and won't stick around in the atmosphere forever once we stop emitting it. CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean very slowly and with acidification as a consequence.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        It's important to say explicitly what "not forever" is here. Half life of methane in the atmosphere is 9 years[0]. Then it decomposes into CO₂ and water; the latter is suspected to be a potent greenhouse gas at that altitude[1]. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-Climate_change_2013_19-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-C... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheric_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheri...
      - cryptos 6y ago
        But in the meantime methane has bigger effect (per kg) than CO2.
  - FrojoS 6y ago
    We need to get to zero (or negative) net carbon emissions. Building brand new infracstructure for gas is counterpruductive to say the least.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >when their new synchronous capacitor projects are completed they won't need stand by gas power plants. Sure ... and how do we do that? Nuclear is dead in the developed world (very few new nuclear projects and lots of existing plants being decomissioned)... so what's left? What do we replace natural gas with?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  What do you think Germany is doing? They are going from fossil-fuel-free (nuclear) -> fossil-fuel (Russian natural gas).
  - q3k 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - hannob 6y ago
    This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Look at the numbers: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... Yeah, there is a slight increase in natural gas over the years (with large fluctuations), while coal is in slight decline. By far the largest share of the nuclear phaseout has been replacing it with renewables. One can discuss the pros and cons of german energy politics (of which there are both plenty), but that should start by knowing the facts.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    The main reason for German gas demand is that a lot of the residential heating still works with gas. But the gas infrastructure synergizes extremely well with a shift to a hydrogen based energy economy, as is not just the goal in Germany, but pretty much an EU wide ambition [0]. It has nothing to do with the German nuclear phase-out that started in the early 2000s, just like European reliance on Russian resources it not anything new, nor is it bound to change, it's the consequence of geographical proximity and thus realpolitik. Particularly considering the alternatives: LNG shipped from the US to Europe in tankers is an net-energy negative. It would be a pointless and expensive exercise of creating even more pollution all for the sake of satisfying US foreign policy ambitions to antagonize Russia and keep it as separated from the EU as possible. [0] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-pin-hopes-on-hydrogen-valley-to-revive-declining-gas-region/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-pin-hopes...
  - cygx 6y ago
    There's no clear trend for German elictricity production from gas, cf [1] via [2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/KgcCyWu.png https://i.imgur.com/KgcCyWu.png [2] https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=-1&source=all https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...
abyssin 6y ago
Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy consumption, or the consequences of climate change will force us to do it. The difference is in the first case, we have more control over it, and it might cause less human suffering.
- yiyus 6y ago
  There is some low hanging fruit in that department. To begin with, properly isolating old buildings would make a huge difference. But I agree it won't be easy.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more But is it obvious? Let's say that fusion becomes commercially viable and vast amounts of emission-free energy become available cheaply. Would reducing the usage of it still matter? I would say the driving factor is the side-effects of energy production by current methods, not the energy itself.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. Even if everything around us would become 10x more efficient - which already would require many scientific breakthroughs - that's just multiplying the exponential growth curve by a constant factor of 0.1. A little bit of relief, but it fundamentally doesn't change anything. And that's ignoring the reality that if you make something 10x efficient, it tends to become used more - sometimes much more, cancelling the gains. Our economy is self-regulating; altering one factor only makes all others readjust to compensate. Permanent change will require more complex approach. Energy efficiency is definitely a very important part of dealing with climate change, but it isn't a silver bullet.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    > Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. We need to get off this exponential! Any modification of Capitalism is painted as an attack on basic human freedoms so that the rich can go down with the ship, rather than pass it on for the rest of humanity and the world. How do we change what we optimize for? Because it currently isn't working. > 10x efficient, it tends to become used more https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox
gameswithgo 6y ago
it certainly does bot require a fossil fuel base load, and thank goodness because that won’t be affordable forever
maxerickson 6y ago
It's also almost cheaper to build new solar than to operate natural gas. It doesn't require coordinated action to move away from coal and gas at that point.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  They’re not interchangeable. Solar is great for marginal additional output, but to make it useful as a primary energy source it requires massive investments in storage technology. Solar doesn’t work at night or on cloudy days, so you still need other power sources. At least as long as storage solutions are rare.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Which is why Tesla is now talking about Terafactories rather than just Gigafactories for battery production.
adwww 6y ago
This is what the UK did a number of years ago. At the time we got a lot of praise for dramatically cutting emissions. The problem is, that change didn't effect anyone negatively, and thanks to cheaper gas imports it was essentially free. Now that we are off coal, future cuts are going to be a lot harder.
7thaccount 6y ago
The US has majorly been transitioning to both natural gas AND renewables. In fact, practically the only facilities being built for the last decade have been wind and solar and in massive quantities. If you look in the generation queues of the various RTO/ISOs (organizations that manage which units run and at what level for large parts of the grid) the only thing expected to be built is even more wind and solar along with storage. Multiple GW of wind capacity is being added each year, so it isn't slowing. Why is this happening? It's complicated, but it's basically economics at this point. What problems do we face? Well, sometimes wind and solar aren't available. You can solve this in three ways. The first is to have thermal generation respond when the wind/solar dips. This can be tricky as thermal generators (outside of natural gas) weren't designed to move that fast. They were designed to run near max for most of their life. Natural gas peakers are more effective here. Another option is storage, which can hold you over until you get more wind/solar again. However, we would need a massive amount of storage built for this to be effective. A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway, but practically speaking, the demand doesn't participate today. In actuality, I expect a combination of all of that to become common place and it is what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been pushing for.
- alehul 6y ago
  > A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway I don’t think any of these solutions are viable to prove we can be reliant on renewables, and this one especially would not resonate with a populace. Just at a consumer level, think of everything you use power for on a daily basis. It’s a cornerstone of modern life, and you can’t expect society to backtrack.
  - 6y ago
throwaway5752 6y ago
Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload You say that like it's true, and it's not. Anyway, the climate doesn't care. Human emissions will reach equilibrium with what's compatible with life on Earth, one way or the other. Figuring this out is preferable to massive loss of life and degraded standards of living for the survivors. I find it particularly telling you exclude nuclear as a baseload and specify it has to be fossil fuel baseload.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Nuclear is great but it is a terrible baseload for renewables because nuclear cannot just spin up and spin down like hydro or natural gas can.
  - throwaway5752 6y ago
    That is not what baseload power is. You are talking about peak load generation. And pumped hydro is a classic smoothing solution to energy storage from uneven renewable base load generation.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    You're completely ignoring batteries which have already demonstrated their viability in southern Australia.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >You're completely ignoring batteries I'm not. >which have already demonstrated their viability in southern Australia. They didn't. They replaced natural gas in one specific use-case, namely to provide grid stability. Those batteries (no batteries) are capable of bridging renewable variability.
      - cptskippy 6y ago
        Southern Australia's wind farms alone are enough to meet demand and when their new synchronous capacitor projects are completed they won't need stand by gas power plants.
hunta2097 6y ago
Now if we could get Australian politicians to stop taking that coal money...
Angostura 6y ago
"So what will Paris actually do in practical terms?" How about, at the very least it is symbolic of the fact that the US will fully take part in one of the most important global programmes there is. That it will set targets and be transparent, reporting on its efforts to reach those targets. It will share know-how and expertise with countries that are trying to solve a problem that is an existential threat to civilisation. And if, as you suggest, the US is actually beating the progress it needs to make to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5C, then that's great - it can get the global plaudits it deserves, with no further action needed.
- lenkite 6y ago
  One of the prime objections by Trump was the need to sponsor the GCF (green climate fund). The US was already the top-most contributor with 3.5 billion+ taxpayer money signed away and even more was expected from the US. AFAIK China - a major polluter - contributed next to nil since it came into the gambit of a developing nation.
agumonkey 6y ago
How plausible is the electric truck migration ? I've seen the marketing but I don't know if companies are actually going for it.
cptskippy 6y ago
> Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload This is completely fallacious. There will always be outliers but the overwhelming majority of power needs, both residential and commercial, can be addressed with renewable energy and battery solutions. > not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse. Can you cite anything backing that up? Hydro electric does dramatically impact the environment but other renewable sources have no such impact. Wind is negligible despite the fanatic ravings of one fat orange lunatic who doesn't like it's aesthetics. Solar is easily deployed on rooftops and along transit corridors which has zero impact. You don't have to consolidate all the renewable energy sources in one location. I have a solar array that covers less than half my roof, produces 1.5x my energy needs annually, it stores reserves in a battery, and back-feeds excess into the grid. The cost to operate the array is less than the cost of grid power, and my excess production results in a payout from the power company. The excess production from residential and commercial arrays can be captured and distributed to outliers who are unable to directly leverage renewable energy and completely offset the need for polluting energy sources.
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
Your two liknks show per capita and total fossil fuel emissions between 2000 and 2018. The graph in [2] is subtitled: Since 2000, rising CO 2 emissions in China and the rest of world have eclipsed the output of the United States and Europe The graph in [1] is subtitled: Per person, the United States generates carbon dioxide at a far faster rate than other primary regions. Of course a country of 1 billion people, like India or China, is going to produce more emissiosn than a country of 330 million, in total, even if each of the smaller country's citizens produces about twice as many as the citizens of every other country in the world.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Also Paris accords don't do anything to slow down emissions in China and India the next big ones whereas USA is clearly showing some progress. I think with major solar improvements in the next decade and incredible price decreases things are looking a lot better. I hope for nuclear to supplement that but it looks like the world at large just isn't ready to get over their unnecessary, irrational fear of nuclear, except maybe China.

FerretFred 6y ago

>coal to natural gas Fossil fuel to .. fossil fuel. Sigh.

est31 6y ago
CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e.png https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e...
- sampo 6y ago
  > CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. Unfortunately there are methane leaks in the systems, and it is quite possible that when accounting for the methane releases, natural gas has equally bad climate effect (emissions of CO2 and CH4 combined) as coal.
  - est31 6y ago
    Good point. CO2 equivalents are a better measure than CO2. I think fixing leaks is an easier task than reducing the coal CO2 footprint. We'll have to figure this out somehow anyways, because a lot of methane will be going into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost, both on land and in the seas.
    - Qwertious 6y ago
      It's not easier - as I understand it, the leaks are tiny amounts along the entire length of the pipelines. Getting an absolutely perfect seal is something that's expensive to do, whereas in theory the CO2 footprint of coal is concentrated and therefore much easier to capture. In practice, doing either of those will spike the price of the energy, and the only reason to use them over renewables is their being cheap, so it won't happen.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    It's a step, though. Methane is inherently unstable and won't stick around in the atmosphere forever once we stop emitting it. CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean very slowly and with acidification as a consequence.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      It's important to say explicitly what "not forever" is here. Half life of methane in the atmosphere is 9 years[0]. Then it decomposes into CO₂ and water; the latter is suspected to be a potent greenhouse gas at that altitude[1]. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-Climate_change_2013_19-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-C... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheric_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheri...
    - cryptos 6y ago
      But in the meantime methane has bigger effect (per kg) than CO2.
- FrojoS 6y ago
  We need to get to zero (or negative) net carbon emissions. Building brand new infracstructure for gas is counterpruductive to say the least.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >when their new synchronous capacitor projects are completed they won't need stand by gas power plants. Sure ... and how do we do that? Nuclear is dead in the developed world (very few new nuclear projects and lots of existing plants being decomissioned)... so what's left? What do we replace natural gas with?
macspoofing 6y ago
What do you think Germany is doing? They are going from fossil-fuel-free (nuclear) -> fossil-fuel (Russian natural gas).
- q3k 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- hannob 6y ago
  This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Look at the numbers: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... Yeah, there is a slight increase in natural gas over the years (with large fluctuations), while coal is in slight decline. By far the largest share of the nuclear phaseout has been replacing it with renewables. One can discuss the pros and cons of german energy politics (of which there are both plenty), but that should start by knowing the facts.
- freeflight 6y ago
  The main reason for German gas demand is that a lot of the residential heating still works with gas. But the gas infrastructure synergizes extremely well with a shift to a hydrogen based energy economy, as is not just the goal in Germany, but pretty much an EU wide ambition [0]. It has nothing to do with the German nuclear phase-out that started in the early 2000s, just like European reliance on Russian resources it not anything new, nor is it bound to change, it's the consequence of geographical proximity and thus realpolitik. Particularly considering the alternatives: LNG shipped from the US to Europe in tankers is an net-energy negative. It would be a pointless and expensive exercise of creating even more pollution all for the sake of satisfying US foreign policy ambitions to antagonize Russia and keep it as separated from the EU as possible. [0] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-pin-hopes-on-hydrogen-valley-to-revive-declining-gas-region/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-pin-hopes...
- cygx 6y ago
  There's no clear trend for German elictricity production from gas, cf [1] via [2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/KgcCyWu.png https://i.imgur.com/KgcCyWu.png [2] https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year&year=-1&source=all https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...

abyssin 6y ago

Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy consumption, or the consequences of climate change will force us to do it. The difference is in the first case, we have more control over it, and it might cause less human suffering.

yiyus 6y ago
There is some low hanging fruit in that department. To begin with, properly isolating old buildings would make a huge difference. But I agree it won't be easy.
goatinaboat 6y ago
It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more But is it obvious? Let's say that fusion becomes commercially viable and vast amounts of emission-free energy become available cheaply. Would reducing the usage of it still matter? I would say the driving factor is the side-effects of energy production by current methods, not the energy itself.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. Even if everything around us would become 10x more efficient - which already would require many scientific breakthroughs - that's just multiplying the exponential growth curve by a constant factor of 0.1. A little bit of relief, but it fundamentally doesn't change anything. And that's ignoring the reality that if you make something 10x efficient, it tends to become used more - sometimes much more, cancelling the gains. Our economy is self-regulating; altering one factor only makes all others readjust to compensate. Permanent change will require more complex approach. Energy efficiency is definitely a very important part of dealing with climate change, but it isn't a silver bullet.
- sitkack 6y ago
  > Because our energy consumption is ultimately tied to the exponential growth of the economy. We need to get off this exponential! Any modification of Capitalism is painted as an attack on basic human freedoms so that the rich can go down with the ship, rather than pass it on for the rest of humanity and the world. How do we change what we optimize for? Because it currently isn't working. > 10x efficient, it tends to become used more https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox https://simplicable.com/new/jevons-paradox

gameswithgo 6y ago

it certainly does bot require a fossil fuel base load, and thank goodness because that won’t be affordable forever

maxerickson 6y ago

It's also almost cheaper to build new solar than to operate natural gas. It doesn't require coordinated action to move away from coal and gas at that point.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
They’re not interchangeable. Solar is great for marginal additional output, but to make it useful as a primary energy source it requires massive investments in storage technology. Solar doesn’t work at night or on cloudy days, so you still need other power sources. At least as long as storage solutions are rare.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Which is why Tesla is now talking about Terafactories rather than just Gigafactories for battery production.

adwww 6y ago

This is what the UK did a number of years ago. At the time we got a lot of praise for dramatically cutting emissions. The problem is, that change didn't effect anyone negatively, and thanks to cheaper gas imports it was essentially free. Now that we are off coal, future cuts are going to be a lot harder.

7thaccount 6y ago

The US has majorly been transitioning to both natural gas AND renewables. In fact, practically the only facilities being built for the last decade have been wind and solar and in massive quantities. If you look in the generation queues of the various RTO/ISOs (organizations that manage which units run and at what level for large parts of the grid) the only thing expected to be built is even more wind and solar along with storage. Multiple GW of wind capacity is being added each year, so it isn't slowing. Why is this happening? It's complicated, but it's basically economics at this point. What problems do we face? Well, sometimes wind and solar aren't available. You can solve this in three ways. The first is to have thermal generation respond when the wind/solar dips. This can be tricky as thermal generators (outside of natural gas) weren't designed to move that fast. They were designed to run near max for most of their life. Natural gas peakers are more effective here. Another option is storage, which can hold you over until you get more wind/solar again. However, we would need a massive amount of storage built for this to be effective. A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway, but practically speaking, the demand doesn't participate today. In actuality, I expect a combination of all of that to become common place and it is what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been pushing for.

alehul 6y ago
> A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway I don’t think any of these solutions are viable to prove we can be reliant on renewables, and this one especially would not resonate with a populace. Just at a consumer level, think of everything you use power for on a daily basis. It’s a cornerstone of modern life, and you can’t expect society to backtrack.
- 6y ago

throwaway5752 6y ago

Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload You say that like it's true, and it's not. Anyway, the climate doesn't care. Human emissions will reach equilibrium with what's compatible with life on Earth, one way or the other. Figuring this out is preferable to massive loss of life and degraded standards of living for the survivors. I find it particularly telling you exclude nuclear as a baseload and specify it has to be fossil fuel baseload.

macspoofing 6y ago
Nuclear is great but it is a terrible baseload for renewables because nuclear cannot just spin up and spin down like hydro or natural gas can.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  That is not what baseload power is. You are talking about peak load generation. And pumped hydro is a classic smoothing solution to energy storage from uneven renewable base load generation.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  You're completely ignoring batteries which have already demonstrated their viability in southern Australia.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >You're completely ignoring batteries I'm not. >which have already demonstrated their viability in southern Australia. They didn't. They replaced natural gas in one specific use-case, namely to provide grid stability. Those batteries (no batteries) are capable of bridging renewable variability.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      Southern Australia's wind farms alone are enough to meet demand and when their new synchronous capacitor projects are completed they won't need stand by gas power plants.

hunta2097 6y ago

Now if we could get Australian politicians to stop taking that coal money...

Angostura 6y ago

"So what will Paris actually do in practical terms?" How about, at the very least it is symbolic of the fact that the US will fully take part in one of the most important global programmes there is. That it will set targets and be transparent, reporting on its efforts to reach those targets. It will share know-how and expertise with countries that are trying to solve a problem that is an existential threat to civilisation. And if, as you suggest, the US is actually beating the progress it needs to make to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5C, then that's great - it can get the global plaudits it deserves, with no further action needed.

lenkite 6y ago
One of the prime objections by Trump was the need to sponsor the GCF (green climate fund). The US was already the top-most contributor with 3.5 billion+ taxpayer money signed away and even more was expected from the US. AFAIK China - a major polluter - contributed next to nil since it came into the gambit of a developing nation.

agumonkey 6y ago

How plausible is the electric truck migration ? I've seen the marketing but I don't know if companies are actually going for it.

cptskippy 6y ago

> Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload This is completely fallacious. There will always be outliers but the overwhelming majority of power needs, both residential and commercial, can be addressed with renewable energy and battery solutions. > not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse. Can you cite anything backing that up? Hydro electric does dramatically impact the environment but other renewable sources have no such impact. Wind is negligible despite the fanatic ravings of one fat orange lunatic who doesn't like it's aesthetics. Solar is easily deployed on rooftops and along transit corridors which has zero impact. You don't have to consolidate all the renewable energy sources in one location. I have a solar array that covers less than half my roof, produces 1.5x my energy needs annually, it stores reserves in a battery, and back-feeds excess into the grid. The cost to operate the array is less than the cost of grid power, and my excess production results in a payout from the power company. The excess production from residential and commercial arrays can be captured and distributed to outliers who are unable to directly leverage renewable energy and completely offset the need for polluting energy sources.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

Your two liknks show per capita and total fossil fuel emissions between 2000 and 2018. The graph in [2] is subtitled: Since 2000, rising CO 2 emissions in China and the rest of world have eclipsed the output of the United States and Europe The graph in [1] is subtitled: Per person, the United States generates carbon dioxide at a far faster rate than other primary regions. Of course a country of 1 billion people, like India or China, is going to produce more emissiosn than a country of 330 million, in total, even if each of the smaller country's citizens produces about twice as many as the citizens of every other country in the world.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Also Paris accords don't do anything to slow down emissions in China and India the next big ones whereas USA is clearly showing some progress. I think with major solar improvements in the next decade and incredible price decreases things are looking a lot better. I hope for nuclear to supplement that but it looks like the world at large just isn't ready to get over their unnecessary, irrational fear of nuclear, except maybe China.