5 ms·

>either fake or not impacting climate at all There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fue

>either fake or not impacting climate at all There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. When you look at what politicians and corporations boast about, it's always about adding. New renewables, new solar panels on our roof. Not about taking away fossil fuels. As an example, "carriers reduced their fuel consumption per passenger-kilometer by approximately 39 percent between 2005 and 2019 (pre-COVID-19), a compound annual growth rate of about 3.4 percent per year". [globally] - you can be sure the industry touts its increased efficiency. But globally, the emissions of the airline industry have gone up, meaning it's damaging the climate more than every before. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-gr... Even with your example - is the new truck going to travel more miles than the previous one? The US is still building urban sprawl by default. Does the owner use the pickup truck or, like most pickup truck owners, they could be use a smaller more efficient vehicle? As in the famous talk "Hans Rosling: the magic washing machine", we haven't done anything to actually reduce emissions. Yet we are sold a narrative of constant progress towards our climate goals.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
The F150 Lightning has a carbon footprint comparable to a Prius. Not every Lightning sold is replacing a truck, but in general they're replacing something considerably larger than a Prius. And coal plants are being shut down at a very significant rate. The number of ICE vehicles being sold annually is also going down.
- lozenge 4y ago
  The US and every country continue to license new fossil fuel extraction, knowing that any carbon extracted will end up in our atmosphere, regardless of where the power plant is. Coal peaked, but gas and oil extraction are still growing fast.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  If you look at the last decade, gas consumption has been going up even if the share of electric vehicle has been going up. Why? Because people with ice vehicles have been buying suv and pickups in higher percentage and driving more. So the average personal “car” consumption is up. I’m not as gloomy. I can acknowledge progress. But when it comes to cars, it’s been worse, not better. But at least now the technology is better and can hope for the curve to finally invert itself.
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    Weird, I thought it was because gas cars (EDIT: This should say electric cars) only just recently approached 4% of total sales and are still under 1% of the cars on the road. Normal growth is enough to explain why that hasn't (yet) resulted in a net decrease. If the growth rate continues at 50+%, that will change in about 5 years, though.
    - hihihihi1234 4y ago
      What? You meant to write "electric cars" in your first sentence, right?
      - _ea1k 4y ago
        Yes, I definitely did. Monday brain, I guess.
  - Unbeliever69 4y ago
    Jevon's Paradox - learned a lot reading The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Thanks. I was trying to remember the name of that. Highly relevant and likely explanatory for at least some of what's going on. > In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use increases its demand, negating the efficiency gains.
- CyanBird 4y ago
  > but in general they're replacing something considerably larger than a Prius. You are conceding the point with extra words here Reality is that the amount of vehicles is increasing, and by rule of thumb 50% of the emissions released by vehicles come from their own construction, steel, copper, manufacturing, chemicals needed for the production Given the size of a f150, would you take the bet that its manufacturing cost co2 wise is lower than a prius? This is obviously, bypassing the fact that rather than having to buy a 0km vehicle instead someone could have bought a second hand f150 and therefore not strictly needed to increase the total amount of vehicles in circulation
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Your rule of thumb is from 2012, and is very wrong in 2022. A recent paper came out that determined that the production emissions of gasoline and electric vehicles are now equivalent. I can't dig it up and it hasn't been generally accepted yet, but the generally accepted number now is that an EV is net carbon negative after 6 months of driving. But that's for an electric car vs a fuel efficient car. An electric truck vs a 15 mpg gasoline truck will go carbon negative a lot faster than 6 months.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The other poster is saying that what’s happening is there are MORE vehicles so carbon production continues to rise. That the real deal is figuring how to reduce the number of vehicles in total. Is the F150 Lightning better than commuting to work in a deuce and half? Sure. But it is not carbon neutral or negative except when compared to something worse - and there’s always something worse that could be compared.
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        > The other poster is saying that what’s happening is there are MORE vehicles so carbon production continues to rise. I think people are looking at different derivatives. If you compare the rate of change of emissions, they do continue to rise as new electric vehicles are produced. But, the claim that an EV is more efficient than a regular truck is not a claim about the first derivative, but about the second. That is, in theory, an EV raises CO2 emissions less than the equivalent truck. That's saying the impact should be visible in the *2nd* derivative being negative, but not necessarily the first.
zeckalpha 4y ago
This goes back 50 years to 1972, when they realized that renewables don’t avoid peak oil, just delay it. The justification is delaying buys us time, but delaying means we are adding more years of fossil fuels into the atmosphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
cameronh90 4y ago
> There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. In many countries, this is exactly what's happening. In the UK for example, gas and electricity usage has been declining for the last 15 years. Coal has been almost eliminated from the grid, and renewables now account for about 40% of generation, from less than 10% a decade ago. Overall carbon emissions are below 1890 levels. Obviously we have outsourced some of our emissions but there's very clearly a huge reduction that can't be entirely explained by that.
- eatmyshorts 4y ago
  It's happening throughout Europe and North America. The United States has had declining per-capita carbon consumption since around 1970. Absolute levels, which include population growth, have been going down since around 2000. We're replacing high-carbon power sources (i.e. coal) with lower carbon power sources (i.e. nat gas) and carbon-based sources with renewable sources, with wind and solar now producing some 13% of the total energy consumption and 20% of domestic energy production, more than double the percentages from 2015.
cruano 4y ago
>There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. Or when it prevents a new fossil fuel power plant to open. No one is going to sell their old vehicles just because there's a greener version, but if all new vehicles are green you'll eventually phase down the old ones. You can't expect people to care overnight, much less to lose money because of it.
- bluGill 4y ago
  I looked close at replacing my current vehicles. A new EV minivan would cost more per month than gas in my wife's current van (which is paid for), but it won't last forever and the difference is not that much. Of course that assumes something that will work is available, in our case adjustable pedals a must (my wife is short) and nobody makes an EV minivan with them as far as I can tell. My truck is a little trickier. The F150 lightening would do everything I need a truck for, but I drive my truck so rarely (one fill up per year). too bad nobody will rent me a truck for what I want t truck for.
- lozenge 4y ago
  >Or when it prevents a new fossil fuel power plant to open. That's not a benefit, that's a loss averted. These claims are usually over egged as well for "net zero" calculations. Net zero against some hypothetical averted future, but in physical reality the emissions are still there heating the atmosphere. As an analogy, I can "prevent spending" by buying a coffee machine, bulk buying some products, etc. However, there are more ways to spend money than I can even notice, and I can pile up the "savings" but still find I have no money left at the end of a month to... actually deposit into my savings. I think it's a common experience. If production of fossil fuels is not decreased by regulation, then a drop in domestic demand means more is available to export. The export price goes down, encouraging the continued use of fossil fuels abroad. Another power plant is built over there and emits GHGs.
mattnewton 4y ago
> There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. Or when a new fossil fuel power plant is _not_ built, or when demand spikes but the renewable sources handle the load and make fossil fuels less attractive. We aren’t socially set up with the mechanisms to make this change overnight. Basically no society is, we have to move people there with a viable alternative to them going without energy, or they will find ways to burn the earth to keep warm as the previous generations of all of us have.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

The F150 Lightning has a carbon footprint comparable to a Prius. Not every Lightning sold is replacing a truck, but in general they're replacing something considerably larger than a Prius. And coal plants are being shut down at a very significant rate. The number of ICE vehicles being sold annually is also going down.

lozenge 4y ago
The US and every country continue to license new fossil fuel extraction, knowing that any carbon extracted will end up in our atmosphere, regardless of where the power plant is. Coal peaked, but gas and oil extraction are still growing fast.
jeromegv 4y ago
If you look at the last decade, gas consumption has been going up even if the share of electric vehicle has been going up. Why? Because people with ice vehicles have been buying suv and pickups in higher percentage and driving more. So the average personal “car” consumption is up. I’m not as gloomy. I can acknowledge progress. But when it comes to cars, it’s been worse, not better. But at least now the technology is better and can hope for the curve to finally invert itself.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  Weird, I thought it was because gas cars (EDIT: This should say electric cars) only just recently approached 4% of total sales and are still under 1% of the cars on the road. Normal growth is enough to explain why that hasn't (yet) resulted in a net decrease. If the growth rate continues at 50+%, that will change in about 5 years, though.
  - hihihihi1234 4y ago
    What? You meant to write "electric cars" in your first sentence, right?
    - _ea1k 4y ago
      Yes, I definitely did. Monday brain, I guess.
- Unbeliever69 4y ago
  Jevon's Paradox - learned a lot reading The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Thanks. I was trying to remember the name of that. Highly relevant and likely explanatory for at least some of what's going on. > In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use increases its demand, negating the efficiency gains.
CyanBird 4y ago
> but in general they're replacing something considerably larger than a Prius. You are conceding the point with extra words here Reality is that the amount of vehicles is increasing, and by rule of thumb 50% of the emissions released by vehicles come from their own construction, steel, copper, manufacturing, chemicals needed for the production Given the size of a f150, would you take the bet that its manufacturing cost co2 wise is lower than a prius? This is obviously, bypassing the fact that rather than having to buy a 0km vehicle instead someone could have bought a second hand f150 and therefore not strictly needed to increase the total amount of vehicles in circulation
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Your rule of thumb is from 2012, and is very wrong in 2022. A recent paper came out that determined that the production emissions of gasoline and electric vehicles are now equivalent. I can't dig it up and it hasn't been generally accepted yet, but the generally accepted number now is that an EV is net carbon negative after 6 months of driving. But that's for an electric car vs a fuel efficient car. An electric truck vs a 15 mpg gasoline truck will go carbon negative a lot faster than 6 months.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The other poster is saying that what’s happening is there are MORE vehicles so carbon production continues to rise. That the real deal is figuring how to reduce the number of vehicles in total. Is the F150 Lightning better than commuting to work in a deuce and half? Sure. But it is not carbon neutral or negative except when compared to something worse - and there’s always something worse that could be compared.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      > The other poster is saying that what’s happening is there are MORE vehicles so carbon production continues to rise. I think people are looking at different derivatives. If you compare the rate of change of emissions, they do continue to rise as new electric vehicles are produced. But, the claim that an EV is more efficient than a regular truck is not a claim about the first derivative, but about the second. That is, in theory, an EV raises CO2 emissions less than the equivalent truck. That's saying the impact should be visible in the *2nd* derivative being negative, but not necessarily the first.

zeckalpha 4y ago

This goes back 50 years to 1972, when they realized that renewables don’t avoid peak oil, just delay it. The justification is delaying buys us time, but delaying means we are adding more years of fossil fuels into the atmosphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

cameronh90 4y ago

> There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. In many countries, this is exactly what's happening. In the UK for example, gas and electricity usage has been declining for the last 15 years. Coal has been almost eliminated from the grid, and renewables now account for about 40% of generation, from less than 10% a decade ago. Overall carbon emissions are below 1890 levels. Obviously we have outsourced some of our emissions but there's very clearly a huge reduction that can't be entirely explained by that.

eatmyshorts 4y ago
It's happening throughout Europe and North America. The United States has had declining per-capita carbon consumption since around 1970. Absolute levels, which include population growth, have been going down since around 2000. We're replacing high-carbon power sources (i.e. coal) with lower carbon power sources (i.e. nat gas) and carbon-based sources with renewable sources, with wind and solar now producing some 13% of the total energy consumption and 20% of domestic energy production, more than double the percentages from 2015.

cruano 4y ago

>There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. Or when it prevents a new fossil fuel power plant to open. No one is going to sell their old vehicles just because there's a greener version, but if all new vehicles are green you'll eventually phase down the old ones. You can't expect people to care overnight, much less to lose money because of it.

bluGill 4y ago
I looked close at replacing my current vehicles. A new EV minivan would cost more per month than gas in my wife's current van (which is paid for), but it won't last forever and the difference is not that much. Of course that assumes something that will work is available, in our case adjustable pedals a must (my wife is short) and nobody makes an EV minivan with them as far as I can tell. My truck is a little trickier. The F150 lightening would do everything I need a truck for, but I drive my truck so rarely (one fill up per year). too bad nobody will rent me a truck for what I want t truck for.
lozenge 4y ago
>Or when it prevents a new fossil fuel power plant to open. That's not a benefit, that's a loss averted. These claims are usually over egged as well for "net zero" calculations. Net zero against some hypothetical averted future, but in physical reality the emissions are still there heating the atmosphere. As an analogy, I can "prevent spending" by buying a coffee machine, bulk buying some products, etc. However, there are more ways to spend money than I can even notice, and I can pile up the "savings" but still find I have no money left at the end of a month to... actually deposit into my savings. I think it's a common experience. If production of fossil fuels is not decreased by regulation, then a drop in domestic demand means more is available to export. The export price goes down, encouraging the continued use of fossil fuels abroad. Another power plant is built over there and emits GHGs.

mattnewton 4y ago

> There is no climate benefit to opening a wind farm. The climate benefit comes when a wind farm causes a fossil fuel power plant to be shut down. Or when a new fossil fuel power plant is _not_ built, or when demand spikes but the renewable sources handle the load and make fossil fuels less attractive. We aren’t socially set up with the mechanisms to make this change overnight. Basically no society is, we have to move people there with a viable alternative to them going without energy, or they will find ways to burn the earth to keep warm as the previous generations of all of us have.