3 ms·

Yeah, that the key problem - all current "green" or "zero" tech is simply a trick, with shuffling emissions to other countries, selling-buying quotas, maybe red

by Yizahi 4y ago

Yeah, that the key problem - all current "green" or "zero" tech is simply a trick, with shuffling emissions to other countries, selling-buying quotas, maybe reducing emissions a little in the best case. Until we have a working industrial scale CO2 sequestration factories we are essentially doing nothing, or close to nothing.

skrebbel 4y ago
How are solar panels or windmills a trick?
- null0ranje 4y ago
  I don't think solar panels or windmills are a trick, but I think OP was referring to "net zero" initiatives, which are not much more than accounting scams. Most carbon credits, if even verifiable, don't involve reductions but rather promises to not cut down existing forests for X years. Western countries are trying to do what they do best: buy their way out of a problem that takes actual effort.
- kettleballroll 4y ago
  They're not removing co2 from the atmosphere. So they help reduce new emissions, but they don't help with the existing ones.
- lm28469 4y ago
  because we use them additionally to existing sources, not as a replacement: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2021.png?itok=k2BK48jz https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Less energy = less growth = recession = bad, we're stuck in that
benj111 4y ago
How is it a 'trick'? Building a wind turbine isn't shuffling emissions anywhere. Neither is solar. Or a more efficient boiler, or....
- wazoox 4y ago
  It's not replacing fossil fuels, merely freeing them for other uses. In fact it's even common now to build wind turbines around coal mines to produce power to extract coal... We must reduce our fossil fuel consumption in absolute numbers. So far we're merely adding more energy resources; that way political and corporate PR representative can make triumphal announces about how we're reducing the part of fossil in our energy mix... But we need to reduce our fossil use overall, and REALLY REALLY FAST.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    "It's common" is not a statistic. At least in the US, coal use for power generation has dropped precipitously over the past 40 years. If whatever coal we do still extract is extracted using wind or solar, that seems like a net win (even if not a net positive, for the reason you mentioned).
    - wazoox 4y ago
      But we need a net positive. We must stop pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and we're merely pumping it a slightly slower rate, and the quantity still goes up. The US has replaced lots of coal with gas, and that's most of the reduction. But we're not gonna make it this way. Remember: we're heading towards +2.5°C in 2100, but northern continents heat much faster than the average (oceans are cooler and represent 70% of Earth's surface): it could be from +4 and up to +6°C in Canada, Europe, etc. The situation is going to be absolutely catastrophic much sooner than 2100. Arguably we may have catastrophic, repeated crop failures this decade for instance.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    I'll link a page with a chart on it, the web page relies on Javascript to actually render charts, the chart we care about here is "Electricity generation mix by quarter and fuel source". https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-porta... Now, on the left is 1998, on the right is this year. There are a few noteworthy differences 1. The UK actually produces less electricity, partly from efficiencies and partly de-industrialisation in some areas. 2. Coal went from over 30 TWh in 1998 to 2.24 TWh today. Are we instead burning that coal in homes? Nope. Steam locomotives? A handful of quaint examples. Coal mining largely stopped in the UK. 3. Gas went from almost 30 TWh in 1998 to slightly less today. We are still burning gas to heat homes and businesses but I doubt it's more than in 1998. 4. Wind and solar went from negligible to almost 25 TWh today. It's about a third of today's electricity generation. I don't see a way to read this which doesn't have us significantly replacing fossil fuels. Those coal mines are shut. Does the UK still have petrol stations and gas boilers? Yes, but it doesn't have many more of them than in 1998. That displacement shown is a real improvement. It just isn't enough.
woodruffw 4y ago
I admittedly haven't looked very hard, but the current push towards overall reduction and renewable sources (solar, wind) and long-timescale sources (nuclear) feels like much less of a trick than CO2 sequestration. Last time I checked, most sequestration efforts involve some kind of logistical sleight of hand (like ignoring the energy required to crush and spread out rocks, or the fact that most seedlings don't grow into mature trees).
el_nahual 4y ago
A lot of replies to this comment are saying a version of "how is solar/wind/etc a trick?" And the answer is that no, they are not a trick...they legitimately produce energy. But the goal isn't "make more clean energy", the goal is "keep coal and oil and gas underground"! And yet coal(!!) production is at basically all time highs, with oil not far behind. Unless we start making oil, coal and gas artificially expensive to produce, "clean" sources just add to global energy usage, instead of displacing it. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-production-data.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-production-d... https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-statistics.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-sta...
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Yes, the Russia aggression threw a wrench into every replacement project out there. But there are always two options to speed-up the process, you can make fossil fuels artificially expensive, or renewables artificially cheap.

by Yizahi 4y ago

skrebbel 4y ago

How are solar panels or windmills a trick?

null0ranje 4y ago
I don't think solar panels or windmills are a trick, but I think OP was referring to "net zero" initiatives, which are not much more than accounting scams. Most carbon credits, if even verifiable, don't involve reductions but rather promises to not cut down existing forests for X years. Western countries are trying to do what they do best: buy their way out of a problem that takes actual effort.
kettleballroll 4y ago
They're not removing co2 from the atmosphere. So they help reduce new emissions, but they don't help with the existing ones.
lm28469 4y ago
because we use them additionally to existing sources, not as a replacement: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2021.png?itok=k2BK48jz https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Less energy = less growth = recession = bad, we're stuck in that

benj111 4y ago

How is it a 'trick'? Building a wind turbine isn't shuffling emissions anywhere. Neither is solar. Or a more efficient boiler, or....

wazoox 4y ago
It's not replacing fossil fuels, merely freeing them for other uses. In fact it's even common now to build wind turbines around coal mines to produce power to extract coal... We must reduce our fossil fuel consumption in absolute numbers. So far we're merely adding more energy resources; that way political and corporate PR representative can make triumphal announces about how we're reducing the part of fossil in our energy mix... But we need to reduce our fossil use overall, and REALLY REALLY FAST.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  "It's common" is not a statistic. At least in the US, coal use for power generation has dropped precipitously over the past 40 years. If whatever coal we do still extract is extracted using wind or solar, that seems like a net win (even if not a net positive, for the reason you mentioned).
  - wazoox 4y ago
    But we need a net positive. We must stop pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and we're merely pumping it a slightly slower rate, and the quantity still goes up. The US has replaced lots of coal with gas, and that's most of the reduction. But we're not gonna make it this way. Remember: we're heading towards +2.5°C in 2100, but northern continents heat much faster than the average (oceans are cooler and represent 70% of Earth's surface): it could be from +4 and up to +6°C in Canada, Europe, etc. The situation is going to be absolutely catastrophic much sooner than 2100. Arguably we may have catastrophic, repeated crop failures this decade for instance.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  I'll link a page with a chart on it, the web page relies on Javascript to actually render charts, the chart we care about here is "Electricity generation mix by quarter and fuel source". https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-and-research/data-porta... Now, on the left is 1998, on the right is this year. There are a few noteworthy differences 1. The UK actually produces less electricity, partly from efficiencies and partly de-industrialisation in some areas. 2. Coal went from over 30 TWh in 1998 to 2.24 TWh today. Are we instead burning that coal in homes? Nope. Steam locomotives? A handful of quaint examples. Coal mining largely stopped in the UK. 3. Gas went from almost 30 TWh in 1998 to slightly less today. We are still burning gas to heat homes and businesses but I doubt it's more than in 1998. 4. Wind and solar went from negligible to almost 25 TWh today. It's about a third of today's electricity generation. I don't see a way to read this which doesn't have us significantly replacing fossil fuels. Those coal mines are shut. Does the UK still have petrol stations and gas boilers? Yes, but it doesn't have many more of them than in 1998. That displacement shown is a real improvement. It just isn't enough.

woodruffw 4y ago

I admittedly haven't looked very hard, but the current push towards overall reduction and renewable sources (solar, wind) and long-timescale sources (nuclear) feels like much less of a trick than CO2 sequestration. Last time I checked, most sequestration efforts involve some kind of logistical sleight of hand (like ignoring the energy required to crush and spread out rocks, or the fact that most seedlings don't grow into mature trees).

el_nahual 4y ago

A lot of replies to this comment are saying a version of "how is solar/wind/etc a trick?" And the answer is that no, they are not a trick...they legitimately produce energy. But the goal isn't "make more clean energy", the goal is "keep coal and oil and gas underground"! And yet coal(!!) production is at basically all time highs, with oil not far behind. Unless we start making oil, coal and gas artificially expensive to produce, "clean" sources just add to global energy usage, instead of displacing it. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-production-data.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-production-d... https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-statistics.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-sta...

marcosdumay 4y ago
Yes, the Russia aggression threw a wrench into every replacement project out there. But there are always two options to speed-up the process, you can make fossil fuels artificially expensive, or renewables artificially cheap.