7 ms·

And underestimating what's actually going to happen, and how difficult it's going to be to reverse, or even put brakes on it is intellectually criminal, but the

by vkou 4y ago

And underestimating what's actually going to happen, and how difficult it's going to be to reverse, or even put brakes on it is intellectually criminal, but the pro-AGW group hasn't ever cared about that. Why would they, the track record of 'Let industry self-regulate' has worked out great for them in the past. We're going to blow right past 1.5C, 2C, 2.5C...

Retric 4y ago
Longer term projections on 2.5C look more hopeful. Globally electricity production has gotten significantly more green, though offset by increased demand. But, new coal power plants for example were down 66% globally in 2020 vs 2016 and existing infrastructure only lasts so long. Project things forward to 2040 and emissions should be noticeably below current levels even with increasing demand simple because of economic forces. In 2022 10% of all new cars globally were EV’s and that number keeps rising. Combined with an even cleaner grid and things could look quite different in 2040 again even with increasing demand for cars. Now I don’t want to project those trends over the following 60 years, but lower emissions give even more time to lower them further. 2.5C could easily hit in 2200 rather than 2100, or even be avoided entirely. Thus we might be able to shift 1.5C by a few years, 2C by decades, and 2.5C by literal centuries.
- vkou 4y ago
  Coal is only going out of style because we are building out new natgas plants. The greatest trick that has been pulled on us this century is somehow billing gas as a 'green' source of energy. Electric cars are an expensive distraction from the problem. The sustainable future of transportation is the electric train, the electric trolley, the electric scooter, and the electric bicycle. Personal automobiles, electric or otherwise, were, are, and will continue to be an environmental catastrophe. And while we can electrify some fraction of personal automobiles by 20whenever, we aren't lifting two fingers on the task of rebuilding our societies to be less car-manic. A few underused bike lanes, a few rental scooters scattered around town, and a light rail extension 10 years from now aren't it.
  - californical 4y ago
    Could not agree more. Spending enormous amounts of energy to move around 4,000+ lbs of metal, just to go to the restaurant down the street, is insane.
  - timr 4y ago
    > The greatest trick that has been pulled on us this century is somehow billing gas as a 'green' source of energy. Gas has significantly lower emissions than coal. Progress is progress. Absolutism gets us nowhere, unless your goal is to drive humanity back to the stone age by "switching" to energy production systems that do not currently exist (with the exception of nuclear, which is the only currently practical solution for "green" base load that we stubbornly refuse to consider). All of those electric transportation doo-dads add significant load to a system that can barely keep up as it is (in the US, anyway). Just to emphasize the point, in NYC environmental extremists shut down Indian Point, thus converting about a quarter of NYC's power demands from clean energy (nuclear) to fossil fuel. Meanwhile, each of the past few summers the city has come close to rolling blackouts. Good job, folks.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > Absolutism gets us nowhere, And building out natgas will get us into a situation where we are locked into decades of guaranteed emissions, as all the vested interests in the production and consumption space fight tooth and nail to protect their line of business, and the capex they've dumped into it. There's no plausible net-carbon zero path this century that's compatible with our current buildout of natgas. Perfect is the enemy of the good, but this isn't even good!
      - Retric 4y ago
        Natural gas is a great pathway to net zero because the fuel is so vastly more explosive than the equipment. People own gas turbines that are literally used for less than a week a year and are simply paid for standby capacity. Quite literally you’re better off building solar where 1/2 it’s output is wasted over a year than burning natural gas. When you’re building that much solar things are very close to net zero. Eventually batteries will replace natural gas, but until that happens we need technologies that can fill the gaps in demand and nuclear can’t do it economically.
ratboy666 4y ago
It has been the "mean, bad Capitalist" vs the "nice, social minded Socialist". I tend to go with the Capitalist. Why? Because it has never been good to kill the consumer of the product. In general, this particular principle does NOT hold with Socialists. They (and again, not all) generally do not care.

by vkou 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

Longer term projections on 2.5C look more hopeful. Globally electricity production has gotten significantly more green, though offset by increased demand. But, new coal power plants for example were down 66% globally in 2020 vs 2016 and existing infrastructure only lasts so long. Project things forward to 2040 and emissions should be noticeably below current levels even with increasing demand simple because of economic forces. In 2022 10% of all new cars globally were EV’s and that number keeps rising. Combined with an even cleaner grid and things could look quite different in 2040 again even with increasing demand for cars. Now I don’t want to project those trends over the following 60 years, but lower emissions give even more time to lower them further. 2.5C could easily hit in 2200 rather than 2100, or even be avoided entirely. Thus we might be able to shift 1.5C by a few years, 2C by decades, and 2.5C by literal centuries.

vkou 4y ago
Coal is only going out of style because we are building out new natgas plants. The greatest trick that has been pulled on us this century is somehow billing gas as a 'green' source of energy. Electric cars are an expensive distraction from the problem. The sustainable future of transportation is the electric train, the electric trolley, the electric scooter, and the electric bicycle. Personal automobiles, electric or otherwise, were, are, and will continue to be an environmental catastrophe. And while we can electrify some fraction of personal automobiles by 20whenever, we aren't lifting two fingers on the task of rebuilding our societies to be less car-manic. A few underused bike lanes, a few rental scooters scattered around town, and a light rail extension 10 years from now aren't it.
- californical 4y ago
  Could not agree more. Spending enormous amounts of energy to move around 4,000+ lbs of metal, just to go to the restaurant down the street, is insane.
- timr 4y ago
  > The greatest trick that has been pulled on us this century is somehow billing gas as a 'green' source of energy. Gas has significantly lower emissions than coal. Progress is progress. Absolutism gets us nowhere, unless your goal is to drive humanity back to the stone age by "switching" to energy production systems that do not currently exist (with the exception of nuclear, which is the only currently practical solution for "green" base load that we stubbornly refuse to consider). All of those electric transportation doo-dads add significant load to a system that can barely keep up as it is (in the US, anyway). Just to emphasize the point, in NYC environmental extremists shut down Indian Point, thus converting about a quarter of NYC's power demands from clean energy (nuclear) to fossil fuel. Meanwhile, each of the past few summers the city has come close to rolling blackouts. Good job, folks.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > Absolutism gets us nowhere, And building out natgas will get us into a situation where we are locked into decades of guaranteed emissions, as all the vested interests in the production and consumption space fight tooth and nail to protect their line of business, and the capex they've dumped into it. There's no plausible net-carbon zero path this century that's compatible with our current buildout of natgas. Perfect is the enemy of the good, but this isn't even good!
    - Retric 4y ago
      Natural gas is a great pathway to net zero because the fuel is so vastly more explosive than the equipment. People own gas turbines that are literally used for less than a week a year and are simply paid for standby capacity. Quite literally you’re better off building solar where 1/2 it’s output is wasted over a year than burning natural gas. When you’re building that much solar things are very close to net zero. Eventually batteries will replace natural gas, but until that happens we need technologies that can fill the gaps in demand and nuclear can’t do it economically.

ratboy666 4y ago

It has been the "mean, bad Capitalist" vs the "nice, social minded Socialist". I tend to go with the Capitalist. Why? Because it has never been good to kill the consumer of the product. In general, this particular principle does NOT hold with Socialists. They (and again, not all) generally do not care.