wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) The climate warming has been thrust front and center this year with Greta T and Australia. There is a lot of rhetoric about the urgent and immediate need to do something to reduce greenhouse gases and such . Some even get a little specific . But I don’t think I have ever seen a detailed plan on how to accomplish this and what the resulting world will look like . Hence this thread . So, imagine the US has created a cabinet level position on the crisis, as we did after 911. Secretary of Climate Resolution, if you will. The position is given near dictatorial power, with the ability to enact laws single handedly along the lines of executive orders . You are recruited to present a plan to reduce greenhouse gases in the immediate , with detailed steps included . Banning individual car use , for example, and requiring any vehicles have at least 3 occupants , along with the immediate urgent expansion of electric mass transit to replace them . Shutting down all coal plants within 5 years and fast tracking nuclear power plants to replace them . Specific steps , in other words, not general proclamations of target goals on emissions of greenhouse gases . As part of your plan you must rate the impact on the current economy the plan will have , according to the following scale . This is not to take into account how things will be in 20 yrs if the plan works, it is a realistic assessment of the immediate benefit or damage the plan will have on the current economy and way of life in the US , extending out no more than 5 yrs . No pointing to a promised Golden Age 50 yrs in the future . Overwhelming positive Strong positive Moderate positive No change Moderate negative Strong negative Devastating negative So, what’s the plan and what impact will it have on the US economically and socially ? Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
MigL Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 I like ths... I would think that, since we are increasingly dependent on power, more nuclear ( and fusion research ) combined with solar panel 'farms to provide electric power for all applications ( improved battery tech ) would be a strong positive. Most of the programs pushed by Governments, such as cap and trade, or carbon tax, do little or nothing to reduce GHG emissions, as they just impose a 'cost' to continue doing business as always. Only those that can't afford it are forced to change their ways, so I see these initiatives as a strong negative. 1
studiot Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 4 hours ago, MigL said: I like ths... Most of the programs pushed by Governments, such as cap and trade, or carbon tax, do little or nothing to reduce GHG emissions, as they just impose a 'cost' to continue doing business as always. Only those that can't afford it are forced to change their ways, so I see these initiatives as a strong negative. Yes the bean counters, not the engineers and scientists are still in control. +1 5 hours ago, MigL said: I like ths... I would think that, since we are increasingly dependent on power, more nuclear ( and fusion research ) combined with solar panel 'farms to provide electric power for all applications ( improved battery tech ) would be a strong positive. Near me there is a large victorian pile which has been using sustainable heating (biomass) since the victorian days. A recent innovation has been the introduction of solar panel preheating of the water via an accumulator. A truly scientific and enginnering solution.
swansont Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 7 hours ago, MigL said: Most of the programs pushed by Governments, such as cap and trade, or carbon tax, do little or nothing to reduce GHG emissions, as they just impose a 'cost' to continue doing business as always. Only those that can't afford it are forced to change their ways, so I see these initiatives as a strong negative. Companies will usually opt for the cheaper alternative, since it means making more money. Green (solar/wind) is now cheaper in many areas, and imposing a cost on GHG emissions tips the balance even more. Part of the reason the US has seen a boom in solar these past few years is because of government programs that were implemented as part of the stimulus a decade ago.
LaurieAG Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Rather than having a flat 'carbon tax' system like the one rejected a couple of years ago internationally, I would advocate a more nuanced system that broke down the full manufacturing 'environment cost' process into onshore and offshore components so that goods imported from countries which didn't support such a system could have their offshore components levied appropriately when they came back onshore to a country that did. Why allow rich offshorers to pocket what we effectively will have to pay (and get richer) when those external goods come back onshore? After all, at the moment in Australia we have more ash and broken beer bottles than you can poke a sharp stick at, but we would have to import the bloody sack cloth if we had a 'carbon tax' like that proposed before.
iNow Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 11 hours ago, wallflash said: I don’t think I have ever seen a detailed plan on how to accomplish this and what the resulting world will look like . Most every US Democratic primary candidate has plans posted on their websites. You might also see what Jay Inslee proposed prior to dropping out of the race.
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) My intent was a discussion of the nuts and bolts of the daily lives of people in a world altering its lifestyle to combat climate warming . I probably worded it wrong, my bad, but the ability to make laws was just to suggest a poster was free to design a society as he saw fit . I’ll break this down into individual areas of our lives , and how these will be changed . I will have to get started and then add as I go because I don’t have time to do it all in one sitting . I see these main areas , but this is not meant to exclude others I haven’t thought of . *Electricity generation * Individual use vehicles *Semis and transport vehicles *Planes *Ships * Farming equipment *Military vehicles , naval vessels , and aircraft Lets start with the easy one. Electricity generation . Currently fossil fuels contribute about 64% of the power, nuclear 19% , renewables 17%. Even allowing the use of nuclear that probably wouldn’t fly today, we have to almost triple our output . Stay away from nuclear and it jumps to producing over 5 times what we now are able to produce via renewables . And that’s just talking taking carbon out of the generation side . We haven’t addressed the usage side yet , which will substantially increase in any plan to get off fossil fuels . Fossil fuels in homes and other buildings today account for a large chunk of the utilities . Heating, cooking, water heating . These all would have to be replaced with electrical appliances . I have no hard numbers on how much energy this means , but typically a standard house that has gas appliances can get by on a 100 amp service, while a total electric house will have a 200 amp service . So a ball park figure that switching to total electric will double our electric needs for just this switchover isn’t way off base . And this won’t even cover having electric chargers for EV cars in our homes . A typical EV charge uses about 32 amps for 4 hrs for a 100 mile charge. If we figure the standard 2 vehicles per family , then that’s doubled . This alone is about the equivalent of running your electric oven and 2 burners for 8 hrs every day . On top of the electric appliances we have already switched over from fossil fuels . So the problem becomes evident , but that’s not even all the problem with this one solution. Our current electric grid infrastructure will not handle this extra demand , all the way from the generating plant to your new electric furnace. The only reason we don’t have issues currently has been LED lighting that has reduced the demand significantly. But we aren’t in a position to simply start sending double or triple the amount of electricity down the lines to the users . The grid capacity from generating plant to your neighborhood will have to be substantially increased . The drops to each house or business will have to be replaced . So will the meter loops and panels in almost every case . And the lines inside the buildings will have to be also . You just aren’t going to pull the 150 amps now needed through the wire and gear rated at 100 amps , or send 60 amps to your furnace down the wire designed for 20 amps . So a total redo of our electrical grid, electrical gear on buildings, and wiring to the replaced fossil fuel equipment will have to happen . And that’s for the easiest fix on the board , getting rid of fossil fuels where electric replacements already exist and the basic infrastructure to use them exists in some form, even if undersized . How much will this add to our generating needs and issues , being as we are about doubling our electrical needs while simultaneously eliminating the method of production that currently supplies 64% of our OLD needs ? You wouldn’t be far off suggesting that we would have to increase our renewable generation by 10 times current capabilities, if we stay away from nuclear . ( which a poster is not required to do in his plan, just acknowledging that nuclear is not in favor now and may not be a desired substitute). Then we have to tackle the hard problems Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
Strange Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) Other things to add: * Food supply and diet (a lot of this is about adapting to the change, rather than just trying to minimise it) * Clothing manufacture and fashion * Lifetime and re-use of products, generally * Recycling * Water supply will become a problem in many areas * Problems with agriculture, water, etc will force large populations to migrate, creating problems else where * Pests and diseases will increase their range - West Nile virus is now present in parts of southern Europe, I believe Edited January 23, 2020 by Strange adding to list 1
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 28 minutes ago, wallflash said: My intent was a discussion of the nuts and bolts of the daily lives of people in a world altering its lifestyle to combat climate warming . I probably worded it wrong, my bad, but the ability to make laws was just to suggest a poster was free to design a society as probably he saw fit . It probably happens wrong and the nuts and bolts of daily lives is altered in a way the world cant predict or design to fit.
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) I would hope that after decades of talk on the need to deal with climate change there would be some substantive plans somewhere on how to go about it . Otherwise it’s like going to your doctor and being told your blood pressure is way too high and that this will have bad negative effects on your future health . “ OK then doc, why do I do about it ?” ”Well, you just need to get your BP lower . Down in the 120-130 range instead of 160” ”Yeah , but how ? You going to prescribe some pills ?” ”No” “So what then? Eat better, exercise , quit alcohol? What exactly do I do to lower it ?” ” I don’t know, but you need to do something to fix it or you will likely have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years “ Hopefully this is not the case , and there are no solid ideas on how to do something we are told in repeatedly that is imperative we do NOW . How do we do NOW what we need to do to alleviate the climate crisis , and what impact will it have on our lives , our lifestyle, and our economy ? Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash 1
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Our house is aflame and we have no escape plan: but feel free to design a society.
Prometheus Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, wallflash said: . Otherwise it’s like going to your doctor and being told your blood pressure is way too high and that this will have bad negative effects on your future health . I think a closer analogy is: Doc: I'm afraid you have COPD. Patient: Smokers lung? What do I do about it? Doc: Let's start with stopping smoking. Patient: OK doc... how do I do that? 1
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 25 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Our house is aflame and we have no escape plan: but feel free to design a society. We HAVE to have some sort of society . So I am asking how we create this new carbon neutral climate friendly society , and what impact this has on the current one . I am asking for specific workable proposals to move beyond the proclamations of “ we must do something !” OK, we should , but what specifically? Ban individual transportation and require everyone to ride mass transit ? Ban all fossil fuel appliances from buildings ? Fast track new nuclear plants to replace the fossil fuel ones ? What? 27 minutes ago, Prometheus said: I think a closer analogy is: Doc: I'm afraid you have COPD. Patient: Smokers lung? What do I do about it? Doc: Let's start with stopping smoking. Patient: OK doc... how do I do that? Not really . A person can chunk the cigarettes without having to get a new job, buy a different car , move to a different town , etc . Throw away the cigs . But when the answer is “ throw away the fossil fuels “, the legitimate question is , “ how? Tell me what replaces it . “
Strange Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, wallflash said: We HAVE to have some sort of society . So I am asking how we create this new carbon neutral climate friendly society , and what impact this has on the current one . I am asking for specific workable proposals to move beyond the proclamations of “ we must do something !” OK, we should , but what specifically? Ban individual transportation and require everyone to ride mass transit ? Ban all fossil fuel appliances from buildings ? Fast track new nuclear plants to replace the fossil fuel ones ? What? My problem with this is that you are asking a random collection of people on the Internet for ways to solve this problem. There are some very bright people her. And there may even be some with some relevant expertise and experience. But that can't match the specialists who are already developing these sort of plans. It is too easy for non-specialists to come up with "obvious" solutions, that won't work in practice because they don't understand all the issues. The problem is not a lack of detailed plans. There are lots: from cities banning certain types of vehicles; planting more trees; countries with plans to ban all fossil-fuel cars; governments making better insulation on (new and existing) houses compulsory; replacing diesel and gasoline with biofuel; more energy being produced from renewable sources (several countries have experienced periods where all their power has been from renewable sources; these periods will get longer and more frequent until they join up); transitioning farming and food production to more sustainable products and techniques; and on and on. The bigger problem is political will, so it might be better to ask how you change that (e.g. don't re-elect Trump). 1
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: My problem with this is that you are asking a random collection of people on the Internet for ways to solve this problem. There are some very bright people her. And there may even be some with some relevant expertise and experience. But that can't match the specialists who are already developing these sort of plans. It is too easy for non-specialists to come up with "obvious" solutions, that won't work in practice because they don't understand all the issues. The problem is not a lack of detailed plans. There are lots: from cities banning certain types of vehicles; planting more trees; countries with plans to ban all fossil-fuel cars; governments making better insulation on (new and existing) houses compulsory; replacing diesel and gasoline with biofuel; more energy being produced from renewable sources (several countries have experienced periods where all their power has been from renewable sources; these periods will get longer and more frequent until they join up); transitioning farming and food production to more sustainable products and techniques; and on and on. The bigger problem is political will, so it might be better to ask how you change that (e.g. don't re-elect Trump). I'm not trying to rag on anyone here. As the title says, it is a thought experiment. I figured people attracted to a climate science forum might enjoy discussing the nuts and bolts, boots on the ground stuff. Maybe not, and that's OK . I'm not demanding answers, just offering a topic for discussion. I don't think the plans are as detailed as many would think. Take a couple of your examples, for instance. One, banning all fossil fuel cars. That's not a detailed plan, that's step 1 of a 10 step plan. Step 2 is what replaces this transportation for everyone in the country? Step 3 is where this new fuel source comes from ? Are they replacing fossil fuel cars with electric cars charged by fossil fuel generating plants ? If so then nothing of import has been accomplished. You have moved money from your savings account to your checking account, but you are not a penny richer in actuality . Then you move on to the further steps of how it actually gets implemented , and what impact it has on the lives of the people and the economy. That's a detailed plan , and my post here was about using the imagination to come up with some semblance of such a detailed plan. Biofuel would raise other questions. How much land will be required? Do we take land now used for food production, do we cut down more forests and woodlands for new land? Growing our fuel would put uncountable tons of fertilizer and pesticides into action, ending up eventually in groundwater. Is that an acceptable exchange ? And what about water? The amount of water needed would be beyond imagining. Where will it come from? Current estimates predict a water crisis for 2/3 of the world within the decade. Do we build monstrous desalinization plants and exploit the oceans? How much energy will be needed to fuel these plants , which in turn are used to provide water for growing plants to produce fuel from ? Sounds like a self defeating circle . As to politics, there are a whole host of countries more liberal than ours that don't have to make step 1 electing the right kind of leader. How far have they advanced in coming up with workable plans that actually address how to rearrange life to solve the climate crisis? I'm just offering the chance to have an interesting discussion on how life would look in the near future , and I'm also interested in if these plans take into account the impact they will have on a society upon their implementation. Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
iNow Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Strange is exactly right. The technical solutions are already available. This is no longer a technical problem, but a political one. Further, I feel you've framed the question in a way that suggests only one right answer. There are countless good ideas out there, and anything we do will surely be a collection of various parts of each of them. There is more than one path to get from point A to point B. Since this is your thread, why don't you tell us what you think about achieving the outcome you describe?
swansont Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 2 hours ago, wallflash said: Lets start with the easy one. Electricity generation . Currently fossil fuels contribute about 64% of the power, nuclear 19% , renewables 17%. For the US, correct? 2 hours ago, wallflash said: Our current electric grid infrastructure will not handle this extra demand , all the way from the generating plant to your new electric furnace. The only reason we don’t have issues currently has been LED lighting that has reduced the demand significantly. But we aren’t in a position to simply start sending double or triple the amount of electricity down the lines to the users . The grid capacity from generating plant to your neighborhood will have to be substantially increased . The drops to each house or business will have to be replaced . So will the meter loops and panels in almost every case . And the lines inside the buildings will have to be also . You just aren’t going to pull the 150 amps now needed through the wire and gear rated at 100 amps , or send 60 amps to your furnace down the wire designed for 20 amps . Distributed generation mitigates this to some extent. You don't need to transmit rooftop PV, for example. Also, electrical is more efficient for cars than fossil fuels (and to a lesser extent, for heating). Eliminating fossil fuels is not a 1:1 trade if replaced by electrical - you're replacing a ~20% efficient engine with a motor that's more like 80% efficient.
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, swansont said: For the US, correct? Distributed generation mitigates this to some extent. You don't need to transmit rooftop PV, for example. Also, electrical is more efficient for cars than fossil fuels (and to a lesser extent, for heating). Eliminating fossil fuels is not a 1:1 trade if replaced by electrical - you're replacing a ~20% efficient engine with a motor that's more like 80% efficient. Yes, for the US . The US is one of the worst offenders, and probably home to most posters here, so I only listed US usage. And yes, electric motors are more efficient. But the point was not a comparison on efficiency or even pollution of gas cars vs gas generated electric cars, it was making the point that switching to EV cars increases substantially our electric needs, as does moving gas appliances to electric. We have to increase our current renewable energy production by 5 times just to meet current needs if we eliminate fossil fuel and nuclear . Adding in converted fossil fuel equipment powered by electricity increases this disparity even more, to possibly 10 times our current capability.
Strange Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 3 hours ago, wallflash said: Lets start with the easy one. Electricity generation . Currently fossil fuels contribute about 64% of the power, nuclear 19% , renewables 17%. For the UK, the figures are 54%, 21% and 24% (they don't quite add up to 100% - rounding errors, I think) which is better, but not hugely so. The goal is to get up to 30% renewable in 2020. More progress needs to be made on this. But building generating plants and infrastructure takes time and costs money. There is little incentive for power companies to replace, say, coal-fired power plants which cost little to run and a lot to replace. I found this statement: "Global installed capacity for solar-powered electricity has seen an exponential growth..." and thought that sounds good but then read on: "reaching 1% of all electricity used globally." Which doesn't sound anywhere near as impressive. From: https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf
studiot Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, wallflash said: Hopefully this is not the case , and there are no solid ideas on how to do something we are told in repeatedly that is imperative we do NOW . How do we do NOW what we need to do to alleviate the climate crisis , and what impact will it have on our lives , our lifestyle, and our economy ? 34 minutes ago, wallflash said: I'm not trying to rag on anyone here. As the title says, it is a thought experiment. I figured people attracted to a climate science forum might enjoy discussing the nuts and bolts, boots on the ground stuff. Maybe not, and that's OK . I'm not demanding answers, just offering a topic for discussion. Yes this is a discussion site, and yes we need to act now +1. But not only is this a discussion site it is also a Scientific site. So lets do some Science. 1 hour ago, Strange said: planting more trees How well will this work? The average weight of a semi mature hardwood tree like an oak is 10 Tonnes weight or a mass of 1000 kg. http://www.deepdale-trees.co.uk/trees/technical-info.html The girth of this tree is said to increase at about specified at 100cm and is said to increase at about 1.88 cm per year. So the tree has taken up to 50 years to reach this stage. Softwoods will grow more quickly, may 25 to 30 years. Lignin ( C30H36O9) has a molecular mass of 540 and a % by mass of 67% carbon Cellulose (C6H10O5) has a molecular mass of 162 and a % carbon of 44% carbon Take an average of 50%. thus in say 30 to 40 years we have fixed 500kg of carbon per tree which trnaslates to 865 kg of carbon dioxide. 3 hours ago, wallflash said: Our current electric grid infrastructure will not handle this extra demand , all the way from the generating plant to your new electric furnace. The only reason we don’t have issues currently has been LED lighting that has reduced the demand significantly. But we aren’t in a position to simply start sending double or triple the amount of electricity down the lines to the users . The grid capacity from generating plant to your neighborhood will have to be substantially increased . The drops to each house or business will have to be replaced . So will the meter loops and panels in almost every case . And the lines inside the buildings will have to be also . You just aren’t going to pull the 150 amps now needed through the wire and gear rated at 100 amps , or send 60 amps to your furnace down the wire designed for 20 amps . This analysis is seriously flawed and I have already given an example of the main reason why in an earlier post to which you have not replied. Basically there is no need to concentrate distributed renewable sources into a national grid. The bottom line is that we should be doing these and many other things for other pressing reasons, additional to climate change such as pollution reduction Edited January 23, 2020 by studiot
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, studiot said: This analysis is seriously flawed and I have already given an example of the main reason why in an earlier post to which you have not replied. Basically there is no need to concentrate distributed renewable sources into a national grid. The bottom line is that we should be doing these and many other things for other pressing reasons, additional to climate change such as pollution reduction What post ? The only post I see from you before this is the third from the top, and you do not address me or my points in it. I will be glad to see where you think my post seriously flawed. I do not believe it is. That we get most of our electricity from fossil fuels is a fact. That our electric grid is not built to carry the increase that would be necessary to switch to total electric, including charging our cars , is also sensible. Utility companies do not overbuild . They build for what they will get a return on in sold electricity in a set amount of future time. A development of 200 homes will have the capability of powering those 200 homes, and in essence almost not that. The power company has mitigating factors they use to determine how much actual electricity is being used at any time . If you have 200 homes at 200 amps each, rest assured the power company did not build it to handle 40,000 amps on a regular basis. They have calculated the demand factor and lowered it to meet that estimated need, and they have also not allowed for the builder to add 100 more homes on that particular section of the grid. That homes are not built to accommodate an increase of 50% usage , or that the wiring to the current gas appliances is not adequate for total electric, is also fact. But I will read what you have when I can see the post . As of now I can only see 2, this one I quoted and the third from the beginning. Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
studiot Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, wallflash said: What post ? The only post I see from you before this is the third from the top, and you do not address me or my points in it. 10 hours ago, studiot said: Near me there is a large victorian pile which has been using sustainable heating (biomass) since the victorian days. A recent innovation has been the introduction of solar panel preheating of the water via an accumulator. A truly scientific and enginnering solution. Please excuse the poor spelling. 7 minutes ago, wallflash said: That we get most of our electricity from fossil fuels is a fact. You might. We don't
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, studiot said: Please excuse the poor spelling. You might. We don't Ah, OK, I didn't relate that to my point on the inadequate electric grid. Nonetheless, burning biomass produces CO2 emissions, which seems to be what we are trying to avoid in our energy production. Solid waste biomass also puts chemicals into the atmosphere. Yes, I was referring to the US on energy source percentages. I do like the British system of offshore wind generation. I've often wondered if we could use the never ending tides to produce renewable energy. Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
studiot Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 Just now, wallflash said: Nonetheless, burning biomass produces CO2 emissions, which seems to be what we are trying to avoid in our energy production. Are we? You get a government grant for 'sustainable' biomass in the England. But one of my points was about just how sustainable it really is. 3 minutes ago, wallflash said: I've often wondered if we could use the never ending tides to produce renewable energy. A man after my own heart. Yes but our pusilanimous government will never do it.
wallflash Posted January 23, 2020 Author Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, studiot said: Are we? You get a government grant for 'sustainable' biomass in the England. But one of my points was about just how sustainable it really is. Sustainable in some capacity ,yes. But if one tries to make it a major producer of energy , where will all this come from? Contributing to a major portion of renewable energy in the US, not to mention the entire world, would be a phenomenal amount of plant waste. And I don't see how it's questionable that it produces CO2 , which is what we are trying to avoid. Not to mention (again) the chemicals from solid waste if a country were tempted to use that free source in lieu of acquiring enough plant materials , probably at a cost . But if any country were able to utilize the wind and the sea to go 100% renewable as well as carbon and pollution free, it seems Britain and NZ would be the top choices. That they don't is sort of one point/aspect of this thread. Edited January 23, 2020 by wallflash
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now