Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

You will have to explain this one to me.
If Carbon capture is the idea that will draw bipartisan support here in the USA, why does the world still hate it? Most people realize that half a loaf of bread is better than none, and if option C still achieves the same goal it is better to support it then shoot it down. It may not be the most popular solution, but an American one is better than being told to go FOAD.
Because it's currently infeasible bollox.
 
If solar panels are such a positive thing, then why the Hell isn't every new home legally required to be fitted with them right from the start?
They cost.

They’re not particularly cost effective to run.

Solar panels caN impact on mortgages. (Who owns the solar panel)

The disposal of them is incredibly harmful to the environment. ( but environmentalist from the middle classes especially rarely see the whole supply chain)

Builders are concerned that they’ll end up with liability for the disposal of them.

I’ve often wondered why electric/hybrid cars don’t have solar panels on the roofs to charge the engine whilst they’re stationary.
 
Says the Rando motherfucker from the internet.
Instead of the folks who are actually working on this 4.5 hours North of me, who would not be wasting their time on money giving it a real shot. Because the reality is something has to be done, before an unpopular political change is attempted to be forced with disastrous results.

Drilling starts for CO2 storage test
If you read the link, it seems all about being a band-aid for coal burning power plants. It mentions;
That the rest of the United States and much of the world are moving away from burning coal to produce electricity is a reality,
And a good thing too, coal is utterly nasty stuff even if you ignore the CO2 aspects.
Without CO2 sequestration, he said that “there may never be another coal-fired power plant built” in the United States.
Trying to pump the exhaust from a fossil fuel power plant down into some convenient nearby deep rock formation is a semi-plausible strategy to reduce the CO2 impact of just that plant. One trouble is that the extra costs involved make the economic case for the coal plant exceedingly dubious. A common strategy elsewhere seems to be to inject the gas into oil producing strata to help squeeze out the last dregs and thereby offset some or all of the costs, but then it's not really going to be a CO2 win.

Regardless, this isn't anything like a fix for the mess we're in. At unlikely best it might contribute a few percent towards the necessary emissions reductions, at far more likely worst it's a diversion of resources and attention from what really needs to be done.

As for;
something has to be done, before an unpopular political change is attempted to be forced with disastrous results.
it seems the disastrous results aren't going to be from an unpopular political change, they'll be from the resistance to change. I used to live in Florida and just last year was visiting there and showing my daughter the house we lived in when she was three years old. With business as usual, that house won't be there for her to show her grandkids.
 
You will have to explain this one to me.
If Carbon capture is the idea that will draw bipartisan support here in the USA, why does the world still hate it? Most people realize that half a loaf of bread is better than none, and if option C still achieves the same goal it is better to support it then shoot it down. It may not be the most popular solution, but an American one is better than being told to go FOAD.
There is that saying: 'If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.'

There is an adjunct to that saying: 'If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. But, if you're a consultant, there is good money to be made from prolonging the problem.'

Why does it draw bipartisan support? Cynically, because if one side supports it and the other doesn't then the supporting side can draw political capital from asserting that the opposition "doesn't care about those in the coal industry". Result? lost votes for the side that doesn't support.

It's not about antipathy to an "American solution". The reality is that it doesn't work as yet. There's also a good chance it may never but, by holding out the hope that it just might, politicians can kick up the road the point at which they absolutely have to bite the bullet and do something about the problem. Trump gets to keep the mining communities on-side and the Democrats manage at least to not wholly alienate them.

If carbon capture is truly the solution, why isn't the rest of the world, collaboratively, going hell for leather to make it work?

Back to my second paragraph: there's a lot of money to be made over extended periods of time in attempting to prove the technology. Combine that with political expediency/cynicism. Expect to see lots of glossy and well-financed publicity. I'd expect to wait rather longer for material results, though.
 
PS: I'm a qualified engineer in a relevant discipline and I spend a goodly proportion of my time working with the energy industry. Part of both my first and second engineering qualifications included thermodynamics.

If the safety of the US shale gas industry is anything to go by, I'm expecting a town or two to be wiped out when the first storage leaks.

The backing is provided by people out to make a fast buck, not ones who are concerned about the environment.

Thus terminates my arguing with you, as it's not worth burning the fuel to make the electricity.
Look at how many people get killed by hydro electricity production than shale gas production.


Of course shale gas can explode. Natural gas can but we still use it.
 
There is that saying: 'If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.'

There is an adjunct to that saying: 'If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. But, if you're a consultant, there is good money to be made from prolonging the problem.'

Why does it draw bipartisan support? Cynically, because if one side supports it and the other doesn't then the supporting side can draw political capital from asserting that the opposition "doesn't care about those in the coal industry". Result? lost votes for the side that doesn't support.

It's not about antipathy to an "American solution". The reality is that it doesn't work as yet. There's also a good chance it may never but, by holding out the hope that it just might, politicians can kick up the road the point at which they absolutely have to bite the bullet and do something about the problem. Trump gets to keep the mining communities on-side and the Democrats manage at least to not wholly alienate them.

If carbon capture is truly the solution, why isn't the rest of the world, collaboratively, going hell for leather to make it work?

Back to my second paragraph: there's a lot of money to be made over extended periods of time in attempting to prove the technology. Combine that with political expediency/cynicism. Expect to see lots of glossy and well-financed publicity. I'd expect to wait rather longer for material results, though.
Because my part of America would rather throw you a life jacket, then go the way of Europe. We will find our own solution and tell the world as usual to jog on. But committing economic suicide is not in the cards. We have already done quite a bit to reduce our emissions and will continue to do so.

The opposition here would love to go nuclear in Congress, to pass their agenda. If they were to happen the response from the other side would be punchy. If it is worked on now by both sides then the Green New Deal madness dies.

With 43 Carbon-Capture Projects Lined Up Worldwide, Supporters Cheer Industry Momentum

It does seem to be something that is being experimented with world wide.
 
If you read the link, it seems all about being a band-aid for coal burning power plants. It mentions;

And a good thing too, coal is utterly nasty stuff even if you ignore the CO2 aspects.

Trying to pump the exhaust from a fossil fuel power plant down into some convenient nearby deep rock formation is a semi-plausible strategy to reduce the CO2 impact of just that plant. One trouble is that the extra costs involved make the economic case for the coal plant exceedingly dubious. A common strategy elsewhere seems to be to inject the gas into oil producing strata to help squeeze out the last dregs and thereby offset some or all of the costs, but then it's not really going to be a CO2 win.

Regardless, this isn't anything like a fix for the mess we're in. At unlikely best it might contribute a few percent towards the necessary emissions reductions, at far more likely worst it's a diversion of resources and attention from what really needs to be done.

As for;

it seems the disastrous results aren't going to be from an unpopular political change, they'll be from the resistance to change. I used to live in Florida and just last year was visiting there and showing my daughter the house we lived in when she was three years old. With business as usual, that house won't be there for her to show her grandkids.
Fossil fuels are here to stay for at least 3-4 more generations. Going the way of Europe is not a feasible option.
 
Fossil fuels are here to stay for at least 3-4 more generations. Going the way of Europe is not a feasible option.
Sure, there are applications where it will be very difficult to get away from using fossil fuel, with aviation, shipping and long haul road transport being the most obvious. But for the rest, there's really no excuse.

Why is "going the way of Europe" not a feasible option - apart from the huge sums of money that the entrenched fossil fuel interests would sink into blocking any progress?

Continued use of fossil fuels in the current style for three or four generations would be the end of the world as we've known it. Saying goodbye to Florida, Bangladesh, the Great Barrier reef, most of the productive capacity of American farmland, seeing large swathes of the ocean denuded of life, and all this for what? The continued right of a few rich coal magnates to profit from selling a filthy fuel that if you added in the losses from the poison being spread would actually be more profitable to leave in the ground? But I guess that's another case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.

I must confess that merely by being in the USA I'm part of the problem. A month or so back our water heater broke down, and the service people said we could either wait for half a week for expensive replacement parts, or they could swap in a new one there and then. In the interests of domestic peace, I said to just put in something new, without taking time out to research what might be best. What counts as standard issue here is absolutely appalling by any reasonable standards. Forget having a condensing boiler, that's way too complicated, easier to just burn more gas to heat the water. As for timer controls, forget it. There's just a thermostat fixed on the side of the boiler and the thing is running continuously, just incase anyone might want to have a bath at 3 in the morning. It's the sort of thing that would have been outdated 50 years ago.

I'm sure that if I looked around, more efficient heaters would be available but much more expensive, not because of the inherent costs but because they're not mass market items. For want of some top-down regulations, there's a ridiculous squandering of resources.

Back in the 1800s, Europeans looked askance at apparent American wastefulness, missing that in that time and place labour was in comparatively short supply and energy was abundant, so it made sense to make use of it. That was then, but the habit of being heedless of energy use is no longer a competitive advantage, it's a major handicap.
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
The most costly thing in the world is the stupidy, because it have a highest price.

Why power bills will soar this summer to among highest in the world
So, what Astralians are thinking about it?
“The closure of cheap and reliable coal-fired generators and the shift to gas-peaking plants has left South Australia more vulnerable to gas price shocks than any other state.

Proposal to build a second electricity interconnector between SA and NSW would reduce reliance on gas generation.
They think, that it is a good idea, to allow green parasites to suck money from other parts of a country, too. Ok. It is their free (almost free) choice. More suiciders means less suiciders, we all know.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top