Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Hi! Bye!

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:08 (six years ago) Permalink

just starting to read it now, but it's by bill mckibben, so it's going to be a good read. the man is truly a hero.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:15 (six years ago) Permalink

i would say its scary but its way beyond that. kind of an r.i.p. earth dispatch really.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:19 (six years ago) Permalink

"In early June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled on a Norwegian research trawler to see firsthand the growing damage from climate change. "Many of the predictions about warming in the Arctic are being surpassed by the actual data," she said, describing the sight as "sobering." But the discussions she traveled to Scandinavia to have with other foreign ministers were mostly about how to make sure Western nations get their share of the estimated $9 trillion in oil (that's more than 90 billion barrels, or 37 gigatons of carbon) that will become accessible as the Arctic ice melts. Last month, the Obama administration indicated that it would give Shell permission to start drilling in sections of the Arctic."

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:21 (six years ago) Permalink

well that's good news, at least

frogbs, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:24 (six years ago) Permalink

we're fucked

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:26 (six years ago) Permalink

all that pesky arctic ice was hiding all the oil!

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:28 (six years ago) Permalink

it's why if you talk to people who work on climate change (people at environmental nonprofits, climate scientists, think tanks), everyone has this attitude that's beyond fatalistic. like, you almost have to laugh at the situation a little bit to keep yourself from going insane. i guess the article talks about that a bit:

We're in the same position we've been in for a quarter-century: scientific warning followed by political inaction. Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, "You know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that."

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:33 (six years ago) Permalink

but yeah, it's absurd. in 2010, my dad told me "you know who Obama should appoint for secretary of energy? Sarah Palin. i don't agree with her about a lot of stuff, but she has really good ideas about energy." my dad's kind of an outlier i guess, because he's a super fundamentalist who believes the earth is 8000 years old and doesn't believe that climate change could happen because god promised not to flood the earth again, and even if environmental catastrophe did occur, he'd be raptured out of it (the "pre-wrath rapture" theory") before the shit hit the fan. but man, there are a toooooooon of really ignorant people out there that don't want to hear anything that's bad news.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:36 (six years ago) Permalink

it really is up to the governments of the world. all of them. the average person is too far gone to really change things. i'm too far gone! he mentions that moral outrage over the loss of a city due to climate-related storms would change opinion, although there has already been mass devastation to cities due to super storms and it hasn't changed anyone's mind about anything. plus, for some reason people don't want to make the connection. major damage due to warming doesn't make people hate the oil companies.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:45 (six years ago) Permalink

this is increasingly all I think about and it leaves me in a heavy depression. I try to be fatalistic about it and tell myself that the universe will go on regardless, but that's not comfort since I guess one day it will be a dark grey cold mass of atoms.

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:45 (six years ago) Permalink

i find it near-impossible to imagine a government stepping in to take the necessary action against oil companies in liberal socialist Europe, there's absolutely no chance in hell it wd happen in the US or China

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:47 (six years ago) Permalink

all the news stories here about the drought are about how you might be paying more at the pump in the future! that is the number one concern. oh and food prices are gonna go up. that takes second place.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:47 (six years ago) Permalink

thats really the frustrating part; it really seems like as a planet we could buckle down and fix things, we just won't

frogbs, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:47 (six years ago) Permalink

whenever I hear the phrase "the price at the pump" it makes me insane. was looking at various political parties' platforms, and of course in the energy section for the democrats' paper there is little mention of climate change, and instead just talk about energy security, independence, and yes, the "price at the pump."

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:50 (six years ago) Permalink

It sounds like it may be coming to a head in the US soon if next year's corn harvest may be fucked.

I am curious what the thinking inside China is - I oddly expect more of them than the US, partly because I don't associate them with "Oh God won't let that happen".

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:51 (six years ago) Permalink

I remember having my huge bout of paralyzed fear about the environment in early 1992 -- still always associate the Church's stellar Priest = Aura with that, probably why that album has lingered with me for so long. I don't see myself returning to that state anymore because it's almost like...well, I went through it, and my fears never went away. I just became inured, and so I'll just live my life as low impact as possible and...wait.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:53 (six years ago) Permalink

xpost but it's up to people to force their governments to act.

what i'm dreading even more than the world that we'll have to live in for the rest of our lives - where the new normal is weeks on end of 100+ degrees, droughts, Katrinas, oceanic foodchains ruined by acidification, climate refugees struggling to move to the remaining pockets of the world where agriculture isn't wrecked - is the geoengineering "solutions" that will inevitably arise. it's so obvious that that's where we're headed. and no doubt, geoengineering efforts will probably be pushed by exxon-mobil and the like.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:54 (six years ago) Permalink

what is the true percentage of people in the US that believe god is protecting us though? I feel that there are many who just don't want to admit the truth because it is terrifying, or are just susceptible to listening to whichever account of events is least traumatizing. I figure it's quite a minority who really believe that God Himself will prevent any ecological disaster, even if a majority of Americans identify as religious.

xxpost

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:54 (six years ago) Permalink

like most Americans are religious, but not thaaaaat religious, right? I mean most people just like to say they believe in god and attend church once in a while. right guys??

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:56 (six years ago) Permalink

now I think I'm fooling myself maybe

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:57 (six years ago) Permalink

i need a drink after reading this

Spectrum, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:57 (six years ago) Permalink

I get the impression that it works on a lower/earlier level, like as long as there's FUD about climate change, people can react to it as "one story is this, and one story is that, but God would not put us in the situation where Story 1 happens so it must be Story 2"

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:59 (six years ago) Permalink

I am curious what the thinking inside China is - I oddly expect more of them than the US, partly because I don't associate them with "Oh God won't let that happen".

also because their leadership would actually have the ability to unilaterally "force" action on the issue. don't know if they'd actually do it, but at least it's possible.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:00 (six years ago) Permalink

there was a nyer stat about 26% (iirc) of americans defining themselves as evangelicals, recently (xxxp)

hey Z S, sorry to use you as a lazy wikipedia substitute, BUT, is it correct that the limited action that was taken by governments after the discovery of the hole in the o-zone layer was actually effective? that stat always seemed slightly reassuring to me, because i couldn't believe that anyone did a lot, but the idea that some modest action was effective seemed promising.

, Blogger (schlump), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:02 (six years ago) Permalink

these are some of the people in power in the united states. just so we are clear:

In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:02 (six years ago) Permalink

U.S. Chamber of Commerce is horrible for many reasons, not least of which is that they fool people into thinking they're an actual gov't agency!

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:05 (six years ago) Permalink

Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.

as cynical as i am about the intelligence of our conservative political leaders, i think that many of them really do understand the implications of climate change. as time goes on and denying climate change becomes more and more absurd - think about the first warnings about cigarettes and cancer in the late 50s, the loooooooong conservative battle against those scientists who were trying to save lives, and then the gradual, quiet acceptance of the facts in the following decades - the rhetoric will quickly shift to geoengineering "solutions", since by then it will be too late to actually effectively mitigate climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. hell, it's probably already too late NOW, when you take into account tipping points/feedback loops. anyway, they'll be happy to move straight to geoengineering, because that's a pro-business attitude that doesn't involve changing your own lifestyle.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:08 (six years ago) Permalink

wait did ned just say that he made his peace with the destruction of the planet via an australian college rock band from the 80's?

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:22 (six years ago) Permalink

sounds about right

mississippi joan hart (crüt), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:23 (six years ago) Permalink

You gotta start somewhere.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:25 (six years ago) Permalink

hey Z S, sorry to use you as a lazy wikipedia substitute, BUT, is it correct that the limited action that was taken by governments after the discovery of the hole in the o-zone layer was actually effective? that stat always seemed slightly reassuring to me, because i couldn't believe that anyone did a lot, but the idea that some modest action was effective seemed promising.

yes, the actions taken were relatively effective! but the experience is - cue negative nancy alert - unfortunately not very applicable to the problem of climate change. ozone depletion is primarily caused by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Banning the use of CFCs in things like spray cans and refrigerators was relatively easy to accomplish, since there are chemical substitutes that could be used at a similar cost. and it was regulation that could be implemented quickly, from the top down, on industry.

climate change, on the other hand, is driven by the emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from burning coal and using oil. but the key is that the infrastructure required to deliver energy and car-centered transportation to the people is enormous. you can't change it overnight, and you can't do it in a way that consumers barely notice (like phasing out CFCs in spray cans). there are cleaner substitutes for coal and oil, of course, but the substitutes tend to be more expensive and will take a long time to replace to replace the existing infrastructure.

and also, there's just the sheer usefulness of fossil fuels. think about what a gallon of gasoline provides for you - it enables a weak, feeble human being to move a one ton automobile for 30 miles or so! imagine pushing that car! all from a gallon of fossilized ancient dead organisms! it's seriously amazing. and so incredibly cheap. $3 for access to superhuman powers. it's like playing videogames on god mode. people in underdeveloped countries understandably want access to oil and coal. again, all of this in contrast to CFCs, which could be eliminated without negatively impacting the prospects of a better life for anyone else.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:26 (six years ago) Permalink

xpost -- Said album was more of a vehicle and a lens, in that it builds up to a pretty harrowing ending. I don't know whether it matched my mood or enabled it, but I find it pretty inextricable in reflecting back, and anytime I encounter stories or concerns like this it's part of the soundtrack in my head.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:27 (six years ago) Permalink

If global warming is real, then why is it cold in winter? Huh? Fuck you, science.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:29 (six years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4MCRrsmzYU

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:29 (six years ago) Permalink

The first six months of 2012 were the hottest on record. Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, takes a look at record warm temperatures across the county and the world and their connections to global warming.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/jul/11/weather/

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:47 (six years ago) Permalink

The 'Dark Knight' shootings are terrifying and ppl will rightly be appalled by them but somehow climate change lacks the immediacy that would rightly make it that much more terrifying.

sive gallus et mulier (Michael White), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:52 (six years ago) Permalink

it's because what's predicted to happen has never happened before in human memory and so people just ignore it.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:58 (six years ago) Permalink

if you can scarcely conceptualize a threat then it's hard to motivate yourself to give up deeply ingrained habits and privileges to stop it.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:59 (six years ago) Permalink

i do wonder what sort of world the rest of my life will be spent in. will my neighbors and myself experience widespread privation? or will life in america just become marginally more difficult, with our wealth and technology insulating ourselves from the worst of it? will my diet change thanks to rolling food shortages? will we all simply die of malnutrition in 40 years?

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:01 (six years ago) Permalink

3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

he sorta blows his math cred in the second sentence. that number is almost zero.

Thus Sang Freud, Friday, 20 July 2012 16:03 (six years ago) Permalink

odds are expressed as a fraction of 1 iirc

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:08 (six years ago) Permalink

agree. the odds are small, not large. an editor should have picked that up.

Thus Sang Freud, Friday, 20 July 2012 16:11 (six years ago) Permalink

Dodgy formatting imo, should it be 3.7 x 10^99:1? Or 3.7 x 10:99? Or what?

mod night at the oasis (NickB), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:12 (six years ago) Permalink

more proof that this is all a hoax

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:16 (six years ago) Permalink

Sorry, I've got my stupid head on and didn't read the sentence properly. Yes, it makes no sense as he has written it.

mod night at the oasis (NickB), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:26 (six years ago) Permalink

it makes sense it's just inaccurate. he shd've used odds against if he wanted to draw the stars comparison.

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:27 (six years ago) Permalink

i mean, i knew what he meant, so it makes sense, and i squinted at the -99 index when i read it

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:28 (six years ago) Permalink

thanks y'all, makes sense

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:42 (one month ago) Permalink

iirc one of the issues that most limits our ability to effectively use marginal sources of electricity generation (eg tidal forces) is the grid itself. like, there are all kinds of insanely powerful natural events happening all the time, but not only do you have to harness that power, you have to have a way to store/distribute it

that's exactly right. wind and solar both rely harnessing insanely powerful natural events happening all the time, and they continue to become cheaper and more efficient on the generation side. but they're inherently intermittent. that's why people who are out to actively manipulate people (like trump) can say things like "what about when the sun goes down or it's not windy! you'll be sitting in the dark!" and that's logical enough to fool a lot of people.

increasing the quality and quantity of battery storage is the big issue now. here's a good, quick overview: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-renewable-energy-battery-storage-need-worst-case-polar-vortex-wind-solar

Using energy production and power demand data, they showed how a 100 percent renewable energy grid, powered half by wind and half by solar, would have had significant stretches without enough wind or sun to fully power the system, meaning a large volume of energy storage would have been necessary to meet the high demand.

"You would need a lot more batteries in a lot more places," said Wade Schauer, a research director for Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, who co-wrote the report.

How much is "a lot"?

Schauer's analysis shows storage would need to go from about 11 gigawatts today to 277.9 gigawatts in the grid regions that include New England, New York, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest and parts of the South. That's roughly double Wood Mackenzie's current forecast for energy storage nationwide in 2040.

and, relevant to the conversation upthread about nuclear, existing nuclear infrastructure could essentially serve as a load leveler when wind or solar is relatively low. should have added that as a "pro", i guess.

in addition to the 50-50 wind-solar projection, Schauer and co-author Brett Blankenship considered what would happen with other mixes of wind and solar power, and if existing nuclear power plants were considered as part of the mix.

By considering the role of nuclear plants, the report touches on a contentious debate among environmental advocates, some of whom want to see all nuclear plants closed because of concerns about safety and waste, and some who say nuclear power is an essential part of moving toward a carbon-free grid.

The Wood Mackenzie analysis shows that continuing to use nuclear power plants would dramatically decrease the amount of wind, solar and storage needed to get to a grid that no longer burns fossil fuels. For example, 228.9 gigawatts of storage would be needed, compared to 277.9 without the nuclear plants.

"If your goal is decarbonization, then nuclear gets you a lot farther than if you retire the nuclear," Schauer said.

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:55 (one month ago) Permalink

again, imo if 277.9 GW of storage is needed to supplement 100% solar/wind, then start building that shit IMMEDIATELY. an all-in effort on wind/solar/storage would also create a ton of jobs. if maintaining the existing nuclear infrastructure reduces that top-line storage number to 228.9 GW, then keep it for now and then gradually retire the plants around 2030-2050 as we pass 228.9 and approach the full 277.9 GW.

see? climate change is totally easy

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:59 (one month ago) Permalink

how come you haven't told this to the president?????

gbx, Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:14 (one month ago) Permalink

i keep yelling at him on twitter and the asshole won't even reply, and i KNOW he's on twitter so he must be seeing them

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:30 (one month ago) Permalink

another disadvantage of nuclear iirc is that it uses a ton of water for cooling pumps which can cause various negative environmental effects

but i do see the appeal, it's a ton of energy!

:∵·∴·∵: (crüt), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:33 (one month ago) Permalink

I like some of the smaller, more failsafe nuclear reactor designs (ones that fail by shutting down, rather than blowing up) that have surfaced in recent years, and I'm still not sure why we haven't moved forward with Thorium-based reactors. The giant reactors we have now (which were designed to also generate fissionable material for weapons) seem ridiculous to keep pushing forward.

DJI, Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:45 (one month ago) Permalink

how come you haven't told this to the president?????

'solar power? crazy! what happens when it's cloudy?'

mookieproof, Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:58 (one month ago) Permalink

trump's irl dumb thoughts on wind and solar, from march 21:

“Let's put up some windmills. When the wind doesn't blow, just turn off the television darling, please. There's no wind, please turn off the television quickly."

and

"Wonderful to have windmills. And solar’s wonderful too, but it’s not strong enough, and it’s very very expensive.

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:23 (one month ago) Permalink

narrator voice everyone in the goddamn world voice: they're wind TURBINES, not windmills

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:26 (one month ago) Permalink

def knows his audience in that the #1 thing to fear from a power cut is having to turn off the tv

difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:30 (one month ago) Permalink

https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html

gbx, Tuesday, 30 April 2019 21:49 (one month ago) Permalink

Thanks! That was some solid info.

DJI, Tuesday, 30 April 2019 22:18 (one month ago) Permalink

the only assumption i have on conservo/gop climate future plans is that they’ll all be some kind of enormous grifter/graft schemes that re”focus” climate efforts into geoengineering/atmospheric dimming/crazy bullshit that steal public money and time to enrich plutocrats who are building space stations for their families and friends (who also can go live in space, upon signing the offered indenture “agreements”).

Hunt3r, Wednesday, 1 May 2019 02:27 (one month ago) Permalink

Speaking of which, I hope I live long enough to witness Elon Musk et al starving/suffocating/getting perchlorate poisoning or radiation sickness on the surface of Mars. It'll be livestreamed (with a delay).

Insert bad pun (Sanpaku), Wednesday, 1 May 2019 06:26 (one month ago) Permalink

there are some pretty wild videos out there about molten salt reactors. extremely in-depth and all with a whiff of "justice4maddie.com" about them. i once spent an entire weekend zoning out to them. i want to believe.

Lil' Brexit (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 1 May 2019 10:59 (one month ago) Permalink

It'll be livestreamed (with a delay).

i just answered an rfp to film and produce this as a show. i dont have a sense of dist or streaming rights yet.

also i had to give up my freedom and the rights to my transplantable organs and “bio-properties” (whatever the fuck those are)— but IM GONNA BE WORKING IN MARS BITCHES! with musk! YAY!

Hunt3r, Wednesday, 1 May 2019 15:43 (one month ago) Permalink

(CNN)Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday praised the Arctic region -- and its rapidly shrinking levels of sea ice -- for its economic opportunities, despite continued warnings about the catastrophic effects of climate change.

"The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance," Pompeo said in remarks in Rovaniemi, Finland. "It houses 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered gas, an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore."

"Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he continued. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days."

"Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals," Pompeo remarked.

...Pompeo's Arctic policy speech largely focused on the threats Russia and China posed to the region, comparing the area to other fraught waterways in the hemisphere.

"Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing territorial claims?" Pompeo said.

The speech came on the same day as a UN report warned that one million species were at risk of extinction due to human action, including climate change.
In his speech, Pompeo said that President Donald Trump was "committed to leveraging resources in environmentally responsible ways." He touted the US' reduced energy-related CO2 and black carbon emissions.

"The United States is achieving our reductions the American way: through scientific work, through technology, through building out safe and secure energy infrastructure, and through our economic growth, and doing it in a way that doesn't stifle development with burdensome regulations that only create more risk to the environment," Pompeo said.

"America is the world's leader in caring for the environment," he said.

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 May 2019 01:49 (one month ago) Permalink

April 2019 #Arctic sea ice volume was 27% below the 1979-2018 average in this data set. Currently, the thicker sea ice is mostly in the eastern Arctic basin.

Data from https://t.co/dz150Qt4Dy pic.twitter.com/PeAWmRPFt2

— Zack Labe (@ZLabe) May 7, 2019

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 May 2019 02:30 (one month ago) Permalink

fisheries galore

Not for long, bucko, if all your mineral extraction and climate catastrophe dreams come true.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 7 May 2019 03:38 (one month ago) Permalink

yeah but at least we finally got some wind yesterday

difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 7 May 2019 19:14 (one month ago) Permalink

ran across this earlier this morning, and it seems like a good example of the complications of nuclear energy:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/three-mile-island-to-close-after-bailout-bill-stalls-in-pennsylvania-legisl/554402

yep, THAT three mile island. Exelon purchased it back in the 90s, and over the last few years there's been a struggle over subsidies to keep it afloat. the last ditch effort to bring in money was for pennsylvania to designate nuclear energy "carbon-free" so that it could be added to the state's alternative energy portfolio standard and get a cool $500 million per year. but the bills to do that failed in committee, so now the plant is officially closing.

or rather, it's beginning the process of closing.

Exelon last month filed the federally required Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report in which it details its plans for TMI after its final shutdown. Dismantling the plant, including removing the spent fuel at Unit 1, could take six decades and cost more than $1 billion, media reported, citing Exelon estimates.

of course, those estimates, coming from Exelon, are to be taken with a grain of salt because they were trying to procure funding to stay open and it was in their interest to come up with high figures for shutdown costs.

there's also the PA Public Utility Commission's perspective on this:

Last month, Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commissioner (PUC) Andrew Place wrote a memo in which he voiced his opposition to SB 510.

"While human health and environmental quality; job creation and retention; and maintaining a robust tax base are all cornerstone public policy goals, this bill, in its current form, is far from the least cost mechanism to achieve these goals," Place wrote.

("this bill" was SB 510, which would have added nuclear to the alternative energy portfolio standard at the cost of $500M/year)

but still, all of this illustrates some stuff i mentioned upthread, both recently and i think a year or two ago - nuclear energy is just expensive compared to various wind/solar options (not to mention energy efficiency). three mile island was built in 1968 and it's STILL dependent on subsidies to get by. and the estimated costs of nuclear rarely account for the decommissioning phase - 60 years (!) and $1 billion in this case.

https://i.imgur.com/Zy3GeP0.png

these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Thursday, 9 May 2019 15:35 (one month ago) Permalink

this graph is fascinating and i think i'm about to learn a lot, thanks km!

Hunt3r, Thursday, 9 May 2019 16:43 (one month ago) Permalink

Bear in mind that at present, every MW of wind/solar also requires a MW of Gas combined cycle (or even peaking). Storage remains a problem.

nonsense upon stilts (Sanpaku), Thursday, 9 May 2019 17:06 (one month ago) Permalink

thx again, i already gis'd the graph, found couple of articles- then began sourcing/assessing the information. always a good start on these things. and your advice and sanpaku's are always incredibly helpful.

Hunt3r, Thursday, 9 May 2019 20:11 (one month ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

In a press release published on Tuesday, two Department of Energy officials used the terms "freedom gas" and "molecules of US freedom" to replace your average, everyday term "natural gas."

The press release was fairly standard, announcing the expansion of a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal at the Freeport facility on Quintana Island, Texas. It would have gone unnoticed had an E&E News reporter not noted the unique metonymy "molecules of US freedom."

DOE Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg is quoted as saying, "With the US in another year of record-setting natural gas production, I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of US freedom to be exported to the world.”

Also in the press release, US Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes refers to natural gas as "freedom gas" in his quote: “Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy."

Slate notes that the term "freedom gas" seems to have originated from an event with DOE Secretary Rick Perry. Earlier this year, the secretary signed an order to double the amount of LNG exports to Europe, saying, “The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent. And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.”

A reporter at the order signing jokingly asked whether the LNG shipments should be called "freedom gas," and Perry said, "I think you may be correct in your observation."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/us-department-of-energy-is-now-referring-to-fossil-fuels-as-freedom-gas/

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Friday, 31 May 2019 00:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink

"I think you may be correct in your observation”

classic

brimstead, Friday, 31 May 2019 15:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

“The United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent. And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.”


how about we meet in the middle and the us starts exporting liquified american soldiers

naked rollercoaster-riding world record holder (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 31 May 2019 19:36 (two weeks ago) Permalink

this is how skynet starts

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Friday, 31 May 2019 19:51 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i got freedom gas in the Capitol cafeteria

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 31 May 2019 20:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

gas wants to be free

Lil' Brexit (Tracer Hand), Friday, 31 May 2019 21:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink

https://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/michael-bloomberg-launches-beyond-carbon-the-largest-ever-coordinated-campaign-against-climate-change-in-united-states/

New York, NY – In a commencement address today at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michael R. Bloomberg will launch Beyond Carbon, the largest coordinated campaign to tackle climate change ever undertaken in the United States. With a $500 million investment — the largest ever philanthropic effort to fight the climate crisis — Beyond Carbon will work to ­put the U.S. on track towards a 100% clean energy economy by working with advocates around the country to build on the leadership and climate progress underway in our states, cities, and communities. Bloomberg and his foundation joined forces with the Sierra Club in 2011 to launch Beyond Coal with the goal of closing at least a third of the country’s coal plants. With 289 of 530 closed to date – more than half the country’s coal fleet – Beyond Carbon will aim to close the rest by 2030 and stop the rush to build new gas plants.

i love when our elite overlords do something good

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Friday, 7 June 2019 15:28 (one week ago) Permalink

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s got a solution to avoiding the harms of climate change: Just live somewhere else. Pompeo gave an interview to the Washington Times on Friday, during which he addressed the Trump administration’s approach to combating global warming.

The top diplomat claimed that the climate “always changes,” and so “societies reorganize, we move to different places, we develop technology and innovation.” In May, Pompeo praised rising sea levels caused by climate change as a boon for trade opportunities.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pompeo-climate-change-move-different-places

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 June 2019 18:51 (one week ago) Permalink

That terrifying 2019 study about breakup of marine subtropical clouds potentially resulting in a +8 °C positive feedback? Coauthor

despondently sipping tomato soup (Sanpaku), Monday, 10 June 2019 21:31 (one week ago) Permalink

Again,

That terrifying 2019 study about breakup of marine subtropical clouds potentially resulting in an additional +8 °C positive feedback? Coauthor Tapio Schneider presents this work at CalTech.

despondently sipping tomato soup (Sanpaku), Monday, 10 June 2019 21:33 (one week ago) Permalink

That guy is super smart, I took a class with him.

TS The Students vs. The Regents (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 10 June 2019 23:17 (one week ago) Permalink

That is frightening. I had no idea we could get to 1200 ppm within a hundred years, and potentially up to 5000 ppm? Sanpaku if you're familiar with the modeling would you agree with his assessment that the type of cloud cover is the main driver of uncertainty?

viborg, Tuesday, 11 June 2019 02:20 (six days ago) Permalink

humans are just kickstarting the Second Cretaceous. no big deal. unless we go full-on Venusian. that would be bad, even for bacteria, our last best hope.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 11 June 2019 03:54 (six days ago) Permalink

viborg: I'm fascinated with the projections, but its not my field. I'd love to recall enough math to follow what Arrhenius was doing in the field 123 years ago with pencil and paper.

As for 1200 ppm, we're at 415 and adding around 2.5 ppm/yr over the past decade. With no further growth in emissions or positive feedbacks (from permafrost, peat, soil, seabed hydrates), it would take 300 years to hit 1200 ppm. Or by 2100 with just a 2.6% annual growth rate..

despondently sipping tomato soup (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 11 June 2019 05:06 (six days ago) Permalink

the more i read about this the more likely it seems to me that humanity is just an extreme example of a self-limiting organism

Flood-Resistant Mirror-Drilling Machine (rushomancy), Tuesday, 11 June 2019 07:09 (six days ago) Permalink

as usual thanks for the link sanpaku-- i just "lost" 25 min reading about the carbonic aceeeeed and the temperature of the moon.

Hunt3r, Wednesday, 12 June 2019 15:24 (five days ago) Permalink

looks like rick perry is slowly learning what the Dept of Energy can and cannot do:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-has-no-regulatory-or-statutory-ability-to-create-coal-nuclear-bailou/556687/

The Department of Energy (DOE) does not have the "regulatory or statutory ability" to create economic incentives for coal and nuclear plants, DOE Secretary Rick Perry told reporters on Tuesday at the 2019 Edison Electric Institute conference in Philadelphia.

"FERC would be where I would direct your attention," he said, adding that he was also not aware of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the White House making any progress on plans to bail out the fuels. "We're pretty much at the same place we were 12 months ago," he said, though the administration "continue[s] to talk ... very openly" about "an all of the above strategy."

The secretary's comments come three months after the White House Council of Economic Advisors released a report to the president calling for a strategic electricity reserve to save uneconomic plants. And earlier in March, Perry had told reporters a coal and nuclear bailout was not entirely off the table.

after years of fighting against subsidies for clean energy, republicans have now shifted to fighting for subsidies and bailouts of coal and nuclear

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 12 June 2019 15:32 (five days ago) Permalink

after years of fighting against subsidies for clean energy, republicans have now shifted to fighting for subsidies and bailouts of coal and nuclear

Emphasis added -- they've been subsidizing coal/nuclear for YEARS (which I'm sure you already know).

In a station of the metro / My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard (Leee), Wednesday, 12 June 2019 17:05 (five days ago) Permalink

man, these republicans seem like dicks

boobie, Wednesday, 12 June 2019 18:04 (five days ago) Permalink

total dicks

xp Leee, yes, thanks! not sure why i phrased it like that

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 12 June 2019 18:10 (five days ago) Permalink

https://thinkprogress.org/11-million-renewable-jobs-global-solar-wind-employment-df60d66f4cfe

the tipping point for green jobs in the US is getting closer: 855K employed in renewable industry, vs 1.1M "employed in petroleum fuels, natural gas, coal, and biomass across the country."

i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Friday, 14 June 2019 15:39 (three days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.