Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[beeeerock]

This is a great letter from Bill McKibben to Obama:

McKibben to Obama: You still have time to be a climate champion but not much | Grist

Love the last bit:

It is a good letter. It would be great if Obama read it. It would be even greater if he acted on *any* part of it...

The conclusion you quoted is 100% correct. Reality is reality and doesn't gave a rodents rectum about political reality.

I was given a tee-shirt that says, simply, "It is what it is"... because I'm known to live by those words!

 

[rays427]

I would like to understand how folks expect to economically replace fossil fuels. I have a solar system at my home near Sacramento and the payout is about 8 years. The main reason it pays out is that it reduces the higher price tiers of PG&E. I actually sell energy back to PG&E in the summer but would need a system almost 10 times larger to cover my current electric use during the winter. In addition I would need to install storage to be able to have power during the night and days the sun doesn't shine. By the way I have already replaced all the light bulbs to CFL or LED, updated the heating/air conditioning and most other appliances to energy efficient ones. I also have propane heat so to completely replace fossil fuels I would need an even larger system. Since I live in sunny California I assume my experience is actually better than in many locations.

 

[RichardC]

I would like to understand how folks expect to economically replace fossil fuels. I have a solar system at my home near Sacramento and the payout is about 8 years. The main reason it pays out is that it reduces the higher price tiers of PG&E. I actually sell energy back to PG&E in the summer but would need a system almost 10 times larger to cover my current electric use during the winter. In addition I would need to install storage to be able to have power during the night and days the sun doesn't shine. By the way I have already replaced all the light bulbs to CFL or LED, updated the heating/air conditioning and most other appliances to energy efficient ones. I also have propane heat so to completely replace fossil fuels I would need an even larger system. Since I live in sunny California I assume my experience is actually better than in many locations.

Put a substantial and increasing price on carbon. Return all the money to the people. Stand back and let the magic of economics do the job!

 

[beeeerock]

I would like to understand how folks expect to economically replace fossil fuels. I have a solar system at my home near Sacramento and the payout is about 8 years. The main reason it pays out is that it reduces the higher price tiers of PG&E. I actually sell energy back to PG&E in the summer but would need a system almost 10 times larger to cover my current electric use during the winter. In addition I would need to install storage to be able to have power during the night and days the sun doesn't shine. By the way I have already replaced all the light bulbs to CFL or LED, updated the heating/air conditioning and most other appliances to energy efficient ones. I also have propane heat so to completely replace fossil fuels I would need an even larger system. Since I live in sunny California I assume my experience is actually better than in many locations.

Yes, there is a time to a payout... If you think about the cost to install as a pre-payment for power, it's easier to swallow.

Given that solar panels are likely to last for many years - warranty seems to be 25 years commonly - the transition cost is the only obstacle. Once you've got that covered, the infrastructure is cheap to run. Consider the cost to dig up coal, transport it, load it into a generating station... every kWh has a real cost and the plant never runs for free. The solar panels might need a replacement once in a while after warranty expires, but it's essentially free power after the break-even date.

Have you looked at how SolarCity does this? My understanding is that they don't simply 'sell' you a system. It's a long term financial arrangement that would likely be more palatable for most people than a simple money-up-front purchase. That makes sense to me... not many people can cough up the price of their home in cash - financing is the way to go. When your house is paid for, you're living for the cost of taxes and maintenance. Solar is more or less the same thing, just without the taxes. Buying all your power from the utility company is like renting your house... the bill arrives each and every month, like clockwork.

 

[RichardC]

Some positive news (for a change):

Increasing calls in the oil industry for a price on carbon. See: http://calgaryherald.com/business/e...evel-albertas-oil-revenue-roller-coaster-ride

More than 100 prominent scientists and academics have called for a moratorium on further oil sands development. See: http://www.oilsandsmoratorium.org/#/ and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...urther-oil-sands-development/article24895667/ and http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/155...for-a-moratorium-on-new-oil-sands-development

Pope Francis’ much anticipated encyclical about climate change will make a major impact throughout the Roman Catholic Church and beyond. See: http://www.nhregister.com/general-n...nge-encyclical-expected-to-make-global-impact; http://www.catholicregister.org/hom...ted-to-send-strong-moral-message-to-the-world; and http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pop...-climate-change-with-stephen-harper-1.3108399

The agreement of the G7 to decarbonize by 2100, while having little immediate impact, has an important long term and symbolic value. See: https://www.g7germany.de/Content/DE...-abschluss-eng.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5; http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ds-challenge-german-ambassador-says-1.3094335; and http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pri...grees-to-g7-decarbonization-by-2100-1.3104459

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Pope Francis’ much anticipated encyclical about climate change will make a major impact throughout the Roman Catholic Church and beyond. See: http://www.nhregister.com/general-n...nge-encyclical-expected-to-make-global-impact; http://www.catholicregister.org/hom...ted-to-send-strong-moral-message-to-the-world; and http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pop...-climate-change-with-stephen-harper-1.3108399

Love Pope Francis. A contribution to the Climate Change issue from Rome.

 

[James Anders]

If the US government (or any government for that matter) truly believes in the dire state of the climate and believe that ICE vehicles are one major cause then they could easily mandate that all government vehicles (where possible) should be pure BEVs. All mail trucks should be converted too.

And the government could also implement a one time BEV credit that goes far beyond the current $7500.

How about a tax credit of 25% of one's total Federal Income tax paid that can only be applied to BEVs and solar panel installations? And if they want to make the tax regressive or declining for higher incomes, that's fine too. So maybe it's 33% for people learning less than $50K.

Instead of giving federal money to losers like Solyndra - give the money back to the people and let them purchase directly.

 

[rays427]

Beeeerock,

I have had my system for over one year and I'm happy with the installation. It's a prepaid lease from Solarcity. The cost is just under 10 cents per Kwh for the 20 year lease. Over the life of the lease I expect to save about 3 times the amount I paid for the lease. However if there was no PG&E to back up my system I would need more than 10 times the size of the system to provide my needs in the winter. This doesn't include converting my propane furnace, stove and dryer to electric. I also would not be able to sell my excess capacity during the summer. So my total cost would be over $1 per kwh. If PG&E used only solar power to provide electricity for everyone in the winter then they also would need to have a system about 10 times what is needed in the summer. This would especially be the case if everyone converted to electric heating so they wouldn't need fossil fuels. Wind has the same problem since you can't depend on it. If you have a cold rainy day in the middle of winter with little wind you still need to meet the needs of your customers. Hydro and nuclear would help but not much. If your goal is to reduce CO2 then biomass doesn't help much since it also produces CO2. So from what I can see the cost to completely replace fossil fuels with current technology is prohibitively expensive. So where am I wrong?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

If the US government (or any government for that matter) truly believes in the dire state of the climate and believe that ICE vehicles are one major cause then they could easily mandate that all government vehicles (where possible) should be pure BEVs. All mail trucks should be converted too.

And the government could also implement a one time BEV credit that goes far beyond the current $7500.

How about a tax credit of 25% of one's total Federal Income tax paid that can only be applied to BEVs and solar panel installations? And if they want to make the tax regressive or declining for higher incomes, that's fine too. So maybe it's 33% for people learning less than $50K.

Instead of giving federal money to losers like Solyndra - give the money back to the people and let them purchase directly.

Agree. Hope that next President of the USA will take these initiatives. Investments on renewables and electric cars please!

 

[JRP3]

If your goal is to reduce CO2 then biomass doesn't help much since it also produces CO2.

Actually it doesn't, it's CO2 neutral. CO2 is absorbed by plants, then released by burning, is then absorbed by the next crop of plants, etc.

 

[dhrivnak]

If the US government (or any government for that matter) truly believes in the dire state of the climate and believe that ICE vehicles are one major cause then they could easily mandate that all government vehicles (where possible) should be pure BEVs. All mail trucks should be converted to BEV.

James an excellent and simple solution. Such a move will spur significant demand and introduce millions to just how cool EV'S are.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Actually it doesn't, it's CO2 neutral. CO2 is absorbed by plants, then released by burning, is then absorbed by the next crop of plants, etc.

It's not quite so simple. On the scale of centuries, you're correct. But on the scale of years or even decades, it's not. A lot of biomass generation is from forest products, and forests take decades to regrow.

Here is a very balanced report from the Congressional Research Service that walks through the question. The NRDC has put out several pieces (here, and internal links) taking a strong stance against biomass. Some claim that biomass is worse than coal, in part because burning municipal waste can throw all sorts of stuff into the atmosphere, in part because of the low efficiency of most such plants.

 

[AudubonB]

....and there are a number of us, Robert, who assert with excellent authority that it is silly to the point of nonsense....of science fiction....of FUD....to discuss any global-sized phenomenon like the Carbon Cycle on anything like the augenblick that is "years" or "decades".

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Actually it doesn't, it's CO2 neutral. CO2 is absorbed by plants, then released by burning, is then absorbed by the next crop of plants, etc.

This process doesn't work well. In fact, being the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere too high, we have the Ocean Acidification issue. We need to lower the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in its true value, not in its slope.

We will not stop the Ocean Acidification issue with a value of 450 ppm in 2050. Some people think that a value of 450 ppm for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be a success. It's not like this!

 

[rays427]

I still want of know how we can afford to replace fossil fuels. As I indicated it appears to me it would cost more than $1 per Kwh to replace all fossil fuels with current technology. So it would cost about $7 to travel 20 miles in my Tesla. The average US annual electrical use was 10,908 Kwh in 2013. So the cost would be almost $11,000 per year. The actual cost would be much higher since you would need to convert all heating to electric. The problem is you need to supply enough power on the worst winter day to meet demand. This requires a huge surplus during the best summer days. So where am I wrong?

 

[ggies07]

I still want of know how we can afford to replace fossil fuels. As I indicated it appears to me it would cost more than $1 per Kwh to replace all fossil fuels with current technology. So it would cost about $7 to travel 20 miles in my Tesla. The average US annual electrical use was 10,908 Kwh in 2013. So the cost would be almost $11,000 per year. The actual cost would be much higher since you would need to convert all heating to electric. The problem is you need to supply enough power on the worst winter day to meet demand. This requires a huge surplus during the best summer days. So where am I wrong?

It's possible. I dont have the time to dig for the different reports, but check out rmi.org, i know there's one on there about this. Also, i posted a vid on how this is possible awhile ago in this thread, will find it later and post for you again.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I still want of know how we can afford to replace fossil fuels. As I indicated it appears to me it would cost more than $1 per Kwh to replace all fossil fuels with current technology. So it would cost about $7 to travel 20 miles in my Tesla. The average US annual electrical use was 10,908 Kwh in 2013. So the cost would be almost $11,000 per year. The actual cost would be much higher since you would need to convert all heating to electric. The problem is you need to supply enough power on the worst winter day to meet demand. This requires a huge surplus during the best summer days. So where am I wrong?

This is a technical problem which can solved IMO. Our TMC Member Leilani Munter is fighting for the USA to get rid of fossil fuels within 2050.

This is the way to go.

 

[ggies07]

I still want of know how we can afford to replace fossil fuels. As I indicated it appears to me it would cost more than $1 per Kwh to replace all fossil fuels with current technology. So it would cost about $7 to travel 20 miles in my Tesla. The average US annual electrical use was 10,908 Kwh in 2013. So the cost would be almost $11,000 per year. The actual cost would be much higher since you would need to convert all heating to electric. The problem is you need to supply enough power on the worst winter day to meet demand. This requires a huge surplus during the best summer days. So where am I wrong?

Found the video, I had originally posted it in the solar thread:

 

[rays427]

ggies07,

Thanks for the video and website. I had actually found the website some time ago. However, the video/website does not address the variation of winter to summer demand. I agree renewables can probably handle the summer demand but I can't see how they can economically handle the winter demand. As I stated my summer solar panel output is almost 10 times my summer output. To handle my current winter demand I would need 10 times the solar output. If I converted my home heating, dryer, stove and water heater to electric it would be worse. From my perspective we can replace summer demand but we would still need most of the fossil fuel systems to handle winter demand. The problem with that is that the cost to maintain the fossil fuel plants to run only during the winter would be very expensive. My own opinion is that it is very economic to replace the fossil fuels needed for peak demand in the summer and the amount that solar and wind can reliably generate in the winter but not very economic to replace the rest.

 

[beeeerock]

Beeeerock,

I have had my system for over one year and I'm happy with the installation. It's a prepaid lease from Solarcity. The cost is just under 10 cents per Kwh for the 20 year lease. Over the life of the lease I expect to save about 3 times the amount I paid for the lease. However if there was no PG&E to back up my system I would need more than 10 times the size of the system to provide my needs in the winter. This doesn't include converting my propane furnace, stove and dryer to electric. I also would not be able to sell my excess capacity during the summer. So my total cost would be over $1 per kwh. If PG&E used only solar power to provide electricity for everyone in the winter then they also would need to have a system about 10 times what is needed in the summer. This would especially be the case if everyone converted to electric heating so they wouldn't need fossil fuels. Wind has the same problem since you can't depend on it. If you have a cold rainy day in the middle of winter with little wind you still need to meet the needs of your customers. Hydro and nuclear would help but not much. If your goal is to reduce CO2 then biomass doesn't help much since it also produces CO2. So from what I can see the cost to completely replace fossil fuels with current technology is prohibitively expensive. So where am I wrong?

Well, first of all I believe you have to think about the entire grid being heavily solar-supplemented, with (at first anyway) nuclear and hydro continuing to provide as much or more power as they do today. And the utility would have to go into the Tesla PowerPack battery systems in a big way. The 10X comment for your home is interesting to me... if you're in sunny California, would you see a significant decrease in solar generation through the winter?

I'm looking at installing 5.2 kW on my roof. On an annual basis, that is supposed to equate to about 15 kWh per day on average. Clearly, the long nights and dim days through winter up here are going to grossly skew my numbers on a seasonal basis. But if I had space to triple my installation size, I'd generate enough *annually* to look after my power consumption in a home where people are power hogs... I heat and cool with geo-exchange, so aside from the gas stove, the house is entirely electric. My issue would be seasonal variability and that's where the grid comes in.

If the grid is truly an interconnected grid, there is no reason why north and south America couldn't be connected. When it's winter in one hemisphere, it's summer in the other. With batteries for the nights, along with wind, hydro and nuclear, I don't think this is quite as tough a nut to crack as you might think. If you've watched Elon's powerwall presentation with his depiction of pixels for panels and batteries, you'll get where I'm coming from.

In reality, it's not a matter of doubting it can work, but simply rolling up all of our sleeves to MAKE it work! It's not like we have an abundance of options...

- - - Updated - - -

I still want of know how we can afford to replace fossil fuels. As I indicated it appears to me it would cost more than $1 per Kwh to replace all fossil fuels with current technology. So it would cost about $7 to travel 20 miles in my Tesla. The average US annual electrical use was 10,908 Kwh in 2013. So the cost would be almost $11,000 per year. The actual cost would be much higher since you would need to convert all heating to electric. The problem is you need to supply enough power on the worst winter day to meet demand. This requires a huge surplus during the best summer days. So where am I wrong?

I'm not sure where you're getting the $1/kWh figure... do you mean $1/W of generating capacity (solar - panels only - at scale for example)? That would be a one-time expenditure, compared to $5-10/watt for a nuclear plant, with a very significant cost to generate every watt after that. The solar watts are close to free in comparison after installation.