Is solar green?

[SunEagle]

We emit about 30 GT a year of carbon dioxide. Natural sources account for about 400 GT.

I don't recall mentioning volcanoes.

That 30GT per year is pretty close and has actually been flat the last few years according to this article.

[jflorey2]

Only if you don't look at *net* contributions.

We emit about 30 GT a year of carbon dioxide. Natural sources account for about 400 GT.

Volcanoes contribute much less than humans; see e.g. climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

I don't recall mentioning volcanoes.

[SunEagle]

True, but it's an important piece of the puzzle.
The complementary piece is reducing the CO2 output from power generation. Happily, wind and natural gas are driving dirtier, higher cost sources of energy out of the market, so it's already underway.

(FWIW, I'm working on reducing my household carbon footprint; it's a long process. First was increasing efficiency by installing LEDs, replacing an old fridge, and actually programming the damn programmable thermostats; then I siged up for my utility's 100% clean energy option (they use biogas at night); installed enough solar to cover 100% of my energy use, and retired my gasoline car and replaced it with a nice used EV. As my furnaces and water heater fail, I'll replace them with very efficient electric ones. Tip: get the wiring in place to the water heater ahead of time so you only have to line up a plumber when the old one fails, and make sure your panel has a spot for the other high-draw things you plan to install. Installing that much solar was expensive, and it's more efficient to build it into new buildings from the start, or better, have a power company with lots of cheap utility-scale solar and wind. But I digress...)

Some people are doing whatever they can to reduce their electrical footprint because that is what they believe is important.

But like so many other "fly by night" actions that people have gotten stuck on for whatever reason, most follow the action just to say they did and will eventually lose interest or "fly" onto the next big "bright light". They never had any real reason to support their actions because they did not really believe in it. I feel that the CO2 fear is just that. People have been swayed by something they don't understand and are just scared by the change in the weather patterns so it is easy to scare them to come to the dark side and get in line to rally for something that won't really help them fix anything and also won't get them to totally commit to making big changes in their lifestyle.

I still support eliminating pollution like I did 45 years ago. I want to see more RE and in-particular solar. I just will not be scared into making decisions that will put money into the pockets of others that know how to sway people by pulling the strings that plays on their fears.

IMO that is the basis of the CO2 climate change push. Unfortunately it helps the push for RE which I support but the end does not justify the means.

[DanKegel]

... Switching over to an EV is not enough because most of the US gets their electricity from fossil fuel power generation and installing PV only helps for less then 1/3 of a 24 hour period.....

True, but it's an important piece of the puzzle.
The complementary piece is reducing the CO2 output from power generation. Happily, wind and natural gas are driving dirtier, higher cost sources of energy out of the market, so it's already underway.

(FWIW, I'm working on reducing my household carbon footprint; it's a long process. First was increasing efficiency by installing LEDs, replacing an old fridge, and actually programming the damn programmable thermostats; then I siged up for my utility's 100% clean energy option (they use biogas at night); installed enough solar to cover 100% of my energy use, and retired my gasoline car and replaced it with a nice used EV. As my furnaces and water heater fail, I'll replace them with very efficient electric ones. Tip: get the wiring in place to the water heater ahead of time so you only have to line up a plumber when the old one fails, and make sure your panel has a spot for the other high-draw things you plan to install. Installing that much solar was expensive, and it's more efficient to build it into new buildings from the start, or better, have a power company with lots of cheap utility-scale solar and wind. But I digress...)

[SunEagle]

True. Another piece of the puzzle is improving responsiveness of our energy use to time-varying price signals.

Thermostats that respond to power shortages by reducing energy use are a good example; Nest and similar smart thermostats that do that have been on the market for a while.
Likewise for EV chargers.

Another example (which was laughed at here) is tweaking aluminum smelters to
vary their energy usage based on power cost; that's not easy, but it's
being done at Trimet Aluminum at a smelter in Germany; they've been focused
on improving the flexibility of their operations and power consumption for the
last eight or so years, testing multiple approaches (e.g.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48156-2_122 )
As renewable energy increasingly contributes to our energy supply, that kind
of innovation will become increasingly profitable for smelters to adopt.

Still a bigger piece of the puzzle (at least in my opinion) would be that if people TRULY believed that CO2 is an issue then they would be parking their ICE vehicles and turning off their lights and appliances when RE is not generating electricity.

Instead they choose to point their fingers at someone else and say YOU NEED TO STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING that leads to green house gasses and I will continue to do what I want to do.

That is Pure BS. What I feel is that they really don't believe there is an issue or they are not willing to contribute to helping out. Switching over to an EV is not enough because most of the US gets their electricity from fossil fuel power generation and installing PV only helps for less then 1/3 of a 24 hour period.

To those that want CO2 to get lower. I say stop using electricity when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, park your fossil fuel vehicle, stop being wasteful and creating garbage. Or in other words PUT UP or SHUT UP.

[DanKegel]

A great idea! And if you use less energy AND you generate much of that energy via solar, even better. And if you install more nuclear for baseline load, then you've solved yet another problem. No one solution is going to solve all our problems.

True. Another piece of the puzzle is improving responsiveness of our energy use to time-varying price signals.

Thermostats that respond to power shortages by reducing energy use are a good example; Nest and similar smart thermostats that do that have been on the market for a while.
Likewise for EV chargers.

Another example (which was laughed at here) is tweaking aluminum smelters to
vary their energy usage based on power cost; that's not easy, but it's
being done at Trimet Aluminum at a smelter in Germany; they've been focused
on improving the flexibility of their operations and power consumption for the
last eight or so years, testing multiple approaches (e.g.
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48156-2_122 )
As renewable energy increasingly contributes to our energy supply, that kind
of innovation will become increasingly profitable for smelters to adopt.

[DanKegel]

Yep; CO2 as well. Nature contributes a lot more of both gases than we do.

Only if you don't look at *net* contributions.
(Nature absorbs a lot more CO2 than we do... oddly enough, about as much as it contributes, which is why CO2 was roughly stable in the atmosphere over the last tens of thousands of years, until recently, when it shot way up past anything seen in last 800,000 years. See cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html)

Volcanoes contribute much less than humans; see e.g. climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

[jflorey2]

While I am still on the fence concerning CO2 being an issue mostly caused by "humans" I have always though methane (which is a gas released into the atmosphere naturally from the earth) is a bigger issue and needs to be looked at before CO2. Since methane is also a by product of cows, I would think trapping those emissions would be a priority. Now that it seems our natural gas piping is not as "tight" as once thought it does seem that "humans" might be a major contributor to methane getting into our air and I now have some concern on that avenue.

Agreed that it's a issue. Bad news is that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2; good news is that the system clears methane a lot faster than it clears CO2, so fixes are faster in coming.

For about ten years (2000-2009) methane levels in the atmosphere were pretty flat, so I think a lot of people thought "well, we don't have to worry about that." Now they're climbing again, and faster than before.

So while I am still not on the bus of CO2 and climate change I am in the school of thought concerning methane as a problem. But remember Planet Earth does naturally contribute a major portion (along with them pesky cows) of that nasty gas to the over all ppm that gets into the air.

Yep; CO2 as well. Nature contributes a lot more of both gases than we do. (Which is a good thing; that way we see temperature increases of a few degrees, not tens of degrees.)

[J.P.M.]

It is kind of strange JPM because every Moderator wants to ban Dan since the day he showed up Even one of the site owners wants him gone. Dan even knows he is not welcome here and no one like him. Passive Trolls are just sick minded. Dan likes having the crap kicked out of him. He was that kid in school no one liked and beat up all the time. Heck when he showed up the Admin asked me to go after him. I just do not understand why they just do not ban his butt and call it done. Well I gotta give the Mods a break, they are powerless. Russ was the only one who had balls.

All that, or at least a lot of it, may be true, or be some interpretation of reality I may well have some mental truck with, but this ain't my forum, table, game or rules.

As I seem to remember you once suggesting in a post, trading Russ for Dan might have been a poor deal.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure most of the powers that be around here may well have wished the same for you, me and a few others on occasion when we are PITA's, and wanted us gone. I recall solar pete telling both you and I to not let the door hit us in the butt on the way out if we don't like something. I'm under no illusions on that one. The way I see my continued tenure here, we all, in effect, signed an undated letter of resignation when we agreed to the rules on signup.

This place was around and functioning before I got here. I'm sure the same will apply after I'm gone. Same for Dan.

But all that does little to change my opinion that Dan's actions here do more damage than good, and do little to next to nothing to improve knowledge about the sign that's over the door.

[Sunking]

IMO only, this forum would be a better place if you simply crawled back in your hole. It seems, to me only maybe, that more gets accomplished in the away of information exchange with better quality content when you're not around.

It is kind of strange JPM because every Moderator wants to ban Dan since the day he showed up Even one of the site owners wants him gone. Dan even knows he is not welcome here and no one like him. Passive Trolls are just sick minded. Dan likes having the crap kicked out of him. He was that kid in school no one liked and beat up all the time. Heck when he showed up the Admin asked me to go after him. I just do not understand why they just do not ban his butt and call it done. Well I gotta give the Mods a break, they are powerless. Russ was the only one who had balls.

[J.P.M.]

A great idea! And if you use less energy AND you generate much of that energy via solar, even better. And if you install more nuclear for baseline load, then you've solved yet another problem. No one solution is going to solve all our problems.

Working to alleviate the ignorance will help get a more informed consensus, but I believe, before that, the process starts (or continues in the present) with an emphasis on lowering demand in ways that increase entropy by the least amount in the most cost effective ways for the long term. After that, it continues by learning and understanding how to meet that lower demand and societal choices as to the best methods or probably mix of methods.

I do believe it starts with education and understanding of the situation beyond a bumper sticker attitude toward the situation and possible ways to improve things. with use reduction the first step.

[J.P.M.]

J.P.M. doesn't agree with the scientific community's consensus about humans causing climate change, and cons down like a ton of bricks on anyone who does. Don't mind him, he can't help it.

Dan:

As usual you miss the point and then also reinterpret what I've written. Furthermore, but not that you may care or that it's any of your business, you are absolutely clueless as to what my opinions might be about climate change. So, you also and again attempt to do my thinking for me. That's rude and ignorant.

You have again shown yourself to be a fool. This time by assuming you know what I'm referring to, and then getting way off the topic I was writing about. In so doing, you continue to exhibit your ignorance and arrogant hubris.

Reread my response to Liaswurtzbach, The statements I made in it apply to you, your ignorance and your antics as much or more than anyone else. By your attitudes and ignorance, you're one of the anchors that serious R.E. backers drag around while trying to make the planet a better, cleaner and safer place.

Your behavior is the type that can do more damage to R.E.'s possible contributions to a better world than the R.E. naysayers. You ignorant and arrogant behavior is a rallying point for those naysayers' criticism that's hard to defend.

You peddle ill informed opinions and simplistic solutions to complex problems you neither understand nor make any effort at true understanding of. In so doing you also lead a lot of people astray when they ignorantly think you know something and wind up chasing unrealistic expectations you plant. You do so, not because you are guided or motivated by any notion of improving the human condition, but rather driven by some lemming like behavior that also helps you draw attention to yourself, which, to me, looks closer to your prime motivation.

That's pretty rude behavior in my book.

IMO only, this forum would be a better place if you simply crawled back in your hole. It seems, to me only maybe, that more gets accomplished in the away of information exchange with better quality content when you're not around.

[SunEagle]

A great idea! And if you use less energy AND you generate much of that energy via solar, even better. And if you install more nuclear for baseline load, then you've solved yet another problem. No one solution is going to solve all our problems.

I just read an article about Google using vehicles and IR cameras to track methane gas being released from underground piping in cities. It seems to be much bigger issue then what was first thought.

While I am still on the fence concerning CO2 being an issue mostly caused by "humans" I have always though methane (which is a gas released into the atmosphere naturally from the earth) is a bigger issue and needs to be looked at before CO2. Since methane is also a by product of cows, I would think trapping those emissions would be a priority. Now that it seems our natural gas piping is not as "tight" as once thought it does seem that "humans" might be a major contributor to methane getting into our air and I now have some concern on that avenue.

So while I am still not on the bus of CO2 and climate change I am in the school of thought concerning methane as a problem. But remember Planet Earth does naturally contribute a major portion (along with them pesky cows) of that nasty gas to the over all ppm that gets into the air.

[jflorey2]

What if you first simply used less energy?

A great idea! And if you use less energy AND you generate much of that energy via solar, even better. And if you install more nuclear for baseline load, then you've solved yet another problem. No one solution is going to solve all our problems.

[DanKegel]

J.P.M. doesn't agree with the scientific community's consensus about humans causing climate change, and cons down like a ton of bricks on anyone who does. Don't mind him, he can't help it.