"Revamping the electric grid could yield huge cost savings, SolarCity report says"

[Yaryman]

So let's hear it from those people that want to see co2 being reduced.

What have they done to reduce it?

I voted for a President that is working to reduce co2 emissions.

Does that count?

I vote for local politicians that work to clean the air.

Does that count.

When I pass those large windmills on the Altamont Pass I stick my head out the window and blow trying to make them spin faster.

Does that count?

[DanKegel]

+1 SunEagle's posts are always interesting and respectful. I really enjoy coming up with principled answers to the issues he raises.

[8.4]

So I will get off my high horse and sit back and while on the forum just help others concerning solar technology and just keep quite when it comes to co2.

No point in doing that as people should speak for what they believe in. It's all for fun unless you take it personally where it affects your health. I enjoy reading your posts.

[SunEagle]

I've put solar on two houses, replaced all my light bulbs with LEDs, and am shopping for an electric car.

Speaking on a larger scale, California and 17 other states are reducing our co2 emissions.

All of these are likely to reduce coal consumption. You seem quite upset about coal consumption going down, and I can't quite figure out why. Coal's time has come and gone.

Then I would say you have skin in the game and I applaud your decision toward your goal of reducing co2. Thank you.

Maybe you are correct that coal is old news and has been replaced with the horseless carriage.

Maybe I get upset when I believe that fear is being used to drive people in a direction that will not result in the way they think but those actions will hurt people that I personally know.

Besides I have been accused on this forum of being part of the "flat earth society". Regardless of what I am called I will admit I am not convinced as you and others and think that people have a major role in climate change.

So I will get off my high horse and sit back and while on the forum just help others concerning solar technology and just keep quite when it comes to co2.

[DanKegel]

I've put solar on two houses, replaced all my light bulbs with LEDs, and am shopping for an electric car.

Speaking on a larger scale, California and 17 other states are reducing our co2 emissions.

All of these are likely to reduce coal consumption. You seem quite upset about coal consumption going down, and I can't quite figure out why. Coal's time has come and gone.

(I mean, of course I can understand it, you deny that burning coal causes climate change and/or that climate change is harmful. But I don't understand why. Well, actually, I do understand why; it's called motivated reasoning. People don't like to believe things that mean they'll have to change. But I digress.)

[SunEagle]

That's not really fair; that's like saying that people who want to help the poor should sell everything they own and give all the money to the poor, otherwise they are not helping. There are a lot of people out there working to help poor people (and reduce CO2 emissions, and reduce pollution, and reduce the threat to some species, and help find people jobs, and help kids without parents etc etc) who do a lot of good even if they don't completely give up meat, or quit their own jobs, or don't adopt a dozen kids.

OK. What I said was an extreme. I am not expecting anyone to go cold turkey concerning fossil fuel. But I would still like to hear what people are personally doing to reducing green house gases.

And while I support the use of solar pv I would say that for most people the motivation was to save money and not reducing co2.

So let's hear it from those people that want to see co2 being reduced.

What have they done to reduce it?

[jflorey2]

If the goal is to reduce green house gases then those that are pushing for that action need to do more themselves by not using any fossil fuel products.

That's not really fair; that's like saying that people who want to help the poor should sell everything they own and give all the money to the poor, otherwise they are not helping. There are a lot of people out there working to help poor people (and reduce CO2 emissions, and reduce pollution, and reduce the threat to some species, and help find people jobs, and help kids without parents etc etc) who do a lot of good even if they don't completely give up meat, or quit their own jobs, or don't adopt a dozen kids.

[DanKegel]

At the moment, it looks like 18 states are voluntarily moving ahead with reducing co2 emissions; presumably this means switching to lower-carbon fuels, reducing the amount of coal they use.

Do you see anything wrong with that?

[SunEagle]

If the goal is lowering co2 emissions without hurting the economy, it makes sense to start with the most economical actions, right?
And if running existing natural gas power plants is cheaper than running existing coal power plants -- and reduces co2 emissions to boot -- what's wrong with that?

I guess I could use the same logic by saying another way to reduce co2 would be to remove all fossil fuel autos from California. That would reduce air pollution, create a lot of new jobs building electrified mass transit and get rid of the head aches of commuting into the major cities. What's wrong with that?

I will tell you what is wrong. While that action won't affect me, I should still care because it will hurt many others that live in CA. Just like the desire to eliminate coal fired generating plants. It won't affect people in CA but will be devastating for people in other states.

If the goal is to reduce green house gases then those that are pushing for that action need to do more themselves by not using any fossil fuel products. Take on the lions share of the job then at least you can claim credit for the final result.

If you want something done then start at home before telling your neighbor to suffer for your cause.

[DanKegel]

Why pick on coal

If the goal is lowering co2 emissions without hurting the economy, it makes sense to start with the most economical actions, right?
And if running existing natural gas power plants is cheaper than running existing coal power plants -- and reduces co2 emissions to boot -- what's wrong with that?

[solar pete]

I think the long term result of alternative electrical generation will be a change in the monopoly structure of the utilities. As long as the central generation of electricity is the only option then it has made sense to grant a monopoly to utilities to produce power for everyone in the cheapest way. Never mind the potential health and environmental indirect costs. But now that there are clean, renewable alternatives - it now makes sense to turn electrical generation back to the market. Let the utilities keep a monopoly on power distribution, but separate the generation and level the playing field. No subsidies for nuclear R&D, coal safety, nat gas depreciation allowance, etc etc. Let both sides pay their fair share and I'll be glad to pay for access to the distribution grid. Yes, electric rates will go up but we've been subsidizing the dirty fuel industries for a long time in the name of cheap energy for ratepayers.

+1 well said sir, bravo

[Sunking]

But we'll still have cattle farts right ??

Well we need more CO2 to make our earth wetter and greener to support all the idiots and cows to feed them. Worked for the dinosaurs until a meteorite hit earth and froze everything out

[inetdog]

I watch The Daily Show for news and Fox for comedy...

Although I also get a lot of news from John Oliver.

[J.P.M.]

If you are worried about CO2 emissions. Do us a favor and quit breathing you nasty person. Once all of you that worry about CO2 emissions quit breathing, problem solved.

But we'll still have cattle farts right ??

[SunEagle]

Just some interesting info on the war on coal.
I'm busy friggen around reading instruction books, so I will have no pithy comments to make on the article at this time.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/w...140238921.html

Interesting article if you believe 100% of what NBC broadcasts.

To be honest, I also don't agree with a lot of stuff that comes from the FOX broadcast group. Both of them seem to be a "little" slanted in their feelings around the present US government.