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

[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]

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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[DanKegel]

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

[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?

[Yaryman]

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.

Sorry you got the impression I felt you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, I don't.

That reference was meant completely and emphatically for Mr. more co2 is good for everybody.

On a side note, the search function is not quite what one would hope.

[cebury]

+1 SunEagle's posts are always interesting and respectful. .

+1
From me as well

[DanKegel]

On a side note, the search function is not quite what one would hope.

Alas, forum search does indeed blow chunks, but it does that on every forum I've ever used. It's pretty easy to use google, e.g. 'site:www.solarpaneltalk.com foo', for when you really need good search.

[diogenes]

An excellent point, and I'd also mention that cement manufacture is a big CO2 generator. It is the third largest emitter of CO2 in the US and accounts for about 5% of the manmade CO2 produced worldwide.

each person also produces CO2 each time he exhales. is that a good argument to stop breathing?

Not to mention the amount of co2 produced by catalytic converters, should we remove them? I know use an electric car, but they only go 100 miles on a charge in the wilds of tennessee, that makes them almost unusable.

[DanKegel]

each person also produces CO2 each time he exhales. is that a good argument to stop breathing?

Not to mention the amount of co2 produced by catalytic converters, should we remove them? I know use an electric car, but they only go 100 miles on a charge in the wilds of tennessee, that makes them almost unusable.

I don't know if you're serious, but here's a serious answer.

The key question is always "where does the co2 cone from". If the answer is "from recent photosynthesis" then it's not directly a problem.

So exhaling is OK because the co2 came from corn that was grown in the last century.

Catalytic converters do produce nitrous oxide, which is a potent greenhouse gas. A catalyst to deal with that could be developed, but as you point out, electric cars are a better choice when their range suffices.
FWIW the Bolt and Tesla can go 200 miles, which would let me visit my sister in San Diego.
And plug-in hybrids burn gas on long trips, so they emit no co2 on short trips.

So, no, reducing co2 emissions is not absurd, if that's what you were asking.

[jflorey2]

each person also produces CO2 each time he exhales. is that a good argument to stop breathing?

No.

Not to mention the amount of co2 produced by catalytic converters, should we remove them?

No.

I know use an electric car, but they only go 100 miles on a charge in the wilds of tennessee, that makes them almost unusable.

If you really want an electric car in Tennessee, get a Volt and use electric for short trips, and use gas for longer trips. Or get a Model S with a 250 mile range. Or if CO2 reduction is your goal, get a car fueled with natural gas. Or get a Prius. Or get a diesel truck and use biodiesel, which produced a lot less net CO2 than petroleum fuels.

The goal isn't to produce zero CO2. That's impossible. The goal is to produce an amount of CO2 that the biosphere can handle.