Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[DanKegel]

I just don't believe a reduction of "man made" CO2 will make any difference with climate change.

A lot of right wing folks agree with you, but I suspect it's motivated reasoning, not an accurate reading of the science.
(Maybe the very thought of having to change (e.g. to pay more for energy) is
so offensive to them that they can't help but infer that anyone who
suggests such a thing is needed must be off their rocker,
and therefore doing bad science. Or maybe it's
"only God can do something so big as change the climate". Whatever.)

Happily, increasing efficiency and switching to renewables is desirable
from a national defense standpoint, too, so even people who
disagree that climate change can be caused by humans
can work together with the rest of us on fixing the problem.

[SunEagle]

Nobody ever said shutting down any one source would be enough. We have to shut down lots of them.

It's like voting. If a lot of other people are voting, how much can really be accomplished by your own vote? May as well not vote, right?

No. Voting is something more people should be doing. I will continue even if my vote may be insignificant to get my candidate in.

If we could get 80% of the people in this country to vote I would say we have a small chance to get more countries to get their air pollution in check.

I just don't know a good motivation for either of those two plans.

I am not against reducing air pollution or stopping energy waste. I just don't believe a reduction of "man made" CO2 will make any difference with climate change.

[DanKegel]

So if a lot of co2 is getting into the atmosphere from "non coal" burning industries how much can really be reduced shutting down the US coal fired plants?

Nobody ever said shutting down any one source would be enough. We have to shut down lots of them.

It's like voting. If a lot of other people are voting, how much can really be accomplished by your own vote? May as well not vote, right?

[SunEagle]

Coal-fired power plants put out so much CO2 that satellites can monitor them.

OCO-2 launched last year; here's a map of global CO2 it made as of November 2014:

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934/#.VJMsVYAoLs

It has 2km resolution, and can see the output from coal-fired power plants.
Europe and Japan are also working on improved greenhouse gas monitoring satellites; see e.g.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Campaigns/Pinpointing_sources_of_greenhouse_gases

So it won't be all that easy to say one thing and do another when it comes to CO2 emissions from coal-fired powerplants, I think.

Interesting picture of the global atmospheric co2 concentration. It shows very little over India (which does burn a lot of coal) and very high concentrations over South Africa and the Brazilian rain forest where they are burning trees not coal.

It also shows a very high concentration of co2 over what looks like Iceland. That can only come from the volcanoes which there are quite a few around the world putting out co2 and other greenhouse gases which can't be regulated as far as I know.

So if a lot of co2 is getting into the atmosphere from "non coal" burning industries how much can really be reduced shutting down the US coal fired plants?

Now that second website is pretty interesting so thank you for providing me that. Another great way to "see" gas fumes is using the very high resolution FLIR IR camera. It can "see" what is escaping from the filling pipe at a gas station when the tankers refill the underground tanks. So thermal energy can be used to identify fossil fuel fumes in the air.

[DanKegel]

China is a major player and must show in public that they are doing everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions. Since there isn't an accurate way to track those emissions they can easily say one thing and do another.

Coal-fired power plants put out so much CO2 that satellites can monitor them.

OCO-2 launched last year; here's a map of global CO2 it made as of November 2014:

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934/#.VJMsVYAoLs

It has 2km resolution, and can see the output from coal-fired power plants.
Europe and Japan are also working on improved greenhouse gas monitoring satellites; see e.g.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Campaigns/Pinpointing_sources_of_greenhouse_gases

So it won't be all that easy to say one thing and do another when it comes to CO2 emissions from coal-fired powerplants, I think.

[Sunking]

It doesn't really matter because we both agree that storage is the limiting factor and while there may be enough land to build the pv required it still wouldn't be available when it is needed.

Or where it is needed.

[SunEagle]

Please let me know if you find a mistake; there's no fancy math, just multiplying a few numbers together. You can find the statistics on electricity usage and generation capacity at eia.gov.

What you calculated is the energy used by the entire US over a period of time. Based on that math, I agree that it less of an area for pv array coverage so I concede to your calculations.

What I was asking for was; what is the total amount of generating power that the US has now? and how much of that was used during the "highest daily peak" last year. Ypu would need to have a minimum of 110% generation of that peak demand to make sure everyone had the power they needed.

I am not sure if that data is available but I know that you can't use averages to determine how much generating capacity you need. That is why some POCO' charge higher during certain "peak times" because they have to run more generators to meet demand. Other POCO's actually ask you to shed load to lower the peak demand.

It doesn't really matter because we both agree that storage is the limiting factor and while there may be enough land to build the pv required it still wouldn't be available when it is needed.

[pleppik]

While I still don't necessarily agree with your math the discussion is mute.

Please let me know if you find a mistake; there's no fancy math, just multiplying a few numbers together. You can find the statistics on electricity usage and generation capacity at eia.gov.

[Sunking]

Indeed. But they're also putting huge resources behind solar power, have pledged to start reducing CO2 emissions by 2030, and now it looks like they're actually reducing their use of coal:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/chinas-coal-imports-fall-nearly-half-in-12-months-as-anti-pollution-drive-bites

And if they can do it, surely we can do it.

You will believe anything won't you? Trust me there will be war with China over energy usage, and we will lose that war on our home lands right here in the USA. Just a matter of time. China is playing the USA for fools that we are and using Proxy's right now as we speak.

You got half of it right. China is building cheap clean energy. They are building out massive numbers of nuclear plants to generate electricity and make weapons grade material. All supplied by Australia, Germany, Soviet, and USA technology and fuel. Nuclear power plants in China is very cheap to construct. If anyone complains, they vanish to be never seen or heard from again.

[SunEagle]

Indeed. But they're also putting huge resources behind solar power, have pledged to start reducing CO2 emissions by 2030, and now it looks like they're actually reducing their use of coal:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/chinas-coal-imports-fall-nearly-half-in-12-months-as-anti-pollution-drive-bites

And if they can do it, surely we can do it.

China is a major player and must show in public that they are doing everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions. Since there isn't an accurate way to track those emissions they can easily say one thing and do another.

If Germany was so much in line with reducing CO2 then why are they increasing their burning of coal to generate electricity. It is because it is too expensive to purchase from outside the country when the RE is not there so they are generating power using the only available and low cost fuel they have since they have shut down a number of their nuclear generating plants. How can you claim to be going green if you are putting more CO2 up in the air? Or maybe they are finally getting the idea that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change.

The bottom line is not how good you look but how much it costs to do something. No country in their right mind would spend billions more to generate electricity if they don't have to.

[DanKegel]

China GHG emissions has risen 400% since 1990

Indeed. But they're also putting huge resources behind solar power, have pledged to start reducing CO2 emissions by 2030, and now it looks like they're actually reducing their use of coal:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/chinas-coal-imports-fall-nearly-half-in-12-months-as-anti-pollution-drive-bites

And if they can do it, surely we can do it.

[Sunking]

A 50% reduction would go a long way, and would still allow e.g. natural gas plants to fill in on still or cloudy days.

The fact that these countries are undeveloped is an opportunity, not a problem. They
can greatly reduce their energy needs by setting the proper incentives and by
setting efficiency and pollution standards. And to some extent they're starting to do that;
the Chinese are getting really nervous about pollution.

Each country can help. Saying "But the other countries have to move first" is a good way to discourage the other countries from moving.

Dan you are just wasting your time and can talk until you are Blue in the Face. Once the electric Genie is let out of the bottle there is no putting it back.

Canada is well known to be Eco-Friendly Country, one of the first to sign the UNFCC (You know the UN group who cooked up the Global Warming scam) Kyoto Protocol Treaty. Canada was the first to withdraw in 2012. The goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 6% from 2002 when they entered the treaty to 2012 10 years later. After spending billions to reduce CO2, emissions rose some 50%. Once they realized it is impossible to control and facing a $14 Billion dollar fine payed to the UN they withdrew.

China GHG emissions has risen 400% since 1990 and only getting started. India is only just now beginning to develop. There is nothing you or anyone can do to stop them short of War which we would loose. Are you willing to die for your cause? Have at it.

The Genie is out of the bottle and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

[DanKegel]

That is the point, no one is going to stop using fossil fuels. China and India are only 10% developed, and their CO2 emissions will make our emissions look like a popcorn fart. There is no amount of money that is going to change that.

A 50% reduction would go a long way, and would still allow e.g. natural gas plants to fill in on still or cloudy days.

The fact that these countries are undeveloped is an opportunity, not a problem. They
can greatly reduce their energy needs by setting the proper incentives and by
setting efficiency and pollution standards. And to some extent they're starting to do that;
the Chinese are getting really nervous about pollution.

Each country can help. Saying "But the other countries have to move first" is a good way to discourage the other countries from moving.

[northerner]

I fully support renewable energy generation. I also know we need more than RE to provide the electricity we use.

What I do not support is the actions taken by the controlling party to raise the cost of fossil fuel generation (which we still need) though fear tactics just to satisfy their foolish beliefs.

Canada and the US have the highest average electricity use, and by quite a wide margin, even over other developed countries. We certainly aren't setting a good example for developing countries, that are adopting our lifestyles.

You can see how we stack up here: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/avera...ty-consumption

I think it would be a great idea to to have a variable rate for electricity consumption, where the cost progressively rises higher, dependent on usage. This in turn could fund clean sources of power. Therefore, those that are wasteful, don't care, or are just plain rich, would be contributing to a cleaner power supply.

We can't get other countries to stop killing each other, how can we get them to stop using the cheapest fuel available to them.

As for getting others to follow the reduction of fossil fuel burning, I think there is a better chance of me winning the mega-million lottery.

I think we are just delaying the inevitable. Eventually supplies will become more costly to extract, and fossil fuels will become more and more expensive. The real cost of fossil fuel burning is the damage we are doing to the planet, but that is a whole other topic. And not just limited to that action.

[Sunking]

We can't get other countries to stop killing each other, how can we get them to stop using the cheapest fuel available to them.

As for getting others to follow the reduction of fossil fuel burning, I think there is a better chance of me winning the mega-million lottery.

That is the point, no one is going to stop using fossil fuels. China and India are only 10% developed, and their CO2 emissions will make our emissions look like a popcorn fart. There is no amount of money that is going to change that.