Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[russ]

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.

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

The causes and effects of the change in the climate regardless of whatever the reason may be are far from known - many have taken a halfassed and wild assed guess but nothing more.

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.

[DanKegel]

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

Sorry I had to use two paragraphs to do it. I usually try to be more concise.

Why people disagree with scientists about climate change without actually understanding the science is a complex subject.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/ may be relevant here.
If all your friends (and favorite news sources) are saying it's a bunch of hooey,
it's hard not to go along, especially when it might get you ridiculed and shunned.

It's gotten to the point where climate change denialists want to shut
down NASA's earth observation systems.
(See e.g. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cru...ission-budget/ )
Happily, even if they manage to do that, Europe and Japan will continue to fly earth science missions,
not only to measure CO2 sources, but also to improve our understanding
of the climate and how it depends on the makeup of the atmosphere.

[pleppik]

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

The causes and effects of the change in the climate regardless of whatever the reason may be are far from known - many have taken a halfassed and wild assed guess but nothing more.

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.

Clearly you don't find the current scientific arguments about human-caused climate change persuasive. And that's OK, everyone should examine the evidence as best they can and make up their own minds. Though I would argue there's a lot of really solid chemistry and physics behind what you call "halfassed and wild assed guesses."

But I'm curious as to what sort of evidence might change your mind?

[SunEagle]

Sorry I had to use two paragraphs to do it. I usually try to be more concise.

Why people disagree with scientists about climate change without actually understanding the science is a complex subject.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/ may be relevant here.
If all your friends (and favorite news sources) are saying it's a bunch of hooey,
it's hard not to go along, especially when it might get you ridiculed and shunned.

It's gotten to the point where climate change denialists want to shut
down NASA's earth observation systems.
(See e.g. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cru...ission-budget/ )
Happily, even if they manage to do that, Europe and Japan will continue to fly earth science missions,
not only to measure CO2 sources, but also to improve our understanding
of the climate and how it depends on the makeup of the atmosphere.

I am not following along with my friends in my belief of climate change. I have read a number of articles written by a Patrick Moore PhD who is a well known scientist that use to belong to Green Peace for 15 years but left after he determined that a lot of their "data" was false or manipulated.

Go read his statement presented to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb 25th 2014. Read it with an open mind and hopefully you will start to question that the data gathered "by scientists" to prove CO2 is the cause of climate change is like using an hours time of a 70 year old's life to represent who that person is.

[Ian S]

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.

Senator James Inhofe, Republican Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in 2012:

“My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous”