Climate change and human responsibility

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You continue to argue that fossil fuels can't be phased out in 30 years, and that the only option for reducing CO2 emmissions is to try and have NG replace coal worldwide as quickly as possible. However, you haven't proven this to be the case. The billions that are being poured into coal is because those countries anticipate a massive return on their investment in the next 10-15 years. It is not an indictment on how much progress renewables will make over the next 30 years, nor does it mean the world can't be net-zero by 2050.

If we achieve it, nuclear will play an important role. No denying that.

I appreciate your effort in this thread to talk about these issues, but posts like this are why its quite obvious that your perspective on this issue is simply not based in reality.

Countries are pouring billions into coal simply because they have NO otheralternative. Natural gas is not readily available, especially in China, whereas coal is abundant and cheap. China is building out renewables faster than any country on earth, and it is LITERALLY not capable of replacing coal. How that is not clear to the anti-fossil fuel crowd is beyond me.

The emission reduction process was simply.
Short term, replace coal with natural gas. The US did this and cut their overall emissions 20% since 2005.

Medium term build out proven renewable sources. Solar, wind, etc. Obviously this technology is getting better, but it is STILL not capable of providing even close to our baseload power needs.

Long-term focus on nuclear, including SMR and other technologies that are clean and long-lasting, and are capable of providing base load capacity regardless of weather. Something renewables cannot do.

Longer-longer term, focus on high capacity energy storage & grid improvements.

I'm not sure what part of the process you think we're at, but it is quite clear we cannot move past the first stage.

Next year we will be in a worse position in terms of worldwide emissions rates from coal burning than at any point in the last 15 years. 1 step forward, 10 steps back. 100% due to the anti-fossil fuel morons who spent the last 10-15 years making bloody sure natural gas gets as LITTLE support as possible.

Pretty sure you are part of that crowd. Congrats. Nothing like allowing delusional fantasies turn into actual policy decisions which end up coming back to screw us over.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Maybe this has been talked about in this thread, but aside from climate impacts, there is a supply issue as well. Based on proven reserves and current consumption we have about 50 years of both natural gas (52 years) and crude (47 years) left. I know, I know that's proven reserves and maybe there's another 150 years of unproven kicking around. However, whatever is unproven at this point will likely be expensive as #### to get out.

So, if you're not on the "climate change" wagon championing for transition to renewables, you might as well get on the "we're running out" wagon. Both wagon's end up at the same spot.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Maybe this has been talked about in this thread, but aside from climate impacts, there is a supply issue as well. Based on proven reserves and current consumption we have about 50 years of both natural gas (52 years) and crude (47 years) left. I know, I know that's proven reserves and maybe there's another 150 years of unproven kicking around. However, whatever is unproven at this point will likely be expensive as #### to get out.

So, if you're not on the "climate change" wagon championing for transition to renewables, you might as well get on the "we're running out" wagon. Both wagon's end up at the same spot.

There is a LOT of enhanced oil recovery in both secondary and tertiary that is fairly economic. That doesn't even factor in even more economical discoveries which are still happening frequently. I think we have plenty reserves and I hope we will be at a point where we are leaving reserves in the ground due to technology advancements in renewables or nuclear.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

But the NIMBY crowd is not going to move past the supposed fear of what nuclear is, which has driven up the cost by itself.

Lanny is correct. The military has the mandate and political power to run nuclear, and they run it super well & without issue. The fact that we can't do that in the civilian world is not about the 'actual' cost, but because of political stupidity.

I don't really think the NIMBY is a big issue when it comes to nuclear cost. 2 of the 3 nuclear power plants in Ontario are right near Toronto. Sure people would care if you were trying to build a new one - but in terms of the cost - its next to nothing compared to the overall costs of building one.

They are wildly expensive and have giant risks if something goes wrong with them. That's why they aren't built very often.

[troutman]

Permafrost thawing keeps me up at night.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...ctic-landscape
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1110722

Talk me off the ledge.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

I appreciate your effort in this thread to talk about these issues, but posts like this are why its quite obvious that your perspective on this issue is simply not based in reality.

Countries are pouring billions into coal simply because they have NO otheralternative. Natural gas is not readily available, especially in China, whereas coal is abundant and cheap. China is building out renewables faster than any country on earth, and it is LITERALLY not capable of replacing coal. How that is not clear to the anti-fossil fuel crowd is beyond me.

The emission reduction process was simply.
Short term, replace coal with natural gas. The US did this and cut their overall emissions 20% since 2005.

Medium term build out proven renewable sources. Solar, wind, etc. Obviously this technology is getting better, but it is STILL not capable of providing even close to our baseload power needs.

Long-term focus on nuclear, including SMR and other technologies that are clean and long-lasting, and are capable of providing base load capacity regardless of weather. Something renewables cannot do.

Longer-longer term, focus on high capacity energy storage & grid improvements.

I'm not sure what part of the process you think we're at, but it is quite clear we cannot move past the first stage.

Next year we will be in a worse position in terms of worldwide emissions rates from coal burning than at any point in the last 15 years. 1 step forward, 10 steps back. 100% due to the anti-fossil fuel morons who spent the last 10-15 years making bloody sure natural gas gets as LITTLE support as possible.

Pretty sure you are part of that crowd. Congrats. Nothing like allowing delusional fantasies turn into actual policy decisions which end up coming back to screw us over.

China energy that is renewable is growing at a wildly higher rate than coal.
But yes - coal is growing there as well.

Alberta - which is loaded with natural gas - still uses coal for power until next year. China will get there.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

China energy that is renewable is growing at a wildly higher rate than coal.
But yes - coal is growing there as well.

Not in absolute terms.

Alberta - which is loaded with natural gas - still uses coal for power until next year. China will get there.

At over 4 billion tonnes of consumption per year and growing and producing more electricity than the US and Canada combined, it's very unlikely.

[Azure]

And 2022 / 2023 are lining up to be massive years for coal as well, with strong demand beyond that.

Honestly not that hard to figure out what is going on.

6 of the 10 biggest coal consumers are in Asia.
Asia has no reliable & cheap source of natural gas.
Canada as one of the countries who has massive natural gas resources didn't develop the ability to export LNG to Asia despite the market being financially stable.
Asia is now increasing the amount of coal they use because they have no other choice.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Azure

I appreciate your effort in this thread to talk about these issues, but posts like this are why its quite obvious that your perspective on this issue is simply not based in reality.

No offense but your perspective on this matter comes across as someone who has a vested financial interest in seeing natural gas production and exports increase. And while there's a good case to be made that they should, you're going overboard with your denigrative comments against the environmental movement.

Countries are pouring billions into coal simply because they have NO otheralternative. Natural gas is not readily available, especially in China, whereas coal is abundant and cheap. China is building out renewables faster than any country on earth, and it is LITERALLY not capable of replacing coal. How that is not clear to the anti-fossil fuel crowd is beyond me.

China and other countries are making massive investments in coal because they see the immediate & growing market for it. So yes profitability is a big part of the picture. But my question for you is how did we get to this point in the first place? Why did we as a species not make it a much larger priority decades ago to invest heavily in renewables/clean energy? Again, largely because of fossil fuel company funded climate denial efforts. Quite honestly, you're completely misplacing the blame when it comes to the situation humanity is currently in.

The emission reduction process was simply.
Short term, replace coal with natural gas. The US did this and cut their overall emissions 20% since 2005.

Medium term build out proven renewable sources. Solar, wind, etc. Obviously this technology is getting better, but it is STILL not capable of providing even close to our baseload power needs.

Long-term focus on nuclear, including SMR and other technologies that are clean and long-lasting, and are capable of providing base load capacity regardless of weather. Something renewables cannot do.

Longer-longer term, focus on high capacity energy storage & grid improvements.

No, that's how YOU see the process going in the coming decades. In reality, the timelines on these things have to be moved up substantially from your idea of what they should be. It will be difficult, expensive, and painful, but ultimately less painful than the alternative.

I'm not sure what part of the process you think we're at, but it is quite clear we cannot move past the first stage.
Next year we will be in a worse position in terms of worldwide emissions rates from coal burning than at any point in the last 15 years. 1 step forward, 10 steps back. 100% due to the anti-fossil fuel morons who spent the last 10-15 years making bloody sure natural gas gets as LITTLE support as possible. Pretty sure you are part of that crowd. Congrats. Nothing like allowing delusional fantasies turn into actual policy decisions which end up coming back to screw us over.

Your deification of natural gas is quite cringe. Even if the entire world switched to natural gas overnight, we'd still be in a dangerous, urgent situation regarding the climate crisis. NG isn't the savior you make it out to be.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by troutman

Permafrost thawing keeps me up at night.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...ctic-landscape
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1110722

Talk me off the ledge.

There is no talking you off the ledge counselor. If you have a chance you can look at the work of Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of natural resources, ecology, and evolutionary biology from University of Arizona, he has suggested we are in the midst of an extinction level event where humans could be wiped out quickly, within the decade. I personally think he has a very extreme and jaded view, but when you read or listen to any of his takes, he approaches the issue very pragmatically and understands how things are linked together as an ecosystem and how the failure of one part of the chain causes the whole system to fail.

We are in the midst of a very dangerous time and every day we fail to react is just another that causes our entire ecosystem to fail. We lose micro-organisms and the food chain fails. Increases in temperatures and environments more greatly impact small organisms than they do large complex organisms, but the larger organisms are equally impacted by the failure of those small organisms as every member of the ecosystem. We fail to understand the butterfly effect of the impact we have on our ecosystem, which makes it that much worse. McPherson suggests we are already done and there is nothing we can do about it. We've already done so much damage to the ecosystem that the simple organisms are already on their way to extinction, which means we are already on our way to extinction.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There is no talking you off the ledge counselor. If you have a chance you can look at the work of Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of natural resources, ecology, and evolutionary biology from University of Arizona, he has suggested we are in the midst of an extinction level event where humans could be wiped out quickly, within the decade. I personally think he has a very extreme and jaded view, but when you read or listen to any of his takes, he approaches the issue very pragmatically and understands how things are linked together as an ecosystem and how the failure of one part of the chain causes the whole system to fail.

We are in the midst of a very dangerous time and every day we fail to react is just another that causes our entire ecosystem to fail. We lose micro-organisms and the food chain fails. Increases in temperatures and environments more greatly impact small organisms than they do large complex organisms, but the larger organisms are equally impacted by the failure of those small organisms as every member of the ecosystem. We fail to understand the butterfly effect of the impact we have on our ecosystem, which makes it that much worse. McPherson suggests we are already done and there is nothing we can do about it. We've already done so much damage to the ecosystem that the simple organisms are already on their way to extinction, which means we are already on our way to extinction.

Even in the worst case scenario humanity won't go extinct. It's likely that a few thousand of the world's most powerful and well-connected people have special arrangements planned for them in a worst case scenario to ensure their long term survival.

As for the rest of us... (barring the unlikely event that we act boldly enough to wean off fossil fuels as quickly as we need to)... yeah, we're probably hooped.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Even in the worst case scenario humanity won't go extinct.

Someone who has studied this stuff a lot more than you are I disagrees and has the publications to back him up. It doesn't matter where some ####### has money, the reality is that we have done such catastrophic damage to our ecosystem that it will no longer be able to sustain us as a species. It is really disturbing when someone who clearly understands the building blocks of life says we have done enough damage that the lesser building blocks, the foundation from which all larger life forms rely upon, are reaching an extinction level event. It is basically a doctor telling someone that they have leukemia and the person saying they feel fine and that they're healthy. The reality is that the small structures of our internal ecosystem are failing, and we will soon crash. It is only a matter of time, and when we hit that point of failure, the result is quick and devastating.

[Mathgod]

There's always the possibility that he's overestimating the damage that we've already caused.

I'm a believer in the notion that we should try to save ourselves as a species, just in case we aren't already doomed.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

I appreciate your effort in this thread to talk about these issues, but posts like this are why its quite obvious that your perspective on this issue is simply not based in reality.



Countries are pouring billions into coal simply because they have NO otheralternative. Natural gas is not readily available, especially in China, whereas coal is abundant and cheap. China is building out renewables faster than any country on earth, and it is LITERALLY not capable of replacing coal. How that is not clear to the anti-fossil fuel crowd is beyond me.

You keep posting nonsense in a very patronizing way like everyone just isn't as up to speed as you. It's pretty irritating. Nobody appreciates posts that patronizingly say "I appreciate your efforts" and "congrats" like you're the authority here. Give me a break.


Many countries pivoted to coal recently because they married themselves to natural gas to decrease emissions, then Russia invaded Ukraine and Europe bought all the LNG. What choice do they have? Wind and solar are being built at max speed because they're a new market that hasn't scaled enough. It's super quick and easy to build a new coal or gas power plant because we've built them for decades. Read almost every country's roadmap to carbon neutrality. It's right there.

The emission reduction process was simply.

Short term, replace coal with natural gas. The US did this and cut their overall emissions 20% since 2005.

This is literally what everyone did! That's why we're in this mess now. Everyone needs more natural gas because they shuttered coal. The plan all along was to switch coal for gas while building out renewables to the max capacity. Then Europe had 40% of their gas supply suddenly withdrawn and.... here we are with gas prices that have been 10x their usual and even less affordable for India and China

Medium term build out proven renewable sources. Solar, wind, etc. Obviously this technology is getting better, but it is STILL not capable of providing even close to our baseload power needs.

This is the plan. Yes, wind and solar cannot do it alone as they are intermittent. I've never met anyone who thought the sun always shines and the wind always blows. There isn't a person involved in the energy transition anywhere that thinks it can. Why do people keep trotting this out as if they think they've outsmarted the experts and now it changes a single long term strategy anyone is looking at? Also, "baseload" power is going to be changing a lot over the coming decades due to batteries, smart meters/virtual power plants, rooftop solar, time of use electricity rates, etc. That's not to say intermittent renewables will do all the heavy lifting, but they can supply a few orders of magnitude more than they do currently without "omg! What about the baseload"

Long-term focus on nuclear, including SMR and other technologies that are clean and long-lasting, and are capable of providing base load capacity regardless of weather. Something renewables cannot do.

Yes. We'll need more than intermittent renewables unless storage has been figured out. I'm agnostic on nuclear as I see it's value for baseload, but it's incredibly capital intensive and investments are rare due to all the cost overruns and delays. I think there's maybe 30 projects in the pipeline by 2030. That'll need to increase a lot. I'm hoping for more exciting breakthroughs in geothermal (some coming from Alberta!), but it's too early to tell yet. Inter-ties will go a long way too

Longer-longer term, focus on high capacity energy storage & grid improvements.

There's tons of work being done on this.

Worth noting there are 4 main classes of grid energy storage (lots of ambiguity and disagreement on classifications)

1) frequency modulation - keeps the power steady from second to second, minute to minute - these are largely now solved

2) short term - 4 hours or less. The lithium ion technology for this is already established and maturing, though there's still lots of innovation and cost decreases coming with scalability, newer chemistries, flow batteries, etc.

3) long term - a few days worth for when the wind isn't blowing out the sun isn't shining. Lithium ion will probably never be cheap enough, but there's a ton of interesting innovation here including hydrogen, pumped CO2 storage, sand heat batteries, and tons more

4) seasonal storage is difficult. Where hydro exists, that'll help. It's more of an issue the further you get from the equator, but then there's also more hydro possibilities. This is a problem that is very unique in every place you look. In some places we may always rely on burning something, but hopefully something renewable

I'm not sure what part of the process you think we're at, but it is quite clear we cannot move past the first stage.



Next year we will be in a worse position in terms of worldwide emissions rates from coal burning than at any point in the last 15 years. 1 step forward, 10 steps back. 100% due to the anti-fossil fuel morons who spent the last 10-15 years making bloody sure natural gas gets as LITTLE support as possible.



Pretty sure you are part of that crowd. Congrats. Nothing like allowing delusional fantasies turn into actual policy decisions which end up coming back to screw us over.

This kind of crap is unnecessary

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I'm a believer in the notion that we should try to save ourselves as a species, just in case we aren't already doomed.

I agree, on of the biggest current threats to humanity is throwing our collective arms in the air and saying "oh well, we're screwed anyway".

Looking at what happened to timelines to get a vaccine to market when people could see a real and imminent threat was interesting. When does this get bad enough people pull together? Will there still be enough time at that point?

[dammage79]

The 1st step to saving ourselves is removing political ideology from the conversation.

The 2nd step is removing the greed so deeply entrenched in all systems of governance and business.

The 3rd step, we'll I don't want to talk about the 3rd step. A species so hungry for everything is growing out of control and consuming everything in sight..... some giant purple comic book character was pointing the right way.

[blender]

As usual, enough thanks can't be given to StreetPharm for keeping this thread grounded in reality and doing yeoman work in fending off the ill-informed and shortsighted rabble with facts and tact.
Carry on, and thanks.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Maybe this has been talked about in this thread, but aside from climate impacts, there is a supply issue as well. Based on proven reserves and current consumption we have about 50 years of both natural gas (52 years) and crude (47 years) left. I know, I know that's proven reserves and maybe there's another 150 years of unproven kicking around. However, whatever is unproven at this point will likely be expensive as #### to get out.

So, if you're not on the "climate change" wagon championing for transition to renewables, you might as well get on the "we're running out" wagon. Both wagon's end up at the same spot.

This is one of the worst arguments there is on this topic. Any argument that assumes what's considered resources in the current timeframe and extrapolates current consumption of said resources forward by multiple decades and concludes 'Hey in 50-100 years we're going to deplete this resource! Something must be done . . . ' is just flat out wrong think. The argument assumes nothing changes over time in response to supply and demand signals which is categorically false.

What the world values or considers 'resources', changes dramatically over the long term (My favorite quote on this is 'the Stone age didn't end because of a lack of stones') and also pricing based on supply and demand solves this problem over the long term on it's own. When supplies decline, prices go up, consumption is made more efficient, investment is made in more or alternative supply and then supply increases, prices normalize and another cycle begins. We've seen this countless times in commodity cycles, most recently in oil in the the peak-oil hysteria of the mid-2000s. The emergence of China pushed demand for oil through the roof and increased prices dramatically because current supply had not seen much investment since oil crashed in the late 90s. Oil prices spiked, many dollars were invested, oil extraction technology evolved and unlocked previously uneconomic reservoirs (Shale oil, oil sands, etc.), and extended the life of existing fields. On the consumption side, ICE engines in cars were made more efficient so that less was needed to power more. Oil prices then collapsed in 2014 because supply was again plentiful, in response companies went bankrupt, less was invested in supply which led to a stagnation in supply . . . so in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted supply again in a commodity that has seen a lack of investment spanning years, the prices unsurprisingly spiked again. Sunrise, sunset, this is a story as old as time itself.

Solve climate change because that's a problem worth solving on it's own, not because we're scared that according to current calculations we have only 50-100 years left of resources because those calculations are locked in today's timeframe of what we understand as resources and consumption thereof. We flat out are not running out of energy, we weren't in the 70s, we weren't in the mid 2000s and we're not now. The problem is the energy we primarily consume has negative externalities that we need to address in a multitude of ways.

[Street Pharmacist]

As the saying goes, the best remedy for soaring commodity price is a soaring commodity price.


I do think the conflict in Ukraine has hardened the resolve for the EU nations on energy security and getting off of regionally constrained commodities. They've gone all in on eliminating fossil fuels as quickly as possible. High prices necessitate demand destruction, lots of it will become permanent

[White Out 403]

Everyone who rallied hard against nuclear should be ashamed of their shortsightedness