AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

[Tinordi]

Is Calgaryborn on the need to reduce emissions train?

If so then I need a cigarette.

[kirant]

A major question I have is if this will be temporary. Natural gas is the key factor here (methane, if my high school memory on chemistry holds, was the best for energy produced/CO2 molecule of the easy to find fossil fuels)

The biggest question mark for me has always been the US electricity power generation. As of 6 years ago, it was overwhelmingly (~66%) coal, as according to the EPA. We've seen a slow shift since then, but this last winter was the first time that natural gas consumption has beaten coal in terms of electric production (I think. Someone handed me the graphs and they aren't on this machine right now).

This is primarily due to natural gas being dirt cheap and markets going for whatever is cheapest. It's an unnatural low for natural gas. When prices begin to swing back up and coal begins to become an economicly viable alternative, the question will be "will it still hold"?

I think long term (20-30 years), coal plants will shut down in the US due to new regulations around them, but I don't know about the short term response here. I'm not familiar enough with US policy and historical data pre-2006 (when I started tracking this)

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by kirant

This is primarily due to natural gas being dirt cheap and markets going for whatever is cheapest. It's an unnatural low for natural gas.

Gas bubbles last a long time, particularly since its one of the very few commodities that is regional in nature and not global.

North America is awash in natural gas and supplies are being exploited even more.

The only hope your argument has is that the selling price for the commodity might be exceeding the cost of production, which would ultimately correct itself.

Most likely the trend towards natural gas will endure, however.

Cowperson

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Predicting things is hard, especially the future.

If it's so hard why the global warming doom and gloom if we can't even predict a year or two ahead? I'm simply tired of politics and money driving this whole global warming crap.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If it's so hard why the global warming doom and gloom if we can't even predict a year or two ahead? I'm simply tired of politics and money driving this whole global warming crap.

What are you referring to when you say we can't predict things a year or two ahead?

Also politics and money are trying to ignore global warming as much as possible. Look no further than our own Prime Minister. You're disoriented.

[TurnedTheCorner]

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Gas bubbles last a long time, particularly since its one of the very few commodities that is regional in nature and not global.

North America is awash in natural gas and supplies are being exploited even more.

The only hope your argument has is that the selling price for the commodity might be exceeding the cost of production, which would ultimately correct itself.

Most likely the trend towards natural gas will endure, however.

Cowperson

I'm not sure what "my argument" was, but it's good to know that these trends are long term things.

Where I was coming from was the EIA and a more national based supply/demand. Their charts indicate that there was a huge glut introduced during the warmer winter, as it wasn't used for heating. Yet now, it's reaching more historic levels. I'm thinking that the unusually low price of natural gas could be due to the high storage (basically, the price became more of a firesale of excess supplies).


From what I remember (and this could be outdated), the underground storage value is actually a pretty good predictor of price. If this is right, the value of natural gas will continue to approach historical, as it has started to do since April to today.

At least, that was my rationale.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What are you referring to when you say we can't predict things a year or two ahead?

Also politics and money are trying to ignore global warming as much as possible. Look no further than our own Prime Minister. You're disoriented.

Politics and money are on both sides of the debate. Eg. Royal Dutch Shell donates $$ to the Sierra Club and WWF.

The bankers are wringing their hands with the possibility of the cap/trade scheme that will fill their pockets even more.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not saying they should have applied penalties. I'm saying considering the massive profits the oil industry makes, subsidizing them isn't necessary anymore.

Which subsidies are you talking about? Most of the ones quoted are directly related to the development and testing of new technologies.

Such as the horizontal drilling and fraccing that has led to the increased natural gas production and subsequent lowering of CO2 emissions.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't lower CO2 if it's oil companies doing it? Kind of short sighted, isn't it?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I think the point is that the government didn't impose laws or standards to make this happen and it wasn't because of public pressure. This happened because the "Green" option just happened to be the cheapest/most profitable one. Maybe the government should focus less on trying to legislate environmentally friendly choices and more on making them cheaper.

In theory, green options are supposed to be cheaper. Sustainable, closed loop systems (again, in theory) require less resources to produce products. If you google eco-efficiency you can read all about it.

I also saw mention of Carbon Taxes in this thread. The current incarnation of a carbon tax will never work (unless you're doing it for profit). It's an absolute joke.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-a...-of-cap-trade/

[Bunk]

Alberta should move it's electricity supply from primarily coal to primarily natural gas, supplemented by a greater share of wind. It's our product that needs a market, it's inexpensive, it's cleaner and would help offset inevitable growth in carbon emissions from Oil Sands. Aggresively phase out coal altogether.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Time to frack the crap out of everything!!! EVERYTHING!!!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Alberta should move it's electricity supply from primarily coal to primarily natural gas, supplemented by a greater share of wind. It's our product that needs a market, it's inexpensive, it's cleaner and would help offset inevitable growth in carbon emissions from Oil Sands. Aggresively phase out coal altogether.

Or just stick carbon scrubbers on the coal plants, and use the CO2 to get more oil!

[troutman]

Bill Maher had an interesting guest last week, Peter Byck, director of the documentary Carbon Nation. He had a lot of encouraging things to say; for example, a simple change in how farmers treat the soil, could allow us to capture a whole lot of CO2.

The other interesting point, is that it may not matter so much now whether people accept man-made global warming or not, because both sides share many common interests.

http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/home

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Alberta should move it's electricity supply from primarily coal to primarily natural gas, supplemented by a greater share of wind. It's our product that needs a market, it's inexpensive, it's cleaner and would help offset inevitable growth in carbon emissions from Oil Sands. Aggresively phase out coal altogether.

I agree about natural gas, but not wind power. We don't need the ugly bird killing wind turbines all over the province.

[Tinordi]

I'd rather hide away the impacts of my power consumption than to see it. If hiding it away means mercury, benzene, CAC, NO2, CO2 pollution then so be it, at least I wont have to see it and be reminded of the upstream impacts of our energy consumption. Oh yeah, cough, and... the birds. Lets not forget about the birds.

Where's your anti-skyscraper campaign if you can about birds so much?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

I think the idea of windmills being monstrous bird and bat killing machines is somewhat dated. I'm sure they still occasionally smoke some flying creature, but at least these days they know not to put the windmills right in the middle of migration paths and known nests.

[Azure]

Without a doubt they killed some birds. But is the bird population in danger because of it?

[Tron_fdc]

I think he was kidding with his bird killing comment. At least I hope so.

I went to a symposium down south back in 2000 when wind generation was first starting up, and some redneck stood up and asked if the turbines were bullet proof. He wasn't threatening anything, I just think he was bored shooting signs.

And no, they don't kill a significant amount of birds. About 1/100 of the amount of birds that get killed flying into windows IIRC.

[Thor]

Yeah there is a lot of money and industry to be built around green energy, and already Canada and the US are falling way behind.

Like the guy who made carbon nation says, he doesn't care what people believe in regards to global warming, just wants the focus to move from arguing about it to cashing in on the future gold mine of green energy and innovations/technology stemming from it.

Just look at Germany, like usual they are cashing in and leading the way. Damn Germans!