Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[Buckeyes_Suck]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

I'm not being aggressive. I'm asking you to support your unsubstantiated claims with sources, since your claims are widely contracted by various research organizations such as the EIA and IPCC. 

You responded to mainstream well sourced cost studies on nuclear vs wind solar and gas with a snarky "sorry this is anti-nuclear bs" and no sources to back up your radical claims. 

Wind and solar are not stop gaps. More unsourced nonsense. Maybe you should take some of your unsourced hunches to the execs at power companies who are building solar and wind hand over fist based on the industry cost studies I cited.

Yes, they’re stop gaps. Do I need to cite every ongoing fusion project or is that also nonsense?

If your stance on the future was so cut and dry the correct solution we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I have solar, a Tesla, and geothermal hvac. It has its place. But going 70% solar and wind isn’t the solution to climate change IMO.  

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Yes, they’re stop gaps. Do I need to cite every ongoing fusion project or is that also nonsense?

If your stance on the future was so cut and dry the correct solution we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I have solar, a Tesla, and geothermal hvac. It has its place. But going 70% solar and wind isn’t the solution to climate change IMO.  

OK fine. All energy sources since the woodburning stove are stop gaps until fusion. 

Regardless, your claims about the cost of solar and wind vs nuclear are false and unsupported. As well as your claims regarding ohc.

[Vice-Regent]

Fusion will never be scaled up enough. There is a reason why they went for red button "solutions" to scale down demand so growth can fulfill demand. We need everything in our arsenal to overcome and survive a future that doesn't want us.

This is the bed that we have made for ourselves. Inertia is difficult if not impossible to erase.

[LibertyBell]

On 4/4/2022 at 9:58 AM, skierinvermont said:

Sorry the article is based on research by Stanford and is a respected German research group. The idea that wind or solar take more than trivial amounts of gas or oil to produce is simply oil industry propaganda. Nuclear plants take far more oil and gas to build and operate, which is still low compared to the amount of energy produced. The IPCC also states that nuclear is too expensive and has too many other problems to be a serious part of the climate solution. You've provided no evidence and are contradicted by highly reputable sources. It doesn't really matter what you think because the free market is building solar and wind hand over fist with minimal government support. We should be accelerating the process.

From the EIA, nuclear costs nearly 3x as much as solar wind or gas. This is total levelized cost of energy over the life of the equipment. Please stop spreading misinformation.

 

 

You don't think nuclear fusion is the solution either? Based on what I've been reading, controllable nuclear fusion should be ready within the next few decades.  Methane isn't part of the solution dude, the fossil fuel cartels need to be removed from the equation.

[LibertyBell]

16 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Fusion will never be scaled up enough. There is a reason why they went for red button "solutions" to scale down demand so growth can fulfill demand. We need everything in our arsenal to overcome and survive a future that doesn't want us.

This is the bed that we have made for ourselves. Inertia is difficult if not impossible to erase.

Fusion will be ready within our lifetimes, it's like creating our own suns, why get power from 93 million miles away when you can make a small star right on our own planet!

 

[LibertyBell]

20 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

I have.

I really don't get why you're being so aggressive.

Are you really that anti nuclear and pro renewable?

You realize both are a stop gap solution anyway, right?

he doesn't seem to be pro renewable all the way, he seems to like methane as a bridge fuel.

 

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, bluewave said:

Public opposition to renewable energy is one of the biggest hurdles that needs to be overcome for wider acceptance. Projects are being blocked all over the country. Land use conflicts are a growing concern since solar and wind use so much land. Several environmental groups are actually fighting against the power transmission lines needed here in the Northeast.

They just closed the Indian Point nuclear plant that supplied about 25% of the energy for NYC. Now emissions have gone up and NYC has to rely more on natural gas. The electric bills surged for NYC this January which had to use  very expensive natural gas this winter. 
 

So this energy transition is going to be quite a challenge. 
 

https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/opposition-renewable-energy-facilities-united-states

More than 100 ordinances have been adopted in 31 states blocking or restricting new wind, solar, and other renewable energy facilities, and more than 160 of these projects have been contested in 48 states.  Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law issued a report documenting these instances of local opposition to renewables.

 

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-lawmakers-con-edison-utility-bills-price-hike-20220209-uv7d734ag5frnlpkpwrqjhbkgu-story.html

City and state lawmakers are amped up over a sudden rate spike that many New Yorkers are now seeing on their Con Ed energy bills — charges that could make it impossible for some to afford rent and their utilities.

Brandy Bora, a corporate executive who rents a loft in Greenpoint, said her family’s Con Ed bill shot up from $300 in December to $850 last month — an increase, which, if sustained, will mean they’ll eventually be forced to move.

These communities need to be prevented from being able to oppose this....and why are they opposed to solar and hydroelectric?  I don't get that at all.

 

[Vice-Regent]

15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Fusion will be ready within our lifetimes, it's like creating our own suns, why get power from 93 million miles away when you can make a small star right on our own planet!

 

Hopium if it exists at all it will be relegated to a small privileged elite but by that time you won't need it because our population will be reduced by 80%. Most of us will have returned to using biofuels such as wood stoves etc.

[LibertyBell]

29 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Hopium if it exists at all it will be relegated to a small privileged elite but by that time you won't need it because our population will be reduced by 80%. Most of us will have returned to using biofuels such as wood stoves etc.

Population reduction would be better for the planet

[Vice-Regent]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Population reduction would be better for the planet

Even if it is a disagreeable facet of civilization it is a part of life we must come to terms with our own mortality but particularly the mortality of civilization(s).

[rclab]

4 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Hopium if it exists at all it will be relegated to a small privileged elite but by that time you won't need it because our population will be reduced by 80%. Most of us will have returned to using biofuels such as wood stoves etc.

 

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Population reduction would be better for the planet

 

3 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Even if it is a disagreeable facet of civilization it is a part of life we must come to terms with our own mortality but particularly the mortality of civilization(s).

Good evening Liberty, Vice-Regent. If I’m reading correctly, what your saying turns ‘Logan’s Run’ into prophecy. As always …

[bluewave]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

These communities need to be prevented from being able to oppose this....and why are they opposed to solar and hydroelectric?  I don't get that at all.

 

Renewables like solar and wind require far more space per watt than fossil fuels do. 

https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/the-u-s-will-need-a-lot-of-land-for-a-zero-carbon-economy/

Wind farms, solar installations and other forms of clean power take up far more space on a per-watt basis than their fossil-fuel-burning brethren. A 200-megawatt wind farm, for instance, might require spreading turbines over 19 square miles (49 square kilometres). A natural-gas power plant with that same generating capacity could fit onto a single city block.

 

[Vice-Regent]

2 hours ago, rclab said:

 

 

Good evening Liberty, Vice-Regent. If I’m reading correctly, what your saying turns ‘Logan’s Run’ into prophecy. As always …

Not necessarily. Logan's Run is more of a dystopian narrative of what happens when civilizations become technological to the point where they infringe upon our individual sanctity/autonomy and our ability to lead meaningful lives. Luckily they usually do not persist long enough to cause such distress for the individual person(s).

[LibertyBell]

17 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Renewables like solar and wind require far more space per watt than fossil fuels do. 

https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/the-u-s-will-need-a-lot-of-land-for-a-zero-carbon-economy/

Wind farms, solar installations and other forms of clean power take up far more space on a per-watt basis than their fossil-fuel-burning brethren. A 200-megawatt wind farm, for instance, might require spreading turbines over 19 square miles (49 square kilometres). A natural-gas power plant with that same generating capacity could fit onto a single city block.

 

70% of the planet is covered by oceans-- why can't we put these farms on artificial floating islands in the middle of the ocean?  We can put these installations in the middle of the oceans can we not? 

 

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Even if it is a disagreeable facet of civilization it is a part of life we must come to terms with our own mortality but particularly the mortality of civilization(s).

thats correct, I always express this in terms of human lifetimes.  Because human beings themselves exist for limited time spans, nothing they create (whether concrete structures or nations) can exist for unlimited time spans either.

 

[WEATHER53]

Newby on this topic.

Could  great earthquakes slightly alter the earths axis?

If so, I’m thinking it would take very little to cause great effect?

Thanks 

 

[rclab]

2 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Not necessarily. Logan's Run is more of a dystopian narrative of what happens when civilizations become technological to the point where they infringe upon our individual sanctity/autonomy and our ability to lead meaningful lives. Luckily they usually do not persist long enough to cause such distress for the individual person(s).

Your point is well made. Still much of your second sentence seems applicable to our present direction. Perhaps we will exist in Mr. Zuckerberg meta verse until it’s time for us to ascend. Stay well, as always …

[bluewave]

For areas that are trying to deploy more renewables, the approval process has stalled out.

https://www.bayjournal.com/news/climate_change/more-than-800-solar-projects-in-bay-states-stuck-waiting-for-review/article_71a4375a-af6a-11ec-9071-03d4665eb07b.html

The rollout of solar and other renewable energy projects that Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are counting on to end fossil-fuel reliance is caught up in a review bottleneck that is severely hampering the transition.

In those three Chesapeake Bay drainage states, 807 utility-scale, commercial rooftop, community solar and solar storage projects have been stuck in a growing regulatory traffic jam. Proposals have been waiting a year and often longer for PJM Interconnection, the organization that coordinates electricity transmission in 13 states and the District of Columbia, to complete the required studies that would move the projects forward.

Across PJM’s region, about 2,500 solar, solar storage and wind energy projects are awaiting a decision on whether they can connect to the electricity transmission network. Although that number will likely drop for a variety of financing and logistical reasons, the backlog has slowed the rollout of renewable projects, and delays can cause some projects to fail.

The slowdown comes at a time when each of the three major Bay watershed states, like many others, have adopted aggressive climate-change mitigation policies that rely on renewable energy. The combined solar projects waiting in line, if built, could power an estimated 5.6 million homes. At present, existing solar sites in the three states produce enough power for about 128,000 homes.

PJM is responsible for ensuring that the transmission grid can handle any new electricity added to the mix. It has the authority to require new projects to build equipment and upgrade transmission systems so that the grid has enough power at any moment to keep the lights on in homes and businesses during any kind of weather. As part of that evaluation, PJM considers how the proposed power generation would affect the grid.

In the last four years, PJM has signed off on 725 renewable energy projects from a long line of applicants.

To help relieve the backup, PJM is planning to develop a streamlined review process intended to dramatically shorten the study period. But that overhaul could take two years.

In the meantime, PJM is delaying new applications for two years, and it’s proposing a two-tiered process to handle projects already in the pipeline. The projects deemed most “shovel ready” would be fast-tracked, according to PJM. That would total about 450 of the total 2,500 backlogged projects in all states.

Those less ready, for whatever reason, would have to wait until the new review process is in place, which may not be until late 2025. For them, a determination of whether they can hook into the electric grid may not come until 2027.

PJM’s plan, which needs approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has widespread support from the company’s 507 voting members, which include power utilities, transmission line owners, renewable energy developers, financial traders, state consumer advocates and others.

Support for pressing pause

Despite the prospect of further delays for many projects, PJM said that Bay watershed states will be able to meet the renewable energy goals they have set to help address climate change.

“We have met with the states, including Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, that have aggressive goals,” said Kenneth Seiler, PJM’s vice president of planning. “We are very well-positioned to facilitate the interconnection of renewable generation and help the states meet their goals out into the future.

“Had we not done anything, there would be limited opportunities for the states to achieve their goals. We are trying to be the voice of reason here.”

The states, though not happy about the current impediments, agree.

Pausing the process and creating new rules to speed the more-ready projects in the queue we hope will break the logjam and reduce process congestion in the future,” said Jamar Thrasher, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Energy Office. “We also hope that the pause will be shorter than anticipated.”

The suspension of new project reviews comes at a time when demand for solar energy is growing. Solar made up more than half of all new electricity generated in the United States during the first three quarters of 2021, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association and Wood Mackenzie, a global energy consultant. Most of the renewable projects in the PJM queue are solar.

Virginia in 2020 set a goal of achieving 100% clean electricity by 2050. It has 416 backlogged projects, enough to power 3.7 million homes, according to PJM. In 2021, the state ranked fourth in the nation in new solar installations. But since 2016, at least 225 solar projects have dropped out of the PJM waiting list.

“We need the ability for projects to come into the queue and get built,” said Harry Godfrey, executive director of Virginia Advanced Energy Economy, a business coalition seeking affordable clean energy. “Otherwise, that is a short– and long-term problem for Virginia in meeting its clean economy goals.”

Pennsylvania has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 26% by 2025 and 80% by 2050. It has 443 solar projects awaiting approval in the PJM queue. That’s enough to power approximately 1.4 million homes.

Maryland, which aims to get 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, with a minimum of 14.5% from solar power, has 48 solar projects in line, enough to power 410,000 homes.

Roots of the problem

 

PJM has long operated by managing grid access for a relatively small number of large and centrally located power plants. But the nonprofit corporation found itself overwhelmed by the surge of smaller renewable-energy projects, many located in rural areas away from population centers and needing a way to tap into the grid.

Based in Valley Forge, PA, PJM is the largest of 10 transmission operators in the U.S. It oversees more than 84,000 miles of transmission lines and serves more than 65 million people in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey and Ohio, as well as parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and North Carolina.

But its review staff of engineers and other specialists couldn’t keep up as new proposals were filed — with applications tripling in three years. PJM has been expanding staff and hiring consultants to aid with reviews.

[csnavywx]

On 4/3/2022 at 10:48 AM, skierinvermont said:

it doesn't, for two reasons. We've talked about this before. It's just not going to happen. One it costs twice as much as solar, wind, and natural gas. But second, and even more importantly, natural gas plants are very cheap to build but expensive to operate, which makes them ideal backup generators. They allow you to get the grid to 70 or 80% wind/solar without even needing storage capacity, which would be a monumental accomplishment. Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build and cannot be used as backup generators. The next step to get to 100% renewables, probably involves storage and smart grids. Not nuclear.

 

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change#:~:text=Barriers to and risks associated,concerns%2C and adverse public opinion.

We're not going to make 2C without it -- though I have my doubts we can even hit that target if EEI merely stays where it's at and aerosols are reduced. Decarbonization isn't fast enough and hasn't been for a while. Energy efficiency doesn't work very well due to demand equilibrium changes. If we need to subsidize and standardize the reactor design, then so be it. It's still way cheaper than CCS/BECCS and seasonal storage -- both of which are necessary en masse to hit 2 or 1.5C. The damage function is non-linear and gets pretty scary after we hit those limits. So will the costs, and those costs are likely to make this little cost-benefit analysis look quaint in comparison.

A good article and published paper linked in that thread as well.

 

Long story short -- rate of decarbonization is all that matters and that rate must exceed growth. We will either do this voluntarily or it will happen via painful forced deleveraging and a decline in growth rates as the cost of damage piles up and more energy is thus used for maintenance of the existing capital stock. That's to say absolutely nothing of the geopolitical ramifications of all of this. And that geopol risk is probably not going to be constructive for decarbonization efforts, if recent history is any guide.

[bluewave]

On 4/5/2022 at 12:24 PM, LibertyBell said:

Fusion will be ready within our lifetimes, it's like creating our own suns, why get power from 93 million miles away when you can make a small star right on our own planet!

 

It could be a great technology if done cost effectively enough for widespread use. 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-light-achieves-world-first-fusion-result-proving-unique-new-target-technology-301517509.html

• Fusion shown with projectile approach for first time, validated by UKAEA
• Breakthrough achieved faster and cheaper than traditional fusion approaches
• Unique target approach offers simpler pathway to low-cost fusion energy using existing plant technology
• Projectile approach enables a high-margin consumables business model with an addressable market in the hundreds of billions

 

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, csnavywx said:

We're not going to make 2C without it -- though I have my doubts we can even hit that target if EEI merely stays where it's at and aerosols are reduced. Decarbonization isn't fast enough and hasn't been for a while. Energy efficiency doesn't work very well due to demand equilibrium changes. If we need to subsidize and standardize the reactor design, then so be it. It's still way cheaper than CCS/BECCS and seasonal storage -- both of which are necessary en masse to hit 2 or 1.5C. The damage function is non-linear and gets pretty scary after we hit those limits. So will the costs, and those costs are likely to make this little cost-benefit analysis look quaint in comparison.

A good article and published paper linked in that thread as well.

 

Long story short -- rate of decarbonization is all that matters and that rate must exceed growth. We will either do this voluntarily or it will happen via painful forced deleveraging and a decline in growth rates as the cost of damage piles up and more energy is thus used for maintenance of the existing capital stock. That's to say absolutely nothing of the geopolitical ramifications of all of this. And that geopol risk is probably not going to be constructive for decarbonization efforts, if recent history is any guide.

No one asked me so ... not intending to butt-in, but I don't have a problem with nuclear at all.

It's a matter of prioritizing, within reason, as a transient gap control.  That is/for while green technologies come of age and come on line.  In other words, no one should be suggesting we fire up the reactors and walk away interminably.  Spent fuel can be disposed of for 50 years worth, and it probably would not take that long anyway.  It's all bullshit.   If there was a gun pointed at policy maker heads, we'd ave 10% carbon foot print in 10 years but it's excuses that originate from sources that either don't believe, or don't understand, where this problem is: against the bubble.

 

[rclab]

32 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No one asked me so ... not intending to butt-in, but I don't have a problem with nuclear at all.

It's a matter of prioritizing, within reason, as a transient gap control.  That is/for while green technologies come of age and come on line.  In other words, no one should be suggesting we fire up the reactors and walk away interminably.  Spent fuel can be disposed of for 50 years worth, and it probably would not take that long anyway.  It's all bullshit.   If there was a gun pointed at policy maker heads, we'd ave 10% carbon foot print in 10 years but it's excuses that originate from sources that either don't believe, or don't understand, where this problem is: against the bubble.

 

Good evening Tip. I keep thinking of all those curb side battery chargers and the all electric heat only building boom. What the LILCO cost could have been with Shoreham and what it is without. I pray some one of consequence does ask you and others about the necessity of a bridge between rather than a rode to nowhere. Stay well, as always …..

[Vice-Regent]

The IPCC Is Finally Considering Degrowth

https://www.rokfin.com/stream/16812

[skierinvermont]

On 4/6/2022 at 9:19 AM, csnavywx said:

We're not going to make 2C without it -- though I have my doubts we can even hit that target if EEI merely stays where it's at and aerosols are reduced. Decarbonization isn't fast enough and hasn't been for a while. Energy efficiency doesn't work very well due to demand equilibrium changes. If we need to subsidize and standardize the reactor design, then so be it. It's still way cheaper than CCS/BECCS and seasonal storage -- both of which are necessary en masse to hit 2 or 1.5C. The damage function is non-linear and gets pretty scary after we hit those limits. So will the costs, and those costs are likely to make this little cost-benefit analysis look quaint in comparison.

A good article and published paper linked in that thread as well.

 

Long story short -- rate of decarbonization is all that matters and that rate must exceed growth. We will either do this voluntarily or it will happen via painful forced deleveraging and a decline in growth rates as the cost of damage piles up and more energy is thus used for maintenance of the existing capital stock. That's to say absolutely nothing of the geopolitical ramifications of all of this. And that geopol risk is probably not going to be constructive for decarbonization efforts, if recent history is any guide.

The argument against energy efficiency makes sense. But solar and wind allow for stable or increasing energy production without the CO2, just like nuclear, but at 1/3 of the cost. Nuclear might be more effective at reducing emissions simply because it is more expensive and the high costs, if passed on to the consumer, would reduce energy consumption overall. But that's like saying going back to coal energy or whales oil would solve climate change. They are not politically feasible or economically optimal. Solar and wind, up to 60 or 70% of energy production, would dramatically reduce emissions without lowering living standards the way that whales oil or nuclear would. After 60 or 70% you do have to consider costlier options like storage and carbon capture.

Thr fact that decarbonization has not exceeded growth is just as much a condemnation of nuclear as it is solar and wind. Actually moreso given nuclear has existed for decades and reached its height in the 90s which was also when co2 emissions were accelerating rapidly. At least solar and wind have plateaud or in some cases reduced emissions in some developed nations. It just needs to be accelerated. We do need to pay more for energy, but via penalties on co2 emissions and subsidies of sources without emissions. So far we've been unwilling to pay more.

[csnavywx]

On 4/6/2022 at 2:30 PM, bluewave said:

It could be a great technology if done cost effectively enough for widespread use. 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-light-achieves-world-first-fusion-result-proving-unique-new-target-technology-301517509.html

• Fusion shown with projectile approach for first time, validated by UKAEA
• Breakthrough achieved faster and cheaper than traditional fusion approaches
• Unique target approach offers simpler pathway to low-cost fusion energy using existing plant technology
• Projectile approach enables a high-margin consumables business model with an addressable market in the hundreds of billions

 

 

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

The argument against energy efficiency makes sense. But solar and wind allow for stable or increasing energy production without the CO2, just like nuclear, but at 1/3 of the cost. Nuclear might be more effective at reducing emissions simply because it is more expensive and the high costs, if passed on to the consumer, would reduce energy consumption overall. But that's like saying going back to coal energy or whales oil would solve climate change. They are not politically feasible or economically optimal. Solar and wind, up to 60 or 70% of energy production, would dramatically reduce emissions without lowering living standards the way that whales oil or nuclear would. After 60 or 70% you do have to consider costlier options like storage and carbon capture.

Thr fact that decarbonization has not exceeded growth is just as much a condemnation of nuclear as it is solar and wind. Actually moreso given nuclear has existed for decades and reached its height in the 90s which was also when co2 emissions were accelerating rapidly. At least solar and wind have plateaud or in some cases reduced emissions in some developed nations. It just needs to be accelerated. We do need to pay more for energy, but via penalties on co2 emissions and subsidies of sources without emissions. So far we've been unwilling to pay more.

We do need to decrease wasteful energy consumption for a number of reasons.  As an astrophotographer I am amazed at all the electricity wasted powering cities late at night, there is no evidence that it increases safety whatsoever but there is evidence that it has serious health side effects including increasing rates of cancer.

I am glad that we've banned fracking here and in nearby states, people have seen the light with the environmental damage it does that's why I'm a hard NO! on methane (so-called "natural" gas)... it's banned in NY, NJ and eastern PA.

 

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

The argument against energy efficiency makes sense. But solar and wind allow for stable or increasing energy production without the CO2, just like nuclear, but at 1/3 of the cost. Nuclear might be more effective at reducing emissions simply because it is more expensive and the high costs, if passed on to the consumer, would reduce energy consumption overall. But that's like saying going back to coal energy or whales oil would solve climate change. They are not politically feasible or economically optimal. Solar and wind, up to 60 or 70% of energy production, would dramatically reduce emissions without lowering living standards the way that whales oil or nuclear would. After 60 or 70% you do have to consider costlier options like storage and carbon capture.

Thr fact that decarbonization has not exceeded growth is just as much a condemnation of nuclear as it is solar and wind. Actually moreso given nuclear has existed for decades and reached its height in the 90s which was also when co2 emissions were accelerating rapidly. At least solar and wind have plateaud or in some cases reduced emissions in some developed nations. It just needs to be accelerated. We do need to pay more for energy, but via penalties on co2 emissions and subsidies of sources without emissions. So far we've been unwilling to pay more.

the fossil fuel cartels need to have their subsidies come to an immediate end and they need to be forced to foot the bill for climate change disasters.

 

[bluewave]

6 hours ago, csnavywx said:

 

That video gets to what we see with all new research. The scientists need to secure funds from investors for further research. So it’s common for the headlines of the press releases to focus on the positives and minimize the challenges ahead. The last thing they want is for the investment money to dry up and then have to stop their research. We are still in the infancy of nuclear fusion research without any real way of knowing when or if it will pan out.  

The same can be said about the press releases by countries on how fast they are going to lower their emissions. Time after time we get these pledges of how fast they will transition to renewables. Only to hear that they are retiring their nuclear plants and substituting with dirty coal. The solar and wind targets hit snags since it’s a very complex process involving many moving parts and points of contention. But we don’t hear about  these challenges at the press conference. Germany is one of the further along countries on the path to renewable energy and they have been missing their emissions targets. 

[A-L-E-K]

yeah we aren't even trying

how about that methane number

[WEATHER53]

The earth belches  methane and gas.  Tell it that’s not good for itself