The all-purpose heavy duty Climate Chaos thread (sprinkled with hope).
Comments
-
Exactly! Talks to mollify the public rather than taking action. Will anyone stand up in these talks and speak the plain truth about what's happening? A kid from Sweden named Greta tried to do that and they said she was just a kid, what does she know. But few adults with experience are willing to take that stand. Captain Paul Watson did and he got booted off the U.S. branch of the activist agency he created, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.static111 said:
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.brianlux said:Holy moly! In just a few minutes time I came across a couple of interesting things.First, this article from WEF that talks about "how to spot greenwashing and stop it"And this article that convincingly shows that WEF are actually masters at greenwashing.It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
Talk talk talk without action.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
What will it be folks? Heading fast for catastrophe, or happy days are almost hear again (by a thread)?
Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-close-to-irreversible-climate-breakdown-warn-major-studiesWorld close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies
Good morning. What was once the worst-case scenario for climate change seems much less likely.An optimistic shift
...or why you can believe everything you see and here now, can you? Now if you will excise me... I must be on... my waaaaaaaaaay...
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Ignorance is bliss. Makes it much harder t figure out what's what, that's for sure.brianlux said:What will it be folks? Heading fast for catastrophe, or happy days are almost hear again (by a thread)?
Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-close-to-irreversible-climate-breakdown-warn-major-studiesWorld close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies
Good morning. What was once the worst-case scenario for climate change seems much less likely.An optimistic shift
...or why you can believe everything you see and here now, can you? Now if you will excise me... I must be on... my waaaaaaaaaay...Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
static111 said:
Ignorance is bliss. Makes it much harder t figure out what's what, that's for sure.brianlux said:What will it be folks? Heading fast for catastrophe, or happy days are almost hear again (by a thread)?
Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-close-to-irreversible-climate-breakdown-warn-major-studiesWorld close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies
Good morning. What was once the worst-case scenario for climate change seems much less likely.An optimistic shift
...or why you can believe everything you see and here now, can you? Now if you will excise me... I must be on... my waaaaaaaaaay...
Exactly! The great shell game that keeps us ignorant.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
brianlux said:
Exactly! Talks to mollify the public rather than taking action. Will anyone stand up in these talks and speak the plain truth about what's happening? A kid from Sweden named Greta tried to do that and they said she was just a kid, what does she know. But few adults with experience are willing to take that stand. Captain Paul Watson did and he got booted off the U.S. branch of the activist agency he created, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.static111 said:
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.brianlux said:Holy moly! In just a few minutes time I came across a couple of interesting things.First, this article from WEF that talks about "how to spot greenwashing and stop it"And this article that convincingly shows that WEF are actually masters at greenwashing.It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
Talk talk talk without action.Biden signed the best US law ever for the climate, and his party is about to get demolished in the midterms
. If we can’t get independents and moderates to join us, we have no chance improving our climate issues. If the gop takes over by 2024, it’s going to be full speed ahead with coal, which is a zillion times worse than nat gas, despite what the we forum link above wants us to believe.
the problem with the climate movement among liberals is that it is splintered into many different directions. If there were more focus on specific things that need to happen asap, the movement would have a chance to expand over time. Even if an anti coal platform would be painful to Dems short term, an anti coal drumbeat over time would provide focus for the movement.
Instead we get EVs promoted everywhere, solar panels on our roofs and attacks against nat gas, which short term, provide almost no benefit for the climate. Let’s end coal and replace fossil fuel power plants with wind and solar generation, that’s where the focus needs to be for the next 15 years0 -
Lerxst1992 said:brianlux said:
Exactly! Talks to mollify the public rather than taking action. Will anyone stand up in these talks and speak the plain truth about what's happening? A kid from Sweden named Greta tried to do that and they said she was just a kid, what does she know. But few adults with experience are willing to take that stand. Captain Paul Watson did and he got booted off the U.S. branch of the activist agency he created, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.static111 said:
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.brianlux said:Holy moly! In just a few minutes time I came across a couple of interesting things.First, this article from WEF that talks about "how to spot greenwashing and stop it"And this article that convincingly shows that WEF are actually masters at greenwashing.It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
Talk talk talk without action.Biden signed the best US law ever for the climate, and his party is about to get demolished in the midterms
. If we can’t get independents and moderates to join us, we have no chance improving our climate issues. If the gop takes over by 2024, it’s going to be full speed ahead with coal, which is a zillion times worse than nat gas, despite what the we forum link above wants us to believe.
the problem with the climate movement among liberals is that it is splintered into many different directions. If there were more focus on specific things that need to happen asap, the movement would have a chance to expand over time. Even if an anti coal platform would be painful to Dems short term, an anti coal drumbeat over time would provide focus for the movement.
Instead we get EVs promoted everywhere, solar panels on our roofs and attacks against nat gas, which short term, provide almost no benefit for the climate. Let’s end coal and replace fossil fuel power plants with wind and solar generation, that’s where the focus needs to be for the next 15 yearsI'm certainly thankful for Bidens actrions, but- sorry to say- it's still not nearly enough.As Dems getting demolishes, Maybe, maybe not. The polls are almost useless anymore. Michael Moore predicts the Dems will do well and he was right about predicting Trump would win, so we'll see. In any case, don't think we can predict this election very well.Everybody needs to get serious about climate change and soon and start to realize the one party is better about climate, but neither are going to do enough. Hate to say that, but it's true. Dems will do more, but not nearly enough. We kid ourselves thinking they will.We are not going to reverse global warming, but we could slow it down by reducing carbon emissions. We all know how to do that. There are no sides here. We either do what needs to be done or we don't.I agree that ending coal is a high priority Wind and solar will help some, but they require huge amounts of energy and petroleum to produce, create a lot of landfill trash as they break down. They are merely a stop gap measure."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
OK, instead of me saying the same thing over and over, here's a plan. See what y'all think:A simple solution to global warming and other environmental issues:First, scientifically deduce the sustainable footprint for one human being. Assign the number "6" to represent the sustainable footprint for one human being. Two people's footprint = 12Next, make a choice of one of these two things:1. Do not reproduce2. ReproduceHave any person not reproducing be able to live beyond 6 to as high as 8 for their footprint. A non-reproducer can always opt to stay at 6.For each child born, adjust each person's footprint thus:For one offspring: Parent A and parent B and child reduce their footprint to 4 (3 X 4 = 12)
For 2 offspring: Parent A, Parent B and child A and child B reduce footprint to 3 (4 X 3 = 12)Etc.
For single mom, sperm donor counts a parent.
For test tube babies, well, I don't know- everyone in the lab reduces their footprint? Gotta work that one out.It may seem unfair for non-reproducing people to live at a higher standard, but what better incentive to not reproduce?!Problems solved.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Eye opening issues with solar…
Some excerpts…
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
0 -
Lerxst1992 said:Eye opening issues with solar…
Some excerpts…
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.Evidence yet again that we are not going to Simple Green our way out of our environmental issues.*And if I'm wrong, tell me who does!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
brianlux said:Lerxst1992 said:Eye opening issues with solar…
Some excerpts…
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.Evidence yet again that we are not going to Simple Green our way out of our environmental issues.*And if I'm wrong, tell me who does!EVs can play a big role in improving the environment, just not yet. Dems are splintered all over the place,lacking focus. The plan to improve the climate should be focused on power plants and reducing/eliminating coal around the globe.Instead we are misplacing priorities. EVs and solar panels have toxic by products with zero regulation for safe disposal. At the same time, the left fights things like new pipelines, which are strictly regulated and transport the least harmful fossil fuel. Yes that comment risks a bomb comment fromSC, but if regulations were enforced, leakage from production and pipes would not occur. So if we don’t build new pipes, what is going to be used instead? A dirtier form of transportation.Yet we are full speed ahead on toxic solar panels and EVs (which will be important down the road, once we know how to safely produce and regulate, and source usage with renewables)0 -
About the solar panels being bad and toxic.
The government, yes the gubmint, needs to make the companies accountable and have them made w recyclable material and without toxic ones. They can do it but choose not to.0 -
Lerxst1992 said:brianlux said:Lerxst1992 said:Eye opening issues with solar…
Some excerpts…
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.Evidence yet again that we are not going to Simple Green our way out of our environmental issues.*And if I'm wrong, tell me who does!EVs can play a big role in improving the environment, just not yet. Dems are splintered all over the place,lacking focus. The plan to improve the climate should be focused on power plants and reducing/eliminating coal around the globe.Instead we are misplacing priorities. EVs and solar panels have toxic by products with zero regulation for safe disposal. At the same time, the left fights things like new pipelines, which are strictly regulated and transport the least harmful fossil fuel. Yes that comment risks a bomb comment fromSC, but if regulations were enforced, leakage from production and pipes would not occur. So if we don’t build new pipes, what is going to be used instead? A dirtier form of transportation.Yet we are full speed ahead on toxic solar panels and EVs (which will be important down the road, once we know how to safely produce and regulate, and source usage with renewables)
I agree that would help big-time but I would place slowing population growth and reducing consumption in developed countries just as high.tempo_n_groove said:About the solar panels being bad and toxic.
The government, yes the gubmint, needs to make the companies accountable and have them made w recyclable material and without toxic ones. They can do it but choose not to.
Sadly true.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
well it looks like our strategic goals of being the LNG supplier to Europe is going to come with a devastating environmental cost..Can't say I am shocked that the cost of creating stability in the current profit driven capitalistic framework is just creating more instability somewhere else.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/26/bidens-lng-export-goal-would-spell-climate-disaster-analysis-warnsBiden's LNG Export Goal 'Would Spell Climate Disaster,' Analysis Warns
"The White House vision for delivering gas to Europe will serve to deliver climate chaos across the globe, at a moment when we simply cannot build new fossil fuel facilities at all," said Food & Water Watch.
October 26, 2022As the United Nations released its latest report showing that the continued failure of wealthy countries to immediately transition away from fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global heating, a new analysis warned the White House to scrap its plans to export billions of cubic meters of fracked gas to Europe annually until 2030.
The proposal, which the Biden administration claims "is consistent with our shared net-zero goals," would generate fossil fuel emissions equivalent to 400 million metric tons of carbon each year, according to the analysis by Food & Water Watch, which warned the plan "would spell climate disaster."
"Scaling up renewables to this level would avoid over 500 million metric tons of fossil fuels, no matter if it is replaced with solar or wind. The choice is clear."
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster.
LNG, which is created by cooling fracked gas to create a clear, colorless liquid, has been touted by the oil industry "as the climate-friendly alternative to Russian gas, but problems arise quickly, as a standard methane leakage rate from U.S.-sourced LNG has not been measured," Food & Water Watch adds.
The U.S. is already the world's biggest exporter of LNG, with exports averaging 0.32 BCM per day in the first half of this year. More than 70% of U.S. exports went to Europe this year, and while the Biden administration's plan has promised an extra 15 BCM of LNG to Europe this year, the current pace "will triple" that pledge, according to the report.
"The White House vision for delivering gas to Europe will serve to deliver climate chaos across the globe, at a moment when we simply cannot build new fossil fuel facilities at all," said Food & Water Watch research director Amanda Starbuck. "The White House must work with political leaders across the globe to find a safer alternative than doubling down on dirty gas."
The U.N. report released Wednesday estimated that planetary heating could reach 2.9°C by the end of the century if policymakers do not shift away from fossil fuel extraction promptly—a level of heating which could threaten hundreds of millions of people with sea level rise.
Food & Water Watch also detailed the immediate harm the Biden administration will be doing to communities near fracking sites in the U.S. if it moves ahead with the LNG exports plan.
"Communities plagued by fracking experience well documented and severe environmental impacts, which fall disproportionately on frontline populations that include rural, lower-income communities and communities of color," the group's report reads. "Those living near fracking sites are at increased risk of contracting cancer and a host of other medical disorders, with pregnant women and children at even greater risk."
...continues
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?0 -
Lerxst1992 said:How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?I'm guessing what the author meant was "faze out". I believe the term "immediately transition" refers to a chemical reaction.As far as how to faze out something like that, I think it's already been happening for some time with the continued increase in EV charging stations and widespread use (in developed countries) of solar panels. What all that will not faze out is environmental degradation. The irony is huge.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
We could actively work to make the fossil fuel systems we have in place more sustainable. There is of course no clean coal, but if transitioning from coal too quickly in favor of LNG and trying to be the savior of Europe via LNG is going to cause more long term harm than short term help I would say work with what we have but don't expand it if we don't have to. Pretty easy to keep some of the infrastructure that we have in place as we transition away from fossil fuels rather than double down on fossil fuels or replacing one fossil fuel for another. No one needs to freeze their asses off, statements like that are hyperbole which keeps anything positive from being done and keeps FF companies calling the shotsLerxst1992 said:How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?
Read the article and the linked report.
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster. "
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
From the food and water watch report.
"Even after all of this, U.S. production will not dig Europe out of its energy crisis — gas executives have said as much. The U.S. industry is not increasing production any further, keeping supplies tight and prices high.55 This will hit the European public hardest, particularly lower-income individuals who pay disproportionately more for heating.56 Experts anticipate that food bank participation in the Netherlands will rise 15 percent in the coming months, as families are forced to choose between eating and heating their homes across the region — all while Big Oil profits.57"
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
static111 said:
We could actively work to make the fossil fuel systems we have in place more sustainable. There is of course no clean coal, but if transitioning from coal too quickly in favor of LNG and trying to be the savior of Europe via LNG is going to cause more long term harm than short term help I would say work with what we have but don't expand it if we don't have to. Pretty easy to keep some of the infrastructure that we have in place as we transition away from fossil fuels rather than double down on fossil fuels or replacing one fossil fuel for another. No one needs to freeze their asses off, statements like that are hyperbole which keeps anything positive from being done and keeps FF companies calling the shotsLerxst1992 said:How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?
Read the article and the linked report.
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster. "The sourcing on that BCM stat does not seem solid, it’s based on an EPA calculator and I do not see LNG as a source https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator . It’s a very unusual way to make a claim like coal is cleaner than LNG, which is a very unusual claim.Most sources on the net will state LNG is 40% cleaner than coal. There has been recent reporting about methane leakage, however there are regulations and monitors in place that are supposed to stop that from occurring. Keep in mind solar panels, EVs and wind turbines have almost no regulated method to monitor and stop its version of leakage, which is its disposal. That’s a time bomb waiting to happen.…
I don’t think LNG is widely viewed as the future but it’s being used now as a short term disaster remediation. There’s no way to scale up renewable infrastructure on a short term basis caused by the Russian war. Come up with an entire brand new industry and infrastructure in a few months? Sounds like a pipe dream. Keep in mind LNG is being used because the current heat infrastructure in Europe is gas based. It’s like the existing usb-c plug to charge the Samsung phone. Anything else would be like trying to recharge an iPhone with an android charger.
….Prices for nat gas peaked July thru Sept and fell off a cliff in October. Why? There are tankers lined up in Europe overwhelming resources to get the LNG into storage. The market right now is telling us supplies are in place right now, but that can change in a hurry with an artic blast. The last two months demand for nat gas in the industry has actually been below the norm from what I have experienced in past years for the fall. Storage in the northern US states is at capacity in anticipation of the heating season. And yes, there very well could be a lot of cold people in Europe this winter, that is not hyperbole. There is just no way to replace Russian gas in full. I’m not familiar with using coal for heat on a widespread basis, but that sounds like the dirtiest way possible to generate heat.
Perhaps existing LNG infrastructure could run at 120% of normal capacity and conservation maybe can save another 20+%. Maybe a little more for both. But that’s clearly not enough. The key is that LNG can be done with infrastructure and tech that currently exists. Clean renewable heat would require solar power generation and transmission, and then homes and businesses need the electric heat pumps to turn the solar energy to heat. The infrastructure for that does not exist in big numbers in todays world.…“The U.S. is exporting more LNG to Europe as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine and cuts made to natural gas supplies ahead of winter, but there has been a buildup of LNG vessels waiting to unload at ports with European infrastructure unable to handle the increased LNG shipments.”0 -
The problem with renewables is scaling up to macro supply levels and transmission logistics.
Using the US electric transmission industry as an example, there is abundent transmission capacity from eastern Canada which needs to get to the northeast US, because there is abundent clean supply to the north and usage to the south. This is the current logistical setup
The challenge for wind and solar is its anticipated to be abundant in the central US, but is needed along the coasts where population is largest. The transmission to move the energy from production regions to usage just does not currently exist in the capacity needed
Sure we'd love for renewables to solve the Russia gas problem, but building out an entirely new infrastructure, with tech that barely exists today, is a time consuming logistics challenge. The type thats measured more in a decade or so.
..
Its like when PJ loves to play the small towns. They overwhelm existing infrastructure to handle all the big metropolitan fans traveling out to the small towns to stay at hotels.
For example, I was almost stranded in Ottawa due to a hotel error, in the midst of a thousand mile round trip journey. Driving 500 miles with no sleep? Not an issue in the PJ planning world when they set up a tour
Most days getting a hotel would be no big deal in Ottawa. When PJ is in town on a Saturday night, there were no rooms available from Ottawa to Kingston almost to Montreal.
A good analogy for the EU heating problems
0 -
Lerxst1992 said:The problem with renewables is scaling up to macro supply levels and transmission logistics.
Using the US electric transmission industry as an example, there is abundent transmission capacity from eastern Canada which needs to get to the northeast US, because there is abundent clean supply to the north and usage to the south. This is the current logistical setup
The challenge for wind and solar is its anticipated to be abundant in the central US, but is needed along the coasts where population is largest. The transmission to move the energy from production regions to usage just does not currently exist in the capacity needed
Sure we'd love for renewables to solve the Russia gas problem, but building out an entirely new infrastructure, with tech that barely exists today, is a time consuming logistics challenge. The type thats measured more in a decade or so.
..
Its like when PJ loves to play the small towns. They overwhelm existing infrastructure to handle all the big metropolitan fans traveling out to the small towns to stay at hotels.
For example, I was almost stranded in Ottawa due to a hotel error, in the midst of a thousand mile round trip journey. Driving 500 miles with no sleep? Not an issue in the PJ planning world when they set up a tour
Most days getting a hotel would be no big deal in Ottawa. When PJ is in town on a Saturday night, there were no rooms available from Ottawa to Kingston almost to Montreal.
A good analogy for the EU heating problems
If Pearl Jam wants to play small towns, why not play a smaller venue with ticket availability to accommodate the size of the town. Also make tickets available locally first. That would be the appropriate and responsible thing to do, right? Same hold true for our society in general. If we don't live sustainably, we run into problems. Simple logic.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help