tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2499685865600963029..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Trump's War on Coal Country and HumanityEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43237301482482106322017-04-08T17:23:36.616-04:002017-04-08T17:23:36.616-04:00Canman: "resources would be better spent deve...<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/04/trumps-war-on-coal-country-and-humanity.html?showComment=1491330357624#c3280758959456951161" rel="nofollow">Canman</a>: "resources would be better spent developing next generation nuclear plants that can't melt down instead of making piddly reductions of CO2 at the margins."<br /><br />Oh, come now. It's better to make major reductions in CO2 than piddly ones, and anything but complete elimination is more-or-less piddly. Piddly is better than none, though. Each emission reduction "at the margins" yields a corresponding marginal reduction in the rate of warming. Enough marginal reductions will eventually bring the slope of the trend in GMST to zero.<br /><br />AGW is a Tragedy of the Commons: the "invisible hand of the market" is what's causing it, and the invisible hand won't change the ending on its own; collective interference in the market is required. A TOTC can only be averted by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" in Hardin's phrasing.<br /><br />You want next-gen nuclear? Lobby your congressional delegation to internalize some of the marginal cost of AGW in fossil-fuel prices, so we're all coerced into taking AGW into account when we fill our gas tanks. Advocate for a carbon tax on fossil-fuel producers at the mine/well/port-of-entry and a corresponding Border Adjustment Tax on the embodied fossil carbon in imported goods, with all revenue to be returned to the taxpayers in periodic equal-size dividends. <br /><br />Then leave allocation of R&D resources to the vaunted invisible hand of the market. Maybe you get next-gen nuclear in the mix, maybe not. What matters is that the globe gets a halt in the warming, by the quickest politically-feasible route.<br /><br />Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73996209429456423902017-04-08T14:22:01.903-04:002017-04-08T14:22:01.903-04:00So asphalt is somehow not pollution in your world ...So asphalt is somehow not pollution in your world David?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73459522570099835832017-04-08T05:29:13.303-04:002017-04-08T05:29:13.303-04:00At least TNYT agrees with me that it is 'carbo...At least TNYT agrees with me that it is 'carbon dioxide pollution", not "carbon pollution".David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64484941228221311562017-04-05T12:58:53.210-04:002017-04-05T12:58:53.210-04:00Great video on the clean power plan and the Energi...Great video on the clean power plan and the Energiewande:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9emMtMU6lcMike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11522565209743906392017-04-05T12:27:15.806-04:002017-04-05T12:27:15.806-04:00I think Trump's real goal is to bring back the...I think Trump's real goal is to bring back the Company Town, with its Company Store, Company Scrip, and Company Houses.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07891989201161664914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83343619584662132972017-04-05T04:27:34.866-04:002017-04-05T04:27:34.866-04:00It dispoils the precise language used by scientist...It dispoils the precise language used by scientists. David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9208452558905629452017-04-05T01:57:50.974-04:002017-04-05T01:57:50.974-04:00Nigel Franks,
Sorry about that. Here's my lin...Nigel Franks,<br /><br />Sorry about that. Here's my link:<br /><br />http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/2_abb_thg-emissionen_2017-03-17_0.png<br /><br />It's a chart of greenhouse gas emissions and it looks like CO2 is stuck for the last three years at 800 millionen tonnen. They've reached a point where intermittency is causing diminishing returns for wind and solar. Their prospects for reaching their targets look pretty poor.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77022316808294602682017-04-04T17:09:28.039-04:002017-04-04T17:09:28.039-04:00Canman I don't find a link in your post. I'...Canman I don't find a link in your post. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Here are a couple of links to coal and lignite usage including in the steel industry and for heating as well as electricity. http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=steinkohle_jahr_2016.pdf<br /><br />http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=bk-kj16.pdf<br /><br />I don't know where you get the idea that renewables are peaking: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2016.png?itok=g2Jep3Vm<br /><br />Btw here's some facts that the renewable hates forget: reneeables lower the wholesale cost of electrify through the merit order effect. You can see it working here: https://www.energy-charts.de/price.htm <br />In addition, the German "Green Transition" is funded by a levy on electricity which, for the small users is about 6 Euro cents per kWh. Thanks to efficiency measures that the green transition subsidises the average German uses less than 1,000 kWh per year. So the green transition costs them about €60/ year. That's only pennies per day. This is why Europeans are stunned by the US refusal to adopt renewables because it will "destroy your economy".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07784872872859319666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8546615631496280232017-04-04T16:58:09.405-04:002017-04-04T16:58:09.405-04:00Brian --- Many people are confused by the use of &...<i>Brian --- Many people are confused by the use of "carbon" where carbon dioxide is meant. Let us do try to call things by the right name.</i><br /><br />Really? I've literally never met anyone before who was confused on this point. Windchasershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554275410734284781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32807589594569511612017-04-04T14:25:57.624-04:002017-04-04T14:25:57.624-04:00I would like to suggest that if you're worried...I would like to suggest that if you're worried about CO2 and nuclear meltdowns, that resources would be better spent developing next generation nuclear plants that can't melt down instead of making piddly reductions of CO2 at the margins.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74469139952762279802017-04-04T14:16:23.826-04:002017-04-04T14:16:23.826-04:00Looking again at that chart, I see that the time s...Looking again at that chart, I see that the time scale for the projections has been compressed by a factor of five, but they still diverge from the trend.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49667939825870574032017-04-04T14:06:48.747-04:002017-04-04T14:06:48.747-04:00Here's a chart that shows where their Kohlendi...Here's a chart that shows where their Kohlendioxid (CO2) emissions have been heading. They appear to me to be asymptotically approaching a horizontal line that diverges from their targets. In fact, the only thing moving in line with their targets appears to be their use of nuclear power!Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2762093188045175072017-04-04T13:51:17.979-04:002017-04-04T13:51:17.979-04:00Brian --- Many people are confused by the use of &...Brian --- Many people are confused by the use of "carbon" where carbon dioxide is meant. Let us do try to call things by the right name. David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61181544956485756082017-04-04T13:08:55.227-04:002017-04-04T13:08:55.227-04:00Fernando - no, Trump's clean coal isn't li...Fernando - no, Trump's clean coal isn't like yours. He's given it zero thought beyond uttering the words.<br /><br />David - come on.<br /><br />Canman - coal seems to be on a steady decline, although that chart is too short a time period to draw many conclusions. Speaking of which, saying renewables are topped out based on one year without a change is a little much.<br />Brian Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172685194686202391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71914823184865252222017-04-04T11:19:23.605-04:002017-04-04T11:19:23.605-04:00The coal reductions look rather modest and renewab...The coal reductions look rather modest and renewable energy sources appear to be topping out. The thing that really sticks out is the jump in natural gas. And don't forget that that chart is for electricity generation only, which is probably less than half of all energy production.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34977445989436144392017-04-04T08:37:31.546-04:002017-04-04T08:37:31.546-04:00There is no bright future for coal in generating e...There is no bright future for coal in generating electricity in Germany. Its share in the generating mix is still declining: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/EconomicSectors/Energy/Production/Tables/GrossElectricityProduction.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07784872872859319666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61187240656504097232017-04-04T00:44:39.065-04:002017-04-04T00:44:39.065-04:00"negative carbon emissions" Nope. Carb..."negative carbon emissions" Nope. Carbon is a harmless solid, used in pencil leads and also industrial grade diamonds for cutting stuff. Oh yes, a little bit in gem diamonds.<br /><br />It is carbon dioxide that needs negative emissions. Do pre-law students skip basic high school science classes?David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25541981236213440252017-04-03T11:38:12.007-04:002017-04-03T11:38:12.007-04:00Maybe Trump's "clean coal" is simila...Maybe Trump's "clean coal" is similar to my clean coal: high thermodynamic efficiency plants equipped with very efficient scrubbers. <br /><br />I've directed engineering studies to understand the feasibility of CCS. It starts becoming much more feasible if the CO2 storage site can be allowed to leak a small amount (say 0.01 %/year of the total volume injected can start leaking after 20 years). The problem I see is that these CCS systems have irrational design requirements. Allowing some leakage increases feasibility a lot. But the people who lay out requirements are zealots. Which leaves reasonable types like me scratching our heads and moving on to geoengineering. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72756715698858226022017-04-03T01:16:11.035-04:002017-04-03T01:16:11.035-04:00Bernie Sanders could've saved coal by banning ...Bernie Sanders could've saved coal by banning fracking. With all the anti-nuke fanatics he'd of brought in, coal would have a bright future, just like in Germany.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.com