Natural gas is now getting in the way; US carbon emissions increase by 3.4%

Power sector emissions increased, jet fuel use more-than-offset gas reduction.

Read the whole story

 

[nixass]

In other news, nuclear driven France has one of the lowest carbon emissions in Europe..
Go nuclear!

 

[iPirateEverything]

"Absent a significant change in policy or a major technological breakthrough, we expect the industrial sector to become an increasingly large share of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in the years ahead," Rhodium wrote.

If I were to take a guess, I would say at least for the next 6 years ...

 

[SixDegrees]

As the economy goes, so goes energy usage.

All the more reason to forge ahead with switching over to lower carbon emission energy sources.

 

[pug fugly]

HAHA, we're all gonna die

 

[neographikal]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

 

[buguguug]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

I don't want to sacrifice just so someone else can enjoy. Individual action for climate change can only do marginal improvement. The scale of the problem and the solution means we have to have regulation to share the burden.

 

[Dilbert]

HAHA, we're all gonna die

Yes we will.

What we are all doing to the environment is kind of like an individual smoking. No it won't kill you. Today. But it will kill you. Someday.

 

[Dilbert]

In other news, nuclear driven France has one of the lowest carbon emissions in Europe..
Go nuclear!

No one is stopping you.....

Pretty sure the dept of health, the FBI, and the NRC, are in fact stopping him.

 

[Shavano]

As the economy goes, so goes energy usage.

All the more reason to forge ahead with switching over to lower carbon emission energy sources.

Also oil is cheap and has been since 2015 and trending downward. Cheap oil ==> more miles driven and bigger vehicles.

I wish we'd find a way to encourage people to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles other than randomly fluctuating oil prices.

 

[Shavano]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

Carbon tax is probably the best answer.

 

[SixDegrees]

As the economy goes, so goes energy usage.

All the more reason to forge ahead with switching over to lower carbon emission energy sources.

Also oil is cheap and has been since 2015 and trending downward. Cheap oil ==> more miles driven and bigger vehicles.

I wish we'd find a way to encourage people to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles other than randomly fluctuating oil prices.

True, but that's at least somewhat counterbalanced by increased electric car sales.

 

[Dilbert]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

Carbon tax is probably the best answer.

Logically sure. If they don't care make a financial incentive to make them care. That approach has been proven wildly successful.

But carbon tax got turned into a political dog whistle. If it were to be implemented it'd need to be renamed. Preferably something not 'taxes'.

 

[spitz!!]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

If you're willing to ditch your major appliances, what do you have left?

Lighting and charging your portable devices and running a laptop and maybe a TV and the occasional power tool?

You can run the rest on 4x 100W panels in a purely DC system. This is how my cabin is set up and it's refreshing. I'd live there all year round if I could and I will when I retire.

 

[HiggsForce]

While there have been movements to decarbonize trucking, either with electric trucks or with fuel-cell vehicles, electric semis are not currently widely available.

At least for the long-distance travel, in ancient times a lot of these things used to move over twin strips of iron laid throughout the country, with no direct emissions if electrified. If only we still had the business and organizational structure under which we could still readily use such technology instead of most of the trucks you see on the long-haul interstates today....

 

[Dilbert]

While there have been movements to decarbonize trucking, either with electric trucks or with fuel-cell vehicles, electric semis are not currently widely available.

At least for the long-distance travel, in ancient times a lot of these things used to move over twin strips of iron laid throughout the country, with no direct emissions if electrified. If only we still had the business and organizational structure under which we could still readily use such technology instead of most of the trucks you see on the long-haul interstates today....

What's really shocking is that our railways aren't even electrified. Still diesel electric locomotives pulling freight trains in year 2019, plus like you said diesel long haul trucks. Yes USA is big compared to countries that have electrified their railways. But come on we've had a 100 years to get it done!

 

[flash2010]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

Rightly or wrongly, expecting people to cut their living standards to save the planet is a non-starter. If that is what we need to save the planet, we are all going to die.

But then you go on to contradict yourself - you got a heat pump, solar panels and an electric motorbike to maintain your living standards, didn't you? This is the only real solution going forward - creating options to reduce our carbon footprint whilst maintaining or improving living standards.

 

[spitz!!]

While there have been movements to decarbonize trucking, either with electric trucks or with fuel-cell vehicles, electric semis are not currently widely available.

At least for the long-distance travel, in ancient times a lot of these things used to move over twin strips of iron laid throughout the country, with no direct emissions if electrified. If only we still had the business and organizational structure under which we could still readily use such technology instead of most of the trucks you see on the long-haul interstates today....

What's really shocking is that our railways aren't even electrified. Still diesel electric locomotives pulling freight trains in year 2019, plus like you said diesel long haul trucks. Yes USA is big compared to countries that have electrified their railways. But come on we've had a 100 years to get it done!

We also didn't have the unique opportunity following WWII to rebuild all of our infrastructure to accommodate this.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

Carbon tax is probably the best answer.

Logically sure. If they don't care make a financial incentive to make them care. That approach has been proven wildly successful.

But carbon tax got turned into a political dog whistle. If it were to be implemented it'd need to be renamed. Preferably something not 'taxes'.

Call them something 'merican like "freedom incentives" or the like.

 

[SLee]

While there have been movements to decarbonize trucking, either with electric trucks or with fuel-cell vehicles, electric semis are not currently widely available.

At least for the long-distance travel, in ancient times a lot of these things used to move over twin strips of iron laid throughout the country, with no direct emissions if electrified. If only we still had the business and organizational structure under which we could still readily use such technology instead of most of the trucks you see on the long-haul interstates today....

The US is pretty good at rail freight transport, the split is about 2.9 trillion tonnes-km by road vs 2.3 trillion tonnes-km by rail.

https://www.bts.gov/content/us-tonne-ki ... tabulation

The EU-28 by comparison is about 1.9 trillion tonnes-km by road vs 0.4 trillion tonnes-km by rail.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... utive_year

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... statistics

 

[spitz!!]

1. The Federal government simply needs to mandate that every US utility provide at least 50% of its electricity through carbon neutral resources (nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelect, etc.) by 2025 and 90% by the year 2030.

This will require an operating government I suspect.

 

[AdamM]

While there have been movements to decarbonize trucking, either with electric trucks or with fuel-cell vehicles, electric semis are not currently widely available.

At least for the long-distance travel, in ancient times a lot of these things used to move over twin strips of iron laid throughout the country, with no direct emissions if electrified. If only we still had the business and organizational structure under which we could still readily use such technology instead of most of the trucks you see on the long-haul interstates today....

US rail infrastructure in terms of cargo is robust and used heavily. However, rail is shitty for the last mile.

 

[txviking]

Either 2018 was the biggest increase in the past 20 years or 2010 was. It can't be both. This is sloppy editing, Ars.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

I'm not saying this is the main cause, but it's worth looking at electric cars. Instead of ICE running directly on fossil fuels, we're plugging them into the power grid. That energy has to come from somewhere.

The volume of electrics has grown considerably in the last few years, and all we've done is relocate where the GHG are coming from.

Added: And the dogpile buries begin.

So you think there's no efficiencies gained from using central power generation compared to hundreds of millions of individual ICEs?

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

Either 2018 was the biggest increase in the past 20 years or 2010 was. It can't be both. This is sloppy editing, Ars.

the second-largest annual increase in 20 years, according to Rhodium Group's preliminary data. (2010, when the US started recovering from the recession, was the largest annual increase in the last two decades.)

It isn't both. Did the article say something different before you posted your comment?

 

[AdamM]

1. The Federal government simply needs to mandate that every US utility provide at least 50% of its electricity through carbon neutral resources (nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelect, etc.) by 2025 and 90% by the year 2030.

This will require an operating government I suspect.

I always assume when people say simply in regards to the US government doing something I assume they think it operates in a vacuum without any political considerations. I mean if everyone was on the same page then yeah sure, but by damn people will shoot shit down just because the other party supports it.

 

[Biceps]

I think that air travel is somewhere where companies can make a big impact. My current employer will fly all the salespeople from all over the country to our HQ several times a year. In fact every sales organization I have worked with does this.

The thing is with these conferences, which are typically modelled as "sales training" or something like that, are generally a huge waste of everyone's time. None of the salespeople want to go, no one enjoys it, sales workshops are usually pointless and focused on the lowest common denominator, so few people learn anything of value.

Stop pointless conferences: save time, money, aggravation, and the planet all at once. Everyone wins.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Everyone is talking how they want to do better, but nobody seems to be willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. Everybody wants their cheap airplane tickets, large cars and no effects on their living standards.

Almost the true definition of unobtanium with an increasing world population. As much as we need renewables we need a change in our behaviors first. But where's the fun in that? It's maddening that people won't admit it they don't want to impact their lives. It's all talk.

While not the ideal solution, at least I got a heat pump, 9500wp of solar panels and an electric motorbike and if you tell people they are looking like you're from Mars..even when they have three kids while I got none. You would think they would be the ones worrying about the future because of the kids.

The world is a strange place.

I could install geothermal and have some sort of energy setup to get it from wind, cause the sun don't shine enough for what I need. But that's 20k for starters. :/

Or I burn natural gas. Around 140 therms a month.

 

[thearcher]

I'm not saying this is the main cause, but it's worth looking at electric cars. Instead of ICE running directly on fossil fuels, we're plugging them into the power grid. That energy has to come from somewhere.

The volume of electrics has grown considerably in the last few years, and all we've done is relocate where the GHG are coming from.

Added: And the dogpile buries begin.

You're not being dog-piled for no reason: you're being shot down because your information is inaccurate. The ICE is extremely inefficient. This means it uses a lot of fuel, generating a lot of exhaust, for only some gain. NatGas plants + electric motors are more efficient, which means less exhaust for the gain. In addition, some of the folks getting EVs are getting PV to power the EV, which means no exhaust at all. The study below shows that, in states with "high carbon" electricity generation, the EV still generates 10% less GHGs than an ICE. If we get to "low carbon" generation, charging EVs generates 75% less emissions. And if we reach the 100% renewable paradise, we get a 100% emissions reduction.

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publica ... impact.pdf

In the short term, charging from a power plant also has the benefit of significantly reducing particulate pollution (either due to the plant using cleaner fuel or having emissions scrubbing). That, in turn, reduces smog & health problems, which reduces healthcare costs.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

I prefer prosperity. Which has always been fueled by energy consumption. That will continue and only the mix will change. There is no dire need of forcing functions outside of economics.

This is incredibly dumb. Mississippi uses more than two and half times as much energy per capita than California, yet has about half the GDP per capita. Prosperity comes from using resources wisely, not being wasteful.

 

[neographikal]

But then you go on to contradict yourself - you got a heat pump, solar panels and an electric motorbike to maintain your living standards, didn't you? This is the only real solution going forward - creating options to reduce our carbon footprint whilst maintaining or improving living standards.

Could I do with less? Sure. I'm not living like a monk, but there is not much excessive use, made a few choices.

I'm generating a negative carbon footprint if I'm counting all my primary energy usage (conservative heating in a well insulated home, transportation, electricity), not including the products I'm using (very difficult). The only valid way to fix this last one and make consumers aware of their choices is a decent carbon tax (say 50-75 euro/ton CO2).

Could it be better? Yes! But it's better than 98+% of what The Netherlands is doing.

 

[thearcher]

I prefer prosperity. Which has always been fueled by energy consumption. That will continue and only the mix will change. There is no dire need of forcing functions outside of economics.

Prosperity using fossil fuels over the next twenty years pretty much guarantees that future Americans humans have no future. I wouldn't call that prosperity.

We can, however, switch while attempting to keep our current level of prosperity. It's at least worth the effort. It just means we have to stop hiding how much a gallon of gas really costs. And if some of the more prosperous need to lose some prosperity, they have only themselves to blame for listening to the anti-science folks for so long.

 

[spitz!!]

But then you go on to contradict yourself - you got a heat pump, solar panels and an electric motorbike to maintain your living standards, didn't you? This is the only real solution going forward - creating options to reduce our carbon footprint whilst maintaining or improving living standards.

Could I do with less? Sure. I'm not living like a monk, but there is not much excessive use, made a few choices.

I'm generating a negative carbon footprint if I'm counting all my primary energy usage (conservative heating in a well insulated home, transportation, electricity), not including the products I'm using (very difficult). The only valid way to fix this last one and make consumers aware of their choices is a decent carbon tax (say 50-75 euro/ton CO2).

Taking the electric bicycle (first choice, 4000kmh/year), electric motorbike (second, 10k km/year? charged primarily by solar), car (third but 4.5l/100kmh @ 2000kmh/year) or public transport and no plains are my choices.

Could it be better? Yes! But it's better than 98+% of what The Netherlands is doing.

Heating is really the kicker with this.

AC isn't necessary even in someplace like AZ if the house is built with this in mind (situated N/S, screened windows, ventilation fans, etc). If you can forego stuff like a dish and clothes washer, etc. use a clothes line, the rest can be covered with a very small solar/wind system or even micro-hydro.

Burning wood can be considered carbon-neutral depending on your POV, and I know that's an unpopular opinion. And I'm going to say it, but a modern coal-burning stove with emissions equipment is cleaner than a diesel fueled furnace. That sounds backward but it's reality.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

The zombie apocalypse is real, just not in the way we imagined. Instead, it's in the form of humanity-attacking, comes-back-from the dead brainless lies, like the science denial disease Jackyl3 is attempting to transmit.