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

 

[sorten]

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.

Exactly. And it simplifies the process of improving the efficiency of transportation. It's easier to convert 100s or 1000s of power plants than it is to wait for 150M cars to age out of the market.

 

[gamerk2]

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.

Set a $4/Gallon price floor.

 

[Lachlan]

I see two ways to improve the situation, if the US is willing to invest.

High speed rail, local rail, improved rapid transit. Let's reduce our short haul flights and get people out their cars.

Increase construction of nuclear/renewables to cover the increased electricity usage.

 

[leet]

Unfortunately most people have a negative view of nuclear power because the reactor designs have stagnated.

Nahh, actually, nuclear was ground to a halt in the U.S.A. because of the Green movement's scare tactics and propaganda.

Suuuuure. Nothing to do with the nuclear industry in the West being incapable of building a reactor without going at least 200% over budget on both dollars and timeline. If they complete the reactors at all.

Sure, but the Greens bear a big chunk of blame too.

Germany’s reactors were already built. but, noooo, had to shut them down and replace w brown coal.

Ditto France’s recent announcement of less nuclear.

any new reactor would get challenged in the US. IIRC they even shot down a high power transmission line in desert (just where scale solar is best). endangered turtles and no blood signature that it would never carry fossil leccy.

In BC these morons have been trying to shut down a major hydro dam project for decades. Same thing with run of river microdams. We haven’t built any wind turbines here, partially due to endless environmental assessments.

Global warming is just too dangerous to leave romantic and numerically illiterate Greens in charge to push a model of economy and consumption that no voter majority will ever support.

We had a referendum on voting reform here, strongly supported by the Greens to move to PR which would have given them disproportionate say in policy. Defeated 61% to 39, thank God

No, they don’t. If nuclear can’t compete economically the greens have nothing to do with that.

 

[yd]

Tell 2nd place donnie there is a national (and global emergency) and he can get 5 billion.....for fusion research. Does that help?

 

[Luddite Curmudgeon]

I see two ways to improve the situation, if the US is willing to invest.

High speed rail, local rail, improved rapid transit. Let's reduce our short haul flights and get people out their cars.

Increase construction of nuclear/renewables to cover the increased electricity usage.

Because of the crap we have to go through at the airports, I went from flying on business trips to driving. As long as it was within a day's drive (say 8-9 hours), I'll drive. The cost was lower as well, based on the guidance and Government rates, it could be up to $100 or more less. Plus, if the travel day is late in the week or a Friday, I could have a short vacation over the weekend as well.

 

[Fatesrider]

As the economy goes, so goes energy usage.

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

Well, considering all the economic signs are pointing at a down-turn in the economy, we may be in store for brighter ecological news in the near future.

 

[Dilbert]

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.

Yes heating, indoors and water! heater, and to a lesser degree kitchen stove and oven, use the most power. But AC does too. Have you been to AZ?! It can be 85 overnight and 110 during the day. That's miserable without AC. Yes yes people should move etc... they aren't moving from flood plains they aren't going to move out of AZ.

 

[omarsidd]

Persistently low petro prices make it hard to motivate lazy consumers to be more efficient without a solid regulatory framework. That makes America a hard place to get people to do the right thing, as we see here...

(and we know fossil fuel prices are artificially low since they don't price in risk and damage from climate change and other environmental issues that effectively become a tax on everybody)

 

[Triarius]

Unfortunately most people have a negative view of nuclear power because the reactor designs have stagnated.

Nahh, actually, nuclear was ground to a halt in the U.S.A. because of the Green movement's scare tactics and propaganda.

Suuuuure. Nothing to do with the nuclear industry in the West being incapable of building a reactor without going at least 200% over budget on both dollars and timeline. If they complete the reactors at all.

Sure, but the Greens bear a big chunk of blame too.

Germany’s reactors were already built. but, noooo, had to shut them down and replace w brown coal.

Ditto France’s recent announcement of less nuclear.

any new reactor would get challenged in the US. IIRC they even shot down a high power transmission line in desert (just where scale solar is best). endangered turtles and no blood signature that it would never carry fossil leccy.

In BC these morons have been trying to shut down a major hydro dam project for decades. Same thing with run of river microdams. We haven’t built any wind turbines here, partially due to endless environmental assessments.

Global warming is just too dangerous to leave romantic and numerically illiterate Greens in charge to push a model of economy and consumption that no voter majority will ever support.

We had a referendum on voting reform here, strongly supported by the Greens to move to PR which would have given them disproportionate say in policy. Defeated 61% to 39, thank God

No, they don’t. If nuclear can’t compete economically the greens have nothing to do with that.

one of the major problems with nukes is the unpredictability of the approval cycle and financing debts while your system is sitting idle working through NIMBY lawsuits.

it’s not the only problem with nuclear. far from. but Green hysteria, including opposition to long term storage in places like Yuma, does play a significant part.

Did you also notice my examples included cases where the costs had already been paid for? No?

Sorry, nukes or no nukes, I don’t much like mainstream Greens. There are signs of brain activity amongst them like realizing that nukes or engineered GMO crops may be necessary. But by and large they’re so far not a solution. And that includes dumb statements like “the planet can only carry 500m humans”.

carbon taxes FTW.

YMMV

 

[MarkR_]

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.

yup. last time I remarked here that individual behavior had an impact, I was roundly put back in my place by someone arguing it was out of our hands and government/regulating corporations was the only way.

elective jet travel is _highly_ under each individual’s control and is the quickest way to emit lots. smaller cars. minimizing leccy use.

lots of this _saves_ $ too.

but, no, all everyone else’s fault.

Look at the reaction even the most ardent environmentalist will elicit when you suggest to cut back on eating beef. It's easier to tell other people how to behave than making small changes with themselves.

Which is weird, because I've found it pretty easy to carbon budget. It's so simple that it takes most people months to years to realise that I'm doing it because my life mostly looks normal. It's usually when I do something like order a veggie burger with bacon or say I can't make a weekend trip that needs a cross country flight.

I know other people who basically do the same thing but don't kick up a fuss about it.

 

[MarkR_]

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.

Set a $4/Gallon price floor.

Why $4 though?

I don't like arbitrary numbers picked and forced on us by governments. I'd rather petrol taxes pay the full price of building & maintaining roads though. And for the pollution's effect on healthcare costs plus global warming. And for zoning laws etc to stop favouring cars only by forcing huge amounts of ground level parking everywhere.

I can see why taxpayers who don't drive massive trucks get annoyed with how their taxes, insurance costs etc all subsidise people who do choose to drive massive trucks.

 

[Faanchou]

Set a $4/Gallon price floor.

Why $4 though?

Why not? The cheapest gas we have in Finland (95E) is 1.419€/l ($6.14/gal) at the moment.

I'd hope to see you going for $6/gal but I don't think that's likely.

 

[XavierItzmann]

It was only in the late 1970's that personal computing devices were so expensive they were scarcely a dream, let alone having multiple computers for every worker.

Now these are extremely affordable and thousands of times more powerful.

Actually, you just brought up the #1 example of a canonically unregulated industry, hence, progress, and consequent cheapness.

Q.E.D.

 

[dcp123]

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.

Fuel oil and coal are both terrible heat sources, whether you care about global warming, particulate pollution killing people, or both.

There are better options, like a heat pump and the purchase of of low-carbon power.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

impossible to build something like a new plant in the US even if the will was there.

Funny, the will was there to go from nearly zero to 700 TW/h from 1970 to 1990, in the same U.S.A.

What changed? O yeah, a bunch of Greenie hysteria and propaganda.

No wonder there is no will.

Nuclear wasn't killed by "the greenies" (sic); it was killed by the accountants.

 

[joydashy]

This is so depressing. When will Americans revolt and overthrow this fascist government? Even America needs Earth to survive.

 

[dcp123]

Unfortunately most people have a negative view of nuclear power because the reactor designs have stagnated.

Nahh, actually, nuclear was ground to a halt in the U.S.A. because of the Green movement's scare tactics and propaganda.

Suuuuure. Nothing to do with the nuclear industry in the West being incapable of building a reactor without going at least 200% over budget on both dollars and timeline. If they complete the reactors at all.

Sure, but the Greens bear a big chunk of blame too.

Germany’s reactors were already built. but, noooo, had to shut them down and replace w brown coal.

Ditto France’s recent announcement of less nuclear.

any new reactor would get challenged in the US. IIRC they even shot down a high power transmission line in desert (just where scale solar is best). endangered turtles and no blood signature that it would never carry fossil leccy.

In BC these morons have been trying to shut down a major hydro dam project for decades. Same thing with run of river microdams. We haven’t built any wind turbines here, partially due to endless environmental assessments.

Global warming is just too dangerous to leave romantic and numerically illiterate Greens in charge to push a model of economy and consumption that no voter majority will ever support.

We had a referendum on voting reform here, strongly supported by the Greens to move to PR which would have given them disproportionate say in policy. Defeated 61% to 39, thank God

Closing finished operational nuclear plants is almost always economically and environmentally a terrible idea. Building new ones is always economically terrible and is always environmentally worse than spending the same amount of money on renewable power generation facilities.

 

[Azethoth666]

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 got a Tesla, so I am partly doing my part. I also recycle. Condo though so solar and other home based options are out.

 

[Azethoth666]

This is so depressing. When will Americans revolt and overthrow this fascist government? Even America needs Earth to survive.

Nobody is going to revolt. The government is not fascist. It is a duly elected democratic republic government with an electoral college system.

Watch the Hitler channel for a year. I mean History channel. That should make clear to you the difference between a real fucking Nazi and regular Americans. Jesus.

 

[AxMi-24]

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?

Strange how nobody applies that question to residential solar/batteries.

 

[Faanchou]

This is so depressing. When will Americans revolt and overthrow this fascist government? Even America needs Earth to survive.

Nobody is going to revolt. The government is not fascist. It is a duly elected democratic republic government with an electoral college system.

Watch the Hitler channel for a year. I mean History channel. That should make clear to you the difference between a real fucking Nazi and regular Americans. Jesus.

Hesus aside, what in that channel describes shutting down the entire federal government for three weeks or more?

 

[rcp27]

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

What these statistics don’t capture is the much higher share of the freight transport sector in the EU met by coastal and inland waterway shipping in the EU than the US. European industrial demand is better provisioned with access to sea and large river ports (Rhine, Danube etc) than a lot of The US.

Edit: fixed quote attribution error

 

[jonomacd]

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.

Unfortunately, getting people to change behavior is very hard/impossible. Especially if it means they are sacrificing something. Personally, I think we need technical and regulatory solutions because of this. I applaud your effort and wish more people were like you... But I recognize that they are not.

 

[erikengh]

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.

The heart of the problem is that people keep framing the challenge the way you do. You make it into a question of individual choice. This approach to environmentalism has been an utter failure.

Companies and policy makers love this approach to the environment, because it allows them to pin the blame on regular people for lack of progress.

Low-tech magazine has a good counter point to this mindset: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/07 ... elves.html

A great example I think is how it is in an individual choice to buy a bike. However I cannot as an individual consumer go into a store and buy great bike infrastructure. That explain why I never bike in my native Oslo, Norway, while I biked for over 1 hour every day while I lived in the Netherlands.

The amazing bike infrastructure they had built up on the Netherlands over many years through deliberate policy made it an absolute joy to bike there. You got where you want both fast and safe.

Fixing the climate requires COLLECTIVE action. People must band together to solve the problem. Individualism suffers from the problem of the tragedy of the commons. Nobody wants be the sucker doing all the work while others are free loaders.

It doesn't mean individualism is entirely gone, you can still chose whether you want to bike and what bike to use. In my native Norway we made the collective choice of giving major benefits to electric cars. Still we made it an individual choice whether to buy and electric car, and which one. Still it is the collective actions which lowered the barrier and made the choice more attractive.

Take the airline business. I love to travel. But green alternative choices are not going to materialize unless regulations promote it. Airplane fuel needs to be taxed more heavily but that requires global agreements. With higher fuel taxes it will become more economical with biofuels, electrofuels or alternative forms of aviation such as Zeppelins (which require significantly less fuel).

Right now as a consumer, I cannot make the choice that my airplane should run on electrofuel/biofuel.

 

[erikengh]

This is so depressing. When will Americans revolt and overthrow this fascist government? Even America needs Earth to survive.

Nobody is going to revolt. The government is not fascist. It is a duly elected democratic republic government with an electoral college system.

Watch the Hitler channel for a year. I mean History channel. That should make clear to you the difference between a real fucking Nazi and regular Americans. Jesus.

How much have you actually watched? Do you know Germany was a democracy, the Weimar republic. Hitler won elections as the largest party, and became chancellor. It was through gradual undermining of democratic institutions that Hitler became a dictator. While Trump is too incompetent to become dictator he is too busy undermining democratic institutions in the US.

He is using much the same tactic against the critical press as the German Nazis used. They also called everything they didn't like fake news, and promoted attack on journalists.

Trump is even luckier than Hitler having an existing news network, FOX News, which are willingly playing the role as his propaganda outlet. Who needs Goebbels when you got Rupert Murdoch.

Still I am an optimist. But only due to the sheer stupidity and incompetence of Donald Trump. Hitler was a far more intelligent man and had a much stronger and more streamlined organization to push through his agenda. Trump has no working organization. It is a one man circus show. But there is a real danger than someone intelligent will use the power vacuum he leaves and step up to take advantage of the situation.

Trump is a useful idiot readying the ground for a real Hitler. But as long as Americans keep fighting Trump, it will not succeed.

 

[Steven N]

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.

That's all nice in theory, but it's slightly more complicated than that, and it starts with disposable income.

I would love to make investments to lower my CO2 burden on the environment, but if the money isn't there, then it's nothing but daydreams and wishful thinking.

I just ordered 2500L of fuel for my heater, it has cost me €1500... Adding a carbon tax would add between €100-150 to that bill (2500L petrol is good for 1,8T of C02). So that's a cost increase of 10% to only heat my house... Add to that that due to that carbon tax, the overall cost of living is going to increase because prices are bound to go up, since carbon emission are produced no matter what we do. So I may be looking at an increase cost of living of around 5% (my guesstimate, could be more, could be less)

At this moment I am able to save around 5% of what I make, savings I do to invest into reducing my environmental impact and save on my energy costs... So add a carbon tax and byebye being able to invest into better tech...
I could of course try to do without heating for 4 years, and then I may start considering to replace my fuel heater with a gas heater (heater+installation of gas at my house), which would allow me to save a bit again, but I think it's already chilly enough to live in a house that is at 19°...
(Reason for this situation: recently divorced, I kept the house, ex kept the savings that were put aside to invest in the house)

And I am not doing so bad, I consider myself to have a fairly middle-class income (which in turn causes that I cannot apply for grants for the investments). But I can imagine what impact this could have on people who are not as fortunate... it would put a lot of people in utter misery and it would practically have zero impact on the environment.

And no, I am not cheering for a status quo, something needs to be done, but there are no easy solutions...

 

[arcite]

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

Also, three nuclear reactors come online in the past month, france, Finland, and China. Plus, final test and startup of new reactors in UAE is commencing.

 

[tucu]

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

Also, three nuclear reactors come online in the past month, france, Finland, and China. Plus, final test and startup of new reactors in UAE is commencing.

Olkiluoto 3 regular electricity generation has been delayed to Jan 2020 while Flamanville 3 was delayed at least until 2020.

 

[cpragman]

I couldn’t find any mention in the Rhodium report of the recent nuclear plant shutdowns and the impact that has had in CO2 production

 

[joncaplan]

While many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, and reduced the number of plants that were built, nuclear power has failed largely on economic grounds. The plants are very capital intensive to build and take a decade to construct. These days other generating options are simply much cheaper. These cheaper options include natural gas as well as wind, which tend to compliment each other well.

I agree that nuclear is not now cheap.

Have you considered that over-regulation (driven by scare tactics) might have something to do with it?

It was only in the late 1970's that a long distance call was expensive enough that many people thought twice about it and that airline travel was a luxury much of the population saw as a dream.

Now these are free or very affordable. Maybe these two were over-regulated at some point?

I see you got down-voted for posting a sincere question. I don't believe that regulation has been the primary cost driver for nuclear plant costs. Instead the inherent complexity of the technology has been the primary issue. A nuclear generating station is quite a complex beast, with plumbing and wiring at a massive scale, leading to high costs in development, construction, operations and maintenance. This high cost of operations and maintenance has lead to the closure of some nuclear plants in the US before their licences expired.

I would also note that while we have benefited from deregulation in industries such as phones and airlines, this deregulation was a relaxation of economic constraints, rather than safety constraints.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

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

More like "Go France!"

Nuclear can't work in a country with dysfunctional politics, like the US. Nuclear needs competent regulation.

In other news, this transportation thing isn't my fault. Our family drives a Chevy Bolt.

 

[DepressedRobot]

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.

And of course Mississippi and California are identical in every way except for GDP output. /s

Mind sharing your info source? Do they address climate, industries, population concentration, and all the other things that drive energy usage in an economy?

For starters, there are millions of housing units in California that have no air conditioning due to the climate allowing for such.

 

[Statistical]

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.

I never claimed EVs weren't more efficient and that there weren't efficiencies with NG + EV. I'm sure there are, BUT it's not a panacea. You said it yourself: states with high carbon generation only reduce emissions by 10% which means it's still like 90% of an ICE. It's better, but not ideal.

Many states are considerably lower carbon power generation, and yes, as renewables increase the numbers will improve. However, as I said, at this particular point in time, a significant share of the electricity needed to charge these vehicles is being offloaded to a carbon-heavy power generation grid.

I'm sorry if that's inconvenient, but it's true. And, again, I'm not saying that explains the 3.4% emissions rise, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't a factor at the current juncture.

90% is less than 100%. EV are a net reduction in carbon emissions anywhere from a small net reduction to a huge net reduction. They are not a net increase. So moving to vehicles with a net reduction is no part of the factor for a 3.4% increase.

It would be like saying well Prius still uses gas for rising sales for Priuses is probably why emissions have increased.

 

[DepressedRobot]

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 agree. Only rich people that can afford expensive air travel should be allowed to see their families and take vacations and all the other things accomplished with air travel . Everyone else should be locked in their homes.

These arguments are always so awesome. "Hey, I have money and no kids, everyone should be like me."

 

[ProgessDaily]

How is this a thing still!? We need to ban all fossil fuels and other sources that can cause damage to the planet already. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be using anything that damages the environment...It's 2019 after all!

 

[DepressedRobot]

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

More like "Go France!"

Nuclear can't work in a country with dysfunctional politics, like the US. Nuclear needs competent regulation.

In other news, this transportation thing isn't my fault. Our family drives a Chevy Bolt.

Agree. The US should strive for a 10% unemployment rate and reduce GDP per capita by about 30% to be more like France.

EDIT: And you're implying France has functional politics. Now that's just hilarious.

 

[DepressedRobot]

How is this a thing still!? We need to ban all fossil fuels and other sources that can cause damage to the planet already. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be using anything that damages the environment...It's 2019 after all!

Says the person that has no clue how the world works.

 

[DepressedRobot]

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.

Find a way? Europe figured this out decades ago. Tax the holy crap out of petrol to fund public transport.

 

[peragrin]

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.

Not really the GP has those things because he doesn't have kids.

he doesn't set aside $12,000 yearly for day care. he doesn't spend money for extra food, clothes, etc.

without kids, he can afford to have all sorts of stuff that is just out of reach for most of us.

A carbon Tax just shifts the issue to people who don't have the resources or locations to upgrade.

I can't have solar on my house. live in a historical district, and my house faces the wrong direction. I can't have a heat pump as my house sits on a giant piece of granite. My house turns 150 years old this year. And while it has been updated with modern windows, and insulation. it will never be updated to that sort of spec.