Political Roundtable Part XXIII

[Induveca]

And getting back to the point on climate change - if we can move the needle in a reasonable fashion you do so...

If it is a super expensive issue - you table it for now and wait for better technology.

Keeping open coal burning plants when they could be switched over to natural gas is the epidemy of stupidity.

Not being 100% rah-rah on climate change doesn’t mean I don’t see that natural gas is better for human health. I don’t even consider that a climate change issue, that’s purely a political and economic issue.

The fight to secure the contracts to 100% replace existing coal plants with gas would be a political, lobbying and corporate slug fest.

What governors are going to take the hit without a fight? Who lobbies quickest for which companies for the contracts? How do you compensate the companies running the 1300 coal plants currently? How long would the legal battles last?

By all means whoever can take that on, go for it. Sadly it’s complete gridlock in DC. And *both* sides of the aisle rely heavily on energy company jobs. Not an easy feat.

But yes in an utopian vacuum we should switch them over tomorrow. So should India and China (as they produce 1000x more coal pollutants), but they’re not going to slam the brakes on their economy.

Moving from coal to gas is both environmental and economic - and it was well on its way to happening before this administration (stupidly) threw on the brakes.

Coal was already down to 39% of U.S. electricity in 2014, 32% in 2015, 29% in 2016 and then we had this administration

There were roughly 1300 active coal plants in 2010.

Today?

1150. That’s not much of a decrease, about 1 a month. Agreed it’s going away but let’s not pretend it was on a rapid schedule prior to 2016. Coal use is predicted at 19% in the year 2050 by The Union of Concerned Scientists (major climate change board).

The major reason coal plants was retiring for natural gas was the huge rise in fracking. But interesting read:

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/bombshell-study-proves-fracking-actually-fuels-global-warming-bc530e20bedc/amp/

And an abstract from Science Magazine showing natural gas emissions were underestimated by 60%, and the natural gas choice with existing systems has been a major mistake completely ignored and would cost tens of billions to replace existing systems to bring that down any substantial amount.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186

Natural gas extraction is apparently just as bad as coal for global warming. Yet another changing variable.

[dckingsfan]

Not being 100% rah-rah on climate change doesn’t mean I don’t see that natural gas is better for human health. I don’t even consider that a climate change issue, that’s purely a political and economic issue.

The fight to secure the contracts to 100% replace existing coal plants with gas would be a political, lobbying and corporate slug fest.

What governors are going to take the hit without a fight? Who lobbies quickest for which companies for the contracts? How do you compensate the companies running the 1300 coal plants currently? How long would the legal battles last?

By all means whoever can take that on, go for it. Sadly it’s complete gridlock in DC. And *both* sides of the aisle rely heavily on energy company jobs. Not an easy feat.

But yes in an utopian vacuum we should switch them over tomorrow. So should India and China (as they produce 1000x more coal pollutants), but they’re not going to slam the brakes on their economy.

Moving from coal to gas is both environmental and economic - and it was well on its way to happening before this administration (stupidly) threw on the brakes.

Coal was already down to 39% of U.S. electricity in 2014, 32% in 2015, 29% in 2016 and then we had this administration

There were roughly 1300 active coal plants in 2010.

Today?

1150. That’s not much of a decrease, about 1 a month. Agreed it’s going away but let’s not pretend it was on a rapid schedule prior to 2016. Coal use is predicted at 19% in the year 2050 by The Union of Concerned Scientists (major climate change board).

The major reason coal plants was retiring for natural gas was the huge rise in fracking. But interesting read:

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/bombshell-study-proves-fracking-actually-fuels-global-warming-bc530e20bedc/amp/

Natural gas extraction is apparently just as bad as coal for global warming. Yet another changing variable.

First - Kimmell would love that you are posting... his assertion is that we should move away from both quickly. So, it is interesting that you would cite someone that deeply believes in investing 50 years forward - just saying. Side note, Federation of American Scientists (and my friend that ran the organization) got pummeled over the long haul by the Union of Concerned Scientists. An interesting marketing discussion could be had about the competition between the two organizations.

But Kimmell wouldn't say that gas is as bad for the environment as coal. And he certainly wouldn't argue that coal mining is a beneficial human endeavor.

But your point stands... kind of. Trump defending coal is still ridiculously stupid... and not letting the coal plants shut is just as silly.

BTW, coal plants running doesn't equate to the kW⋅h generated... they are winding down - hence not running at full capacity because they are more expensive to operate.

[Induveca]

DCK, my major point is for all the talk of consensus and 100 year plans this type of major shift 15 years after a declaration of “move to gas”. Now natural gas is nearly as bad for the environment as coal apparently. If that 60% miscalculation is actually 70%? By their scientific analysis it’s far worse. And the cost to create “clean” gas extractors for replacement of existing systems is in the tens of billions.

But since we’re 15 years down the path of fracking and beginning a switchover? The gas companies are in control now, not science. Maybe much like “clean coal” we’ll now get a wonderful price increase via “clean natural gas” technologies.

Of course, to save us all from imminent doom of their ever so precise data.

Also I added a Science Magazine study in my previous post from a large panel of scientists from June of this year declaring the natural gas path could now apparently be “disastrous” due to the oversight.

As for that group, I’m sure their data is correct today. I doubt they had the tools to detect this issue 15 years ago when gas was so eagerly embraced. They’ve set off with a backtested algorithm which now has been proven false.

I wish them luck creating a new algorithm to solve the problem. But if the consensus of scientists to use natural gas was thus far off, sadly plenty of other variables are as well. Both on the solution algorithm *and* backtested climate data.

This is my only argument against climate change, the backtested data is miniscule and incomplete. Also due to the “complete consensus” (science is never solved) this type of thing occurs.

[dckingsfan]

Sorry, I missed your point. Is your point that we tried and missed and now need to try again? Or is your point that we will inevitably miss so shouldn't try at all?

And while all that was happening, we are (as a planet) increasing our use of renewable energy.

So instead of firing those that are trying to change us long-term. Possibly we should eliminate those that are blocking the change? Isn't that the intelligent (although not politically expedient) thing to do?

[Induveca]

Sorry, I missed your point. Is your point that we tried and missed and now need to try again? Or is your point that we will inevitably miss so shouldn't try at all?

And while all that was happening, we are (as a planet) increasing our use of renewable energy.

So instead of firing those that are trying to change us long-term. Possibly we should eliminate those that are blocking the change? Isn't that the intelligent (although not politically expedient) thing to do?

Well I do believe if the world was serious about this problem, fracking would immediately cease until an extremely efficient extraction mechanism was developed to contain the 60% extra methane.

Will that happen? No. What will happen is this “problem” will fly under the radar and the oil/gas industry will redouble efforts.

I hope I’m wrong and major fracking equipment manufacturers are already working to drastically reduce this issue. However if you’ve ever been to Midlands Texas, you’d know the entire area smells of methane. You’d also know the town is full of scientists in the commercial buildings, all oil and gas employees. The levels being released have been known for a long time.

Sounds like regulation needs to be passed, which goes back to the pit of lobbyists, partisanship, and DC gridlock.

I’ve read far more on this issue than I have in some time, I have no issue moving to wind/solar. But seeing the climate change folks being so invested (literally and figuratively) specifically in fracking threw me for a bit of a loop.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/

Fracking is now commonplace in a China, India etc etc as well. Seems like oil and gas somehow tricked the main climate change pushers, or the investments caused people like Gore to clam up. Either way it’s a sham.

That being said, I do believe the financial viability for all affordable modes are solid. But I don’t trust the climate model data, the backtest is tiny and ignores historical patterns. And fracking certainly isn’t the answer, still shocks me that was a main basis for a “solution”.

[stilldropin20]

Over 95% of the carbon emissions are from 3rd world countries and China. Wake me up when they regulate or go renewable.

Which will lead us to batteries that bring their own environmental toxicities.

And the elephant in the room remains food sources versus population growth. The current rate of population growth we will run out of food in about 100 years unless we drastically change the way we eat. And even then we will need to invent something that is likely unhealthy. Some type of protein infused Ramen that will lack Whole Foods and micro nutrients.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[stilldropin20]

Sorry, I missed your point. Is your point that we tried and missed and now need to try again? Or is your point that we will inevitably miss so shouldn't try at all?

And while all that was happening, we are (as a planet) increasing our use of renewable energy.

So instead of firing those that are trying to change us long-term. Possibly we should eliminate those that are blocking the change? Isn't that the intelligent (although not politically expedient) thing to do?

No. You didn’t miss his point. Which is very valid. We are still figuring this stuff out and the fear monger I g has mostly been wrong if not entirely wrong.

Since I’m the only one in this thread that appears to have studied Advanced physics, advanced chemistry, and advanced bio chemistry, and advanced material physics, as well as advanced electricity let me be clear:

Mother Earth and our surrounding stratosphere is extremely resilient and durable.

We must never forget that mass is neither created nor destroyed. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Conversions of energy and mass generally leads to losses of energy in the form of heat. Mother Earth cools itself and heats itself in somewhat regular intervals to tame internal (volcanoes) and external (asteroids) forces.

One more carbon dioxide is in the air plant life Flores to create more oxygen and consume that carbon dioxide.

I mean the planet is almost perfectly balanced and whether you believe in God or them billions and billions of years of evolution that perfectly balances our planet it doesn’t matter. Balanced it is.

My only concern for the planet is twofold.

1. we really are going to run out of food. And maphuckas gown git hungry.

2. The over abundance and seemingly permanent conversion of petrochemicals to polymers. And the presence of petrochemicals in our sea ports. <<—were phucking shxt up. Biodiversity will eventually clean up the petro, and almost everything else will biodegrade. no idea how we are going to address the plastics. But whatever it is will be really expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[AFM]

I told myself I wouldn't post in here since this thread makes me hate half of you, but we need to think of a way for Trump to deport Leonsis.

BUILD THE WALL! (around Greece)

[Wizardspride]

Moving story

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[dckingsfan]

... And fracking certainly isn’t the answer, still shocks me that was a main basis for a “solution”.

It isn't the "main" solution - it never has been. Did you look at the chart? Continue to push alternative energy options. The point is that you don't go backward - you don't go back to coal. Those aren't good jobs. Coal production is MUCH worse for the environment than gas. And yes, this administration should be jumping all over - a VERY doable endeavor. Seen anything from this administration?

Read the full text and you will see that there really isn't a question about which fuel sources is better - and there never was one about which is cheaper.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary

If you live in the San Fernando Valley - you don't reduce smog emissions from cars - this administration would have us go backward if they had a choice. Let me add, if the transportation sector switched to LNG we would cut carbon-monoxide emissions by 90 percent, carbon-dioxide by 25 and nitrogen-oxide by 50 percent.

This administration has no plan - no concept on how to move us forward... You can't have missed that in your time away?

Natural gas should be a bridge fuel between more polluting fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable energy. And each Administration should have a plan to get us there - this Administration has none.

Next.

[Induveca]

... And fracking certainly isn’t the answer, still shocks me that was a main basis for a “solution”.

It isn't the "main" solution - it never has been. Did you look at the chart? Continue to push alternative energy options. The point is that you don't go backward - you don't go back to coal. Those aren't good jobs. Coal production is MUCH worse for the environment than gas. And yes, this administration should be jumping all over - a VERY doable endeavor. Seen anything from this administration?

Read the full text and you will see that there really isn't a question about which fuel sources is better - and there never was one about which is cheaper.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary

If you live in the San Fernando Valley - you don't reduce smog emissions from cars - this administration would have us go backward if they had a choice. Let me add, if the transportation sector switched to LNG we would cut carbon-monoxide emissions by 90 percent, carbon-dioxide by 25 and nitrogen-oxide by 50 percent.

This administration has no plan - no concept on how to move us forward... You can't have missed that in your time away?

Natural gas should be a bridge fuel between more polluting fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable energy. And each Administration should have a plan to get us there - this Administration has none.

Next.

Disagree. Sure plans are great but it sure the hell isn’t fracking. And natural gas is most certainly their 50 year bridge. Solar/wind isn’t going to make a dent for many decades.

If the methane doesn’t come down from fracking, natural gas is now a negative. After that report I’m all for forced regulation reducing methane emissions.

Have you been to a fracking town or major site? It’s hard to even breathe. Seems like that should be the focus for next 5 years.

[CobraCommander]

Over 95% of the carbon emissions are from 3rd world countries and China. Wake me up when they regulate or go renewable.

Which will lead us to batteries that bring their own environmental toxicities.

And the elephant in the room remains food sources versus population growth. The current rate of population growth we will run out of food in about 100 years unless we drastically change the way we eat. And even then we will need to invent something that is likely unhealthy. Some type of protein infused Ramen that will lack Whole Foods and micro nutrients.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Get me those ‘food runs out stats’ ASAP....i have literally never heard that

[dckingsfan]

Over 95% of the carbon emissions are from 3rd world countries and China. Wake me up when they regulate or go renewable.

Which will lead us to batteries that bring their own environmental toxicities.

And the elephant in the room remains food sources versus population growth. The current rate of population growth we will run out of food in about 100 years unless we drastically change the way we eat. And even then we will need to invent something that is likely unhealthy. Some type of protein infused Ramen that will lack Whole Foods and micro nutrients.

Get me those ‘food runs out stats’ ASAP....i have literally never heard that

Wait - what? Well, there goes the 95% faux fact...

[dckingsfan]

... And fracking certainly isn’t the answer, still shocks me that was a main basis for a “solution”.

It isn't the "main" solution - it never has been. Did you look at the chart? Continue to push alternative energy options. The point is that you don't go backward - you don't go back to coal. Those aren't good jobs. Coal production is MUCH worse for the environment than gas. And yes, this administration should be jumping all over - a VERY doable endeavor. Seen anything from this administration?

Read the full text and you will see that there really isn't a question about which fuel sources is better - and there never was one about which is cheaper.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary

If you live in the San Fernando Valley - you don't reduce smog emissions from cars - this administration would have us go backward if they had a choice. Let me add, if the transportation sector switched to LNG we would cut carbon-monoxide emissions by 90 percent, carbon-dioxide by 25 and nitrogen-oxide by 50 percent.

This administration has no plan - no concept on how to move us forward... You can't have missed that in your time away?

Natural gas should be a bridge fuel between more polluting fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable energy. And each Administration should have a plan to get us there - this Administration has none.

Next.

Disagree. Sure plans are great but it sure the hell isn’t fracking. And natural gas is most certainly their 50 year bridge. Solar/wind isn’t going to make a dent for many decades.

If the methane doesn’t come down from fracking, natural gas is now a negative. After that report I’m all for forced regulation reducing methane emissions.

Have you been to a fracking town or major site? It’s hard to even breathe. Seems like that should be the focus for next 5 years.

1) LNG is already better than coal
2) It can be much better than coal if we reduce the methane admissions - this administration has no plan
3) Renewables are already making a dent (account for 10% of all energy) and are accelerating 10% year over year
4) Yes, I have been to towns where they do fracking - you are exaggerating - but your point is solid - we should continue to improve the technology. A terrific thing for government to do
5) Have a plan - don't suck

[dckingsfan]

This is where I was in '68 - we don't want to go back to that... the planning worked.

[Induveca]

It isn't the "main" solution - it never has been. Did you look at the chart? Continue to push alternative energy options. The point is that you don't go backward - you don't go back to coal. Those aren't good jobs. Coal production is MUCH worse for the environment than gas. And yes, this administration should be jumping all over - a VERY doable endeavor. Seen anything from this administration?

Read the full text and you will see that there really isn't a question about which fuel sources is better - and there never was one about which is cheaper.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary

If you live in the San Fernando Valley - you don't reduce smog emissions from cars - this administration would have us go backward if they had a choice. Let me add, if the transportation sector switched to LNG we would cut carbon-monoxide emissions by 90 percent, carbon-dioxide by 25 and nitrogen-oxide by 50 percent.

This administration has no plan - no concept on how to move us forward... You can't have missed that in your time away?

Natural gas should be a bridge fuel between more polluting fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable energy. And each Administration should have a plan to get us there - this Administration has none.

Next.

Disagree. Sure plans are great but it sure the hell isn’t fracking. And natural gas is most certainly their 50 year bridge. Solar/wind isn’t going to make a dent for many decades.

If the methane doesn’t come down from fracking, natural gas is now a negative. After that report I’m all for forced regulation reducing methane emissions.

Have you been to a fracking town or major site? It’s hard to even breathe. Seems like that should be the focus for next 5 years.

1) LNG is already better than coal
2) It can be much better than coal if we reduce the methane admissions - this administration has no plan
3) Renewables are already making a dent (account for 10% of all energy) and are accelerating 10% year over year
4) Yes, I have been to towns where they do fracking - you are exaggerating - but your point is solid - we should continue to improve the technology. A terrific thing for government to do
5) Have a plan - don't suck

More research it has nothing to do with the current administration. The past two have been completely inept on the fracking / natural gas issue:

https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-whats-that-smell-1881708319.html

I’m also not exaggerating about the smell, the chemicals that are shoved into the ground seep out all over. I bought/renovated some commercial property in Midlands Texas years ago and on certain days it was tough to breathe. Many people walk around with surgical masks.l in Midlands ok certain days.

This isn’t even a debate or argument, we seem to agree. Right now the previous plan laid is ****. Doesn’t matter who created it, for it to be fixed it’s on the oil companies to reduce methane emissions. The US wants to sell natural gas to the globe, greed won’t change there.

Most logical solution there is a regulation to reduce emissions via revamping their extraction devices. Don’t care who does it, if Trump is voted out let’s see if it actually happens via executive order.

I’m not out to stop the climate change economic boom, it has conveniently made the US the largest producer/exporter of natural gas globally and the divide grows by the month. If the climate change groups, with whom I disagree with their data and approach completely, can reduce emissions and make us responsible in fracking? I’m all for it.

This emission problem is compounding rapidly, their entire algorithm is currently broken. This variable needs to be fixed now. And that fix must begin in China (where I currently live and your picture above is a good day in Shenzhen or Guangdong). India a very close 2nd.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[dckingsfan]

Disagree. Sure plans are great but it sure the hell isn’t fracking. And natural gas is most certainly their 50 year bridge. Solar/wind isn’t going to make a dent for many decades.

If the methane doesn’t come down from fracking, natural gas is now a negative. After that report I’m all for forced regulation reducing methane emissions.

Have you been to a fracking town or major site? It’s hard to even breathe. Seems like that should be the focus for next 5 years.

1) LNG is already better than coal
2) It can be much better than coal if we reduce the methane admissions - this administration has no plan
3) Renewables are already making a dent (account for 10% of all energy) and are accelerating 10% year over year
4) Yes, I have been to towns where they do fracking - you are exaggerating - but your point is solid - we should continue to improve the technology. A terrific thing for government to do
5) Have a plan - don't suck

More research it has nothing to do with the current administration. The past two have been completely inept on the fracking / natural gas issue:

https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-whats-that-smell-1881708319.html

I’m also not exaggerating about the smell, the chemicals that are shoved into the ground seep out all over. I bought/renovated some commercial property in Midlands Texas years ago and on certain days it was tough to breathe. Many people walk around with surgical masks.l in Midlands ok certain days.

This isn’t even a debate or argument, we seem to agree. Right now the previous plan laid is ****. Doesn’t matter who created it, for it to be fixed it’s on the oil companies to reduce methane emissions. The US wants to sell natural gas to the globe, greed won’t change there.

Most logical solution there is a regulation to reduce emissions via revamping their extraction devices. Don’t care who does it, if Trump is voted out let’s see if it actually happens via executive order.

I’m not out to stop the climate change economic boom, it has conveniently made the US the largest producer/exporter of natural gas globally and the divide grows by the month. If the climate change groups, with whom I disagree with their data and approach completely, can reduce emissions and make us responsible in fracking? I’m all for it.

This emission problem is compounding rapidly, their entire algorithm is currently broken. This variable needs to be fixed now. And that fix must begin in China (where I currently live and your picture above is a good day in Shenzhen or Guangdong). India a very close 2nd.

Of course it does - they have no current initiatives to get this done. None.

Where we violently agree is that this administration has no plan and planning works (like it did in LA).

Next administration.

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Stone bobbing and weaving, trying to avoid perjury charges. I would love to see this POS get the karma due to him.

[montestewart]

Over 95% of the carbon emissions are from 3rd world countries and China. Wake me up when they regulate or go renewable.

Which will lead us to batteries that bring their own environmental toxicities.

And the elephant in the room remains food sources versus population growth. The current rate of population growth we will run out of food in about 100 years unless we drastically change the way we eat. And even then we will need to invent something that is likely unhealthy. Some type of protein infused Ramen that will lack Whole Foods and micro nutrients.

Get me those ‘food runs out stats’ ASAP....i have literally never heard that

Wait - what? Well, there goes the 95% faux fact...

No STD is right, "95% of the carbon emissions are from 3rd world countries" and, as your chart indicates, 5% is from Mother Russia.