The Green New Deal

[JoeMorgue]

I agree. While they are not locked in the all our war with science the Right is, it's naive to pretend that the Left doesn't still have a few... border skirmishes with science every now and then. Nuclear Power and GMO hysteria is mostly a left leaning thing I'd imagine.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What in the blue hell are you talking about? What does my off-hand comment about human populations have to do with coming up with exact numbers of carbon reduction? I have a nagging impression that your request for these exact numbers is a distraction; an impossible standard designed to dismiss anything I have to say. I'll bet that you have no idea what those numbers would be, yourself.

As for being taken seriously, what do you base your contention that we can kind of easily sequester carbon on?



Read my posts. I explained exactly what I meant.

No I am not trying to distract or trick you or anyone else here. I am trying to figure out if harvesting the low fruit, ie the easiest and cheapest renewables strategy for energy, in combination with the easiest and most profitable changes in agricultural methods would actually be enough to get to net negative carbon footprint in the USA.

If we can quickly and easily do it at a profit, the rest of the world most assuredly can and will follow soon after and we can be a world leader in helping that happen too...

But I only know my field, my silo of knowledge, my research. I do not know nearly so much about the other side of the carbon cycle, the emissions side.
The issues regarding nuclear energy and base loads. The issues regarding storage and transmission length.

I have spent years researching what we can do to use the soil as a sink. 80% of total arable acreage in the US is devoted to corn, soy, wheat and alfalfa. That's a total of 278 million acres. Rangeland is at about 788 million acres and much of that is improperly managed according to the bureau of land management. But the Low hanging fruit here is the pasture still remaining in basically otherwise arable land that usually just went to pasture when the soil degraded to a point it became no longer profitable to grow corn soy wheat and alfalfa. There is some overlap between alfalfa and pasture, but the vast majority of pastureland is improperly managed (80%) and has the lowest productivity imaginable because animals are fenced in and the pasture never rotated ever.

76% of the corn crop is used for either animal foods or biofuels here in the US. Almost all the rest goes to exports, (except when we are at trade wars which puts a huge burden on the government run buffer stock schemes). Exports that are also mainly used for animal feeds and ethanol production. Greater than >99% total between biofuel and animal feed if you count exports.

98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed, but only 12% of soy oil is used for biofuels and 88% is used for human consumption.

85% of wheat production is used for either biofuels or animal feeds. Only 15% is used for food.

So because we have great statistics on land use, we can make fairly accurate "low fruit" calculations on what simple changes in the current commodity food system would do to the carbon cycle. Not high end potential, but really simple and easy attainable goals. I say that because the current system is already very highly flawed incredibly inefficient and must change anyway.

It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System

I get about 200 million acres of "low fruit" changes that would make food cheaper and more nutritious for the consumers simultaneously as it makes much higher profits for the farmers and to top it all off sequesters between .5 - 2 Gt CO2e /yr

There is another more difficult potential of 700 million acres dryer rangeland sequestering 1.75 - 7 Gt CO2e /yr

So there are my cards on the table. ~2.25 - 9 Gt CO2e /yr. This is how much a fully motivated and sane profitable agricultural sector can sequester while actually increasing the quantity and quality of food supply for people.

Now that you know what I can do for you, I am waiting to find out from one of you guys who actually knows the energy sector, how much can you guys bring to the table?

The total we must reach is 6.5 Gt CO2e and agriculture could potentially offset all of it actually. But to be conservative the most "low fruit" changes would be about 2 Gt CO2e and the rest requiring new skills in training and infrastructure that could take some years to install.

Can you guys working on emissions get the other 4.5 Gt CO2e with only "low fruit" changes? Yes or no? If no, how much can you get right now with no future tech or bankrupting society?

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. While they are not locked in the all our war with science the Right is, it's naive to pretend that the Left doesn't still have a few... border skirmishes with science every now and then. Nuclear Power and GMO hysteria is mostly a left leaning thing I'd imagine.

Yep, and being someone who is generally more liberal it pisses me off. I'm practical above all else. I think many in the environmental movement have unworkable, pie in the sky ideas. But at least they recognize there are problems that need to be addressed. As opposed to the head in the sand or up their asses people who ignore the science entirely.

It is absurd to think that people or countries will unilaterally do without. I'm a believer that sensible legislation and technological development is the only way to solve our problems. And that starts with R and D. To me, solving the energy problem is everything. It's not, but it's damn close.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Could you expand on that rather than repeat it? By every metric that makes any sense, nuclear is still safer than the alternatives.

Safety at a too high price isn't worth it: if we have to set aside an extra 10 billion to pay for the safe decommissioning, accident cleanup, etc., we would safe more lives investing in slightly unsafer energy, and put the money in healthcare or self-driving cars.

 

[Zambo]

I'm sorry, what?

CFPP - Coal fired power plants. Most of the large power plants i see under construction have generating units of between 600 to 1000MW. So for example you could have 2 x 600MW units making up a 1200MW power plant. My point being if you take one of these out of service that can be for 2 weeks maintenance but the power grid can take up the slack. The same on a day the wind doesn't blow in one location

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

CFPP - Coal fired power plants.

Bad acronym.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/projects/carbon-free-power-project

 

[acbytesla]

Safety at a too high price isn't worth it: if we have to set aside an extra 10 billion to pay for the safe decommissioning, accident cleanup, etc., we would safe more lives investing in slightly unsafer energy, and put the money in healthcare or self-driving cars.

Out of curiosity, how unsafe is carbon emissions and the global warming that goes with it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree. While they are not locked in the all our war with science the Right is, it's naive to pretend that the Left doesn't still have a few... border skirmishes with science every now and then. Nuclear Power and GMO hysteria is mostly a left leaning thing I'd imagine.

Perhaps, but the issue with science on the left is about how to use science and technology responsibly, not a denial of scientific facts and theories.

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps, but the issue with science on the left is about how to use science and technology responsibly, not a denial of scientific facts and theories.

Mostly, I think you're right. That said, there definitely has been an irrational reaction from many liberals on GMOs, nuclear power and vaccines despite much of the science.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Out of curiosity, how unsafe is carbon emissions and the global warming that goes with it?

false dichotomy.

Yes, nuclear power is almost certainly safer for the same price than coal, taking into considerations all the externalities.
But it isn't nearly as safe/cheap as it can be, which is why we need to experiment with newer reactor types. A reactor is an investment for 40 years+. Why would anyone build something today, if better technology is just around the corner, and you will be stuck with the old tech for decades to come?

 

[acbytesla]

false dichotomy.

Yes, nuclear power is almost certainly safer for the same price than coal, taking into considerations all the externalities.
But it isn't nearly as safe/cheap as it can be, which is why we need to experiment with newer reactor types. A reactor is an investment for 40 years+. Why would anyone build something today, if better technology is just around the corner, and you will be stuck with the old tech for decades to come?

I agree with almost all of that except there is no time. And there will be a need to more than double power generation in 30 years. I'm afraid, your sacrificing good in a quixotic attempt for perfect.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I agree with almost all of that except there is no time. And there will be a need to more than double power generation in 30 years. I'm afraid, your sacrificing good in a quixotic attempt for perfect.

I disagree that there is no time - there hasn't been time for decades, and there won't be time for decades to come: the Supertanker World Economy can't turn on a dime.
Yes, we will have to pour massive resources in Climate Change Mitigation instead of Climate Change Prevention - but that is the case no matter what we do.

 

[acbytesla]

I disagree that there is no time - there hasn't been time for decades, and there won't be time for decades to come: the Supertanker World Economy can't turn on a dime.
Yes, we will have to pour massive resources in Climate Change Mitigation instead of Climate Change Prevention - but that is the case no matter what we do.

You and I disagree. Except that the Supertanker economy can't turn on a dime. And that is why there is an urgency. The cost of the mitigation for every year of delay will be far costlier than the prevention. IMV.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The cost of the mitigation for every year of delay will be far costlier than the prevention. IMV.

I agree - but without that cost, we won't get the political will for radical change.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Right now, China is building more nuclear power reactors than anyone.

One of the advantages of a one-party state.

Considering that the Chinese can't even make milk without poisoning people, what's the betting at least one of those reactors has a melt-down?

it wasn't until Obama that we really started to invest again in it. Although, it's still way too little in my book.

Why should 'we' be investing in anything? Just provide a level playing field and let the market sort it out. And by 'level' I mean make up for the massive subsidies given to the nuclear industry, and make fossil fuels pay for the damage they are doing.

I love to imagine taking half the military budget and invest it in solving power generation. Pie in the Sky you probably think.

If nuclear can't survive without massive injections of government funding then perhaps it shouldn't survive.

There is a huge difference in High Pressure Water reactors built in the 70s like Fukishima and what we would build today.

Unlike most renewables, nuclear is a mature technology. The industry has had many decades to produce the things they 'would' build today, so why didn't they? Meanwhile renewable technologies are advancing by leaps and bounds.

I will make a prediction* - by the time any of these 'modern' nuclear plants come online, renewables will already be cheaper and more numerous, and nuclear will never be the 'cornerstone' of power generation.

* not really a prediction, just an acknowledgement of what experts in the nuclear industry itself are saying.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Actually, China is building far fewer nuclear reactors than initially planned (less than half), due to cost overruns and delays of current projects, and is instead relying more on solar.

Turkey wants to build a Super-Reactor, but that is definitely pie in the sky.

 

[Belz...]

No I am not trying to distract or trick you or anyone else here. I am trying to figure out if harvesting the low fruit, ie the easiest and cheapest renewables strategy for energy, in combination with the easiest and most profitable changes in agricultural methods would actually be enough to get to net negative carbon footprint in the USA.

If we can quickly and easily do it at a profit, the rest of the world most assuredly can and will follow soon after and we can be a world leader in helping that happen too...

But I only know my field, my silo of knowledge, my research. I do not know nearly so much about the other side of the carbon cycle, the emissions side.
The issues regarding nuclear energy and base loads. The issues regarding storage and transmission length.

I have spent years researching what we can do to use the soil as a sink. 80% of total arable acreage in the US is devoted to corn, soy, wheat and alfalfa. That's a total of 278 million acres. Rangeland is at about 788 million acres and much of that is improperly managed according to the bureau of land management. But the Low hanging fruit here is the pasture still remaining in basically otherwise arable land that usually just went to pasture when the soil degraded to a point it became no longer profitable to grow corn soy wheat and alfalfa. There is some overlap between alfalfa and pasture, but the vast majority of pastureland is improperly managed (80%) and has the lowest productivity imaginable because animals are fenced in and the pasture never rotated ever.

76% of the corn crop is used for either animal foods or biofuels here in the US. Almost all the rest goes to exports, (except when we are at trade wars which puts a huge burden on the government run buffer stock schemes). Exports that are also mainly used for animal feeds and ethanol production. Greater than >99% total between biofuel and animal feed if you count exports.

98% of soybean meal is used for animal feed, but only 12% of soy oil is used for biofuels and 88% is used for human consumption.

85% of wheat production is used for either biofuels or animal feeds. Only 15% is used for food.

So because we have great statistics on land use, we can make fairly accurate "low fruit" calculations on what simple changes in the current commodity food system would do to the carbon cycle. Not high end potential, but really simple and easy attainable goals. I say that because the current system is already very highly flawed incredibly inefficient and must change anyway.

It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System

I get about 200 million acres of "low fruit" changes that would make food cheaper and more nutritious for the consumers simultaneously as it makes much higher profits for the farmers and to top it all off sequesters between .5 - 2 Gt CO2e /yr

There is another more difficult potential of 700 million acres dryer rangeland sequestering 1.75 - 7 Gt CO2e /yr

So there are my cards on the table. ~2.25 - 9 Gt CO2e /yr. This is how much a fully motivated and sane profitable agricultural sector can sequester while actually increasing the quantity and quality of food supply for people.

Now that you know what I can do for you, I am waiting to find out from one of you guys who actually knows the energy sector, how much can you guys bring to the table?

The total we must reach is 6.5 Gt CO2e and agriculture could potentially offset all of it actually. But to be conservative the most "low fruit" changes would be about 2 Gt CO2e and the rest requiring new skills in training and infrastructure that could take some years to install.

Can you guys working on emissions get the other 4.5 Gt CO2e with only "low fruit" changes? Yes or no? If no, how much can you get right now with no future tech or bankrupting society?

That's all nice but I have no idea how that explains your earlier post or what it is you're expecting from me, or why.

Here's the simple version: Too much CO2 is bad. We need to reduce it to prevent further warming, and sequester it to reverse the warming already done. The two solutions need not be permanent, though keeping our finite fossil fuel reserves for other uses would be smart.

I don't have exact numbers for you, and don't think that's required for me to discuss this issue. I also don't know the exact weight of the WTC, but that doesn't prevent me from discussing 9/11 with truthers.

 

[Belz...]

Safety at a too high price isn't worth it: if we have to set aside an extra 10 billion to pay for the safe decommissioning, accident cleanup, etc., we would safe more lives investing in slightly unsafer energy, and put the money in healthcare or self-driving cars.

And, again, if the alternatives end up killing more people and destroying the environment more, we would save more lives with nuclear.

So how do you know which is which? Public reaction to nuclear is such that it's hard to know when opponents of nuclear aren't just speaking out of fear.

But it isn't nearly as safe/cheap as it can be

How about we work on "as it can be" down the line, but start using nuclear as it is in the meantime? If you wait for the optimal technology, it'll be too late.

CFPP - Coal fired power plants. Most of the large power plants i see under construction have generating units of between 600 to 1000MW. So for example you could have 2 x 600MW units making up a 1200MW power plant. My point being if you take one of these out of service that can be for 2 weeks maintenance but the power grid can take up the slack. The same on a day the wind doesn't blow in one location

Ok but I still don't understand what you're getting at. That comment was in response to wind and solar being unrealiable because of weather, and now you're talking about coal plants. Help me out, here.

 

[Belz...]

If nuclear can't survive without massive injections of government funding then perhaps it shouldn't survive.

Right. Like we shouldn't have gone to the moon if it requred so many public funds, or like healthcare shouldn't survive if it costs too much from my income tax, etc.

I don't see the logic here.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Right. Like we shouldn't have gone to the moon if it requred so many public funds, or like healthcare shouldn't survive if it costs too much from my income tax, etc.

I don't see the logic here.

the logic is obvious: space flight might be commercial now, but that is due to billions of public funds int he past.
Nuclear power might become commercial again, but it will take billions of investment to make it so.