"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[novaphile]

Interesting. So, remember that figure of 60kWh per day per person, that is everyone's equitable individual share of world energy production? (Remember that includes direct usage, such as household electricity and petroleum fuels, as well as indirect usage in the production of the food and manufactured goods one consumes, and ones share of "public" usage by governments.) Per my earlier assessment and some others' comments about their own lifestyles, that seems fairly manageable, for some people with modest habits and the right circumstances and available infrastructure. Of course that's far lower than the typical present American suburban lifestyle.

We can multiply that by (2/36), the ratio of the current rate of atmospheric CO2 removal to the current rate of atmospheric CO2 emissions, to discover what ones individual energy usage would have to be to not be contributing to any increase in atmospheric CO2. That's three and a third kilowatt-hours per day. On a continuous basis, 140 Watts.

Plenty for lighting a room or two, keeping a phone charged, and running a laptop or small TV screen for the evening. Typical household telecom gear (a cable modem and wifi router) will tax it; best to only turn them on for actual use. Overnight, you could put about a third of a full charge into an e-bike. Or, you could run a small (or very efficient) refrigerator, but then forget about most of that other stuff. Heat pump? Electric car? Best not think about those.

A single typical home solar panel could double your typical daily energy for the next 25 years. You just need to save up your 140 Watts for two years first, to cover the energy needed to manufacture it. That's clearly the best strategy, if you can manage it. Cutting down to 70 Watts for four years, or pre-selling half your solar panel's output for the first five years to cover an energy loan up front, might be easier to manage.

That's in no way a realistic scenario, and it's not particularly meaningful either, except to underscore how much we have to change our infrastructure and industrial base, to both increase carbon uptake and reduce carbon emissions, to get anywhere near overall carbon neutrality. Just like it's a lot easier to eliminate one specific food from your diet than it is to reduce total calories and lose weight, it's a lot easier to cherry pick one product or one business sector or one locality and drastically cut its associated carbon emissions than it is to reduce the global total. That's why there's example after example of successfully doing the former without coming close to achieving the latter.

I've mentioned this before but...

My 1.5 kW solar system cost $3k. (8 panels at 188 W each)

The money was paid up front by the electricity retailer (private company).
They gave me a zero interest loan which I repaid over three years.

Not only did the system pay for itself in reduced power bills, it also returned $1500.00 in cash when the power company paid out the credits I'd achieved.

The system was installed in 2008 and is still generating credit for me against my power bills. Looking at my last bill (15 June 2023) in the depths of winter, I can see that I uploaded 154 kWh for a credit of $75.

When the panels finally wear out, (current estimates are that they'll last 30 years), I'll probably replace them with 300 W panels with the same footprint.

I do know someone who still has his original panels from 30 years ago and they still happily generate electricity, he's just added extra strings of panels as their output went down.

Note that I paid approximately $1.30 per Watt for my solar panels, and about $1000.00 for that inverter.

Looking online I can see that price per Watt is down to about $0.95 and inverters are $500 or less.

 

[dann]

Today Washington Post writes about the contribution to global warming from individual consumption.
What does and ... What doesn’t work

The Post-UMD poll finds nearly 6 in 10 Americans think recycling will have a lot or some impact on climate change, the second most-highly rated action behind installing solar panels. About a third say the same for using an electric stove instead of a gas stove and 24 percent say driving slower.
But experts said those actions are unlikely to make much of a difference in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
“These are not even really climate solutions,” said Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown, a nonprofit that evaluates climate solutions.
These misperceptions can arise, he said, when people don’t research climate solutions closely or attach outsize importance to actions that seem simple, such as getting rid of plastic straws. There have also been efforts from industry to mislead consumers about what is most effective, he added.
(...)
People tend to overestimate the climate benefits of recycling. One study led by a researcher at the University of Leeds placed recycling second-to-last among more than 50 actions people can take to reduce their carbon footprint.
You’re doing it wrong: Recycling and other myths about tackling climate change (WP, Aug 28, 2023)

The big picture:

Americans have grown less confident that their individual actions can reduce the effects of climate change. In 2019, 66 percent said they could personally make a difference, a number that has fallen to 52 percent this year, with the sharpest declines among Republicans and independents.
Some experts say those feelings are not unfounded. Individual actions can only go so far, said Field. “The most important thing anybody can do is to vote for a climate-friendly government agenda,” he said.
However, Kimberly Nicholas, a sustainability scientist at Lund University in Sweden, said the United States is home to some of the wealthiest people in the world, and they have a responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint.
“Ninety percent of the world doesn’t need to reduce their emissions, but most readers of The Washington Post probably do,” she said.

As for 'voting for a climate-friendly government agenda', the U.S. government seems to be doing its utmost to debunk that delusion.

 

[dirtywick]

I've mentioned this before but...

My 1.5 kW solar system cost $3k. (8 panels at 188 W each)

The money was paid up front by the electricity retailer (private company).
They gave me a zero interest loan which I repaid over three years.

Not only did the system pay for itself in reduced power bills, it also returned $1500.00 in cash when the power company paid out the credits I'd achieved.

The system was installed in 2008 and is still generating credit for me against my power bills. Looking at my last bill (15 June 2023) in the depths of winter, I can see that I uploaded 154 kWh for a credit of $75.

When the panels finally wear out, (current estimates are that they'll last 30 years), I'll probably replace them with 300 W panels with the same footprint.

I do know someone who still has his original panels from 30 years ago and they still happily generate electricity, he's just added extra strings of panels as their output went down.

Note that I paid approximately $1.30 per Watt for my solar panels, and about $1000.00 for that inverter.

Looking online I can see that price per Watt is down to about $0.95 and inverters are $500 or less.

well there's some other expenses to installing solar on your home, but i think now they're basically worth installing no matter where you live. mine was significantly larger and more expensive than that, but i live in the northern US and get less sun light. it's already offsetting the electic bill for me most months, and the further south you go the smaller and cheaper the array you need.

 

[novaphile]

well there's some other expenses to installing solar on your home, but i think now they're basically worth installing no matter where you live. mine was significantly larger and more expensive than that, but i live in the northern US and get less sun light. it's already offsetting the electic bill for me most months, and the further south you go the smaller and cheaper the array you need.

Yes, those expenses could be quite significant depending on where you live.

The local power distributor replaced my line to the street and upgraded it to a 100 amp service at no charge to me.

They also required me to buy a new electricity meter, that they later replaced, and refunded the cost of the original. (No idea why)

The original price included the full cost of installation, but I've definitely heard of people who are 'nickel and dimed' at every step of the way. i.e. price is 'x' but you have to pay for a meter, and installation, and an inverter, and insurance, etc. etc. etc.

Note that the full cost of installation included an allowance for cabling, if someone exceeded the initial estimate for cabling, that would increase the cost. In my case, my home is quite small and they used less cabling than the original estimate, so I was in the clear.

The absolute sweetener was the zero interest loan though. That's the thing that made the payback period so short. Usually when doing a financial assessment of a project or action, one would consider the return that could be generated by using that money elsewhere, but when the electricity retailer provides the money up front and the system is generating income that offsets that cost, things get very interesting.

 

[dann]

For decades, the Atlas Network has used its reach and influence to spread conservative philosophy—and criminalize climate protest.

Almost as soon as Last Generation began staging protests, in early 2022, Schäffler began describing them as terrorists, calling the group a “criminal organization” and publicly demanding it be investigated for organized crime. Media outlets, including conservative publisher Welt and the more mainstream Der Spiegel, soon echoed Schäffler’s framing. Just six months later, in May 2023, German police conducted nationwide raids on Last Generation activists; police said the group was “a criminal organization that was fundraising for the purpose of committing further criminal action.” It was almost exactly the response to Last Generation that Schäffler had recommended.

Given his relatively short time in office, Schäffler’s outsize influence may seem surprising. But something important happened in recent years that lent him a large amount of reach when it comes to the treatment of climate protesters: Schäffler started a think tank and joined the little-known but enormously powerful Atlas Network, a global network of more than 500 member think tanks advocating for “free market” policies.
Meet the Shadowy Global Network Vilifying Climate Protesters (NewRepublic, Sep 12, 2023)

I think we have one of those right-wing 'think tanks' in Denmark, CEPOS.
They are very fond of fossil fuels, herd immunity by infection and other libertarian ideas + undisclosed donors, the whole right-wing package.