The Green New Deal

[Red Baron Farms]

Who said anything about eliminating 100% of CO2 emissions? I only talked about reducing it by a large amount.

Specifically how large? And net or gross?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Specifically how large? And net or gross?

You don't ask exactly to the percentage point how much black tar heroin you can mainline before you OD. You just stop shooting up heroin.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You don't ask exactly to the percentage point how much black tar heroin you can mainline before you OD. You just stop shooting up heroin.

Black tar heroin is always poison to an addict. But carbon dioxide is a necessary component of all life on the planet. It only becomes a pollutant when we produce more than the environment can cycle back and we get too much building up in the atmosphere.

 

[Belz...]

Specifically how large? And net or gross?

81.095166%, exactly.

Seriously, I'm not a climate scientist. But removing motor vehicles from the roads and replacing coal plants with something else would be sufficient, in my opinion.

However, the question of the number of humans would remain.

black tar heroin is always poison to an addict. But carbon dioxide is a necessary component of all life on the planet.

There's CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of how much we put out.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting. I always assumed that comparing Navy reactors to commercial electrical reactors was a bad comparison because I assumed a single ship would be using a very small reactor not comparable to generating reactors. But I just looked a few up and find they can be 100MW plus which seems comparable to me. So I wonder if this is more practical than I thought.

How much do Navy reactors cost to operate?

Navy reactors use highly enriched uranium. This allows a more compact design and longer periods between refueling. Those are especially useful features for ships, but the use of highly enriched uranium is... less than ideal for civilian use.

 

[Belz...]

Navy reactors use highly enriched uranium. This allows a more compact design and longer periods between refueling. Those are especially useful features for ships, but the use of highly enriched uranium is... less than ideal for civilian use.

Well, this again highlights a problem that most people don't want to face: there is no perfect solution. Coal pumps enormous amounts of poison in the atmosphere, contributes to massive climate change, puts out loads of toxic and radioactive waste out into the environment, and relies on finite ressources. Wind puts out pitiful amounts of electricity and is unreliable, and solar, though theoretically better, only works during part of the day and year, and results in massive mining of rare earth that can destroy local ecosystems. Both of those require some sort of storage system in batteries that can then produce the power we need during downtime, which we don't quite have yet, and which raises the problem of disposal and toxic waste again. Hydro can't be used everywhere and floods large areas, resulting in vegetal decomposition that threatens the underwater ecosystem. Geothermal is not very useful, either, and I don't know enough about natural gas to comment. Many of those technologies can also fail spectacularily, namely nuclear, hydro and coal, but even the other ones can cause quite a bit of damage or disruption if they fail, and can be more vulnerable to vandalism. Fusion, of course, is still in the realm of sci-fi, and other fission technologies are not yet developed because of the lack of interest or military application.

If you produce megawatts, you WILL pollute and damage the environment, and you WILL get people killed. There's no way around it. The question is: what are your criteria for what counts as a better solution, and which combination of technologies is the best bet? If we're talking about safety and quality of life, I think that bet is a nuclear bedrock with a solar periphery. Hydro and others where you can, but coal has got to go.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If we're talking about safety and quality of life, I think that bet is a nuclear bedrock with a solar periphery. Hydro and others where you can, but coal has got to go.

Agreed.

"The Grid" needs to be nuclear, maybe with some hydro and wind farms and tidal generators here and there as practical. This would power the infrastructure; utilities, public services, hospitals, military bases, schools, designated emergency shelters, porno theaters, ya know the essentials.

Private homes and businesses should run on solar where possible, with the grid as a backup/supplement.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Seriously, I'm not a climate scientist. But removing motor vehicles from the roads and replacing coal plants with something else would be sufficient, in my opinion.

There's CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of how much we put out.

Sarcasm and population comment aside, I am seriously asking an electrical engineering question that hopefully you can answer.

Given the issues surrounding base load needs for maintaining a sufficiently robust electrical grid, how much can we reduce the fossil fuel side and replace it with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc.. Before we start requiring more dependable base load sources? Then translate that into reductions in fossil fuel CO2 we can make right now at current technology.

Ill get you started. Right now we can drop in natural gas everywhere coal is used and Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less CO2 when burned in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. [1]

[1] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2010. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants, Volume 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. Revision 2. November. DOE/NETL-2010/1397. United States Department of Energy.

That was 9 years ago. I am certain by now we almost could have replaced every coal plant on the planet by now and the power grids' emissions would be reduced 50%. We could drop it even further by using more solar hydro and wind, but it is my understanding costs skyrocket if too much of the grid is by types of renewables that are not always reliable and fail because of the weather or time of day etc.

So how much more can we lower it before we need run into those problems? And how much fossil fuel CO2 will that save us?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Navy reactors use highly enriched uranium. This allows a more compact design and longer periods between refueling. Those are especially useful features for ships, but the use of highly enriched uranium is... less than ideal for civilian use.

To be clear when I said smaller I was referring to power output only. I'm aware they achieve their compact design and other aspects by using HEU but didn't have the compactness in mind. The cost of HEU fuel could be prohibitive though. Cost seems an appropriate topic for this thread. Other aspects of HEU may need a separate thread, separate forum even.

 

[The Shrike]

If 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from "agriculture", then better management of our food production systems is an important area of emphasis for trying to stem the most dangerous levels of warming we will otherwise experience over the next several decades. But it's no panacea; we need re-thinking of the carbon footprint of our homes and businesses (11%), industry (22%), electricity generation (28%), and transportation (28%).

So sure, let's pull down the fences, move the cattle off the feedlots, let them graze native grasses, quit eating them and let their nutrients really return to the soil, and focus on human protein from lab-grown meats and crickets raised in repurposed skyscrapers that become towers of hydoponic goodness.

Let's also . . .

Deploy solar desalination units. Cut WAY back on flying and driving everywhere. Switch to distributed renewable/nuclear electricity generation, with the renewable almost exclusively installed within the built environment. Grow food where our lawns used to be. Retrofit our homes for increased efficiency. Wear heavier sweaters and stop refrigerating our homes and businesses in the heat of summer. Start making out with random people in huge crowds during flu season. (Gross, but probably effective.)

We need to do all of the above, people. A 100% effort aimed at 10% of the problem can only be a 10% solution.

People who talk about addressing AGW without an emphasis on a nuclear power generation revolution are not actually addressing AGW.

 

[Belz...]

Given the issues surrounding base load needs for maintaining a sufficiently robust electrical grid, how much can we reduce the fossil fuel side and replace it with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc.. Before we start requiring more dependable base load sources? Then translate that into reductions in fossil fuel CO2 we can make right now at current technology.

Ill get you started. Right now we can drop in natural gas everywhere coal is used and Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less CO2 when burned in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. [1]

[1] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2010. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants, Volume 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. Revision 2. November. DOE/NETL-2010/1397. United States Department of Energy.

That was 9 years ago. I am certain by now we almost could have replaced every coal plant on the planet by now and the power grids' emissions would be reduced 50%. We could drop it even further by using more solar hydro and wind, but it is my understanding costs skyrocket if too much of the grid is by types of renewables that are not always reliable and fail because of the weather or time of day etc.

So how much more can we lower it before we need run into those problems? And how much fossil fuel CO2 will that save us?

You can't seriously expect me to have those numbers. You should ask experts in those fields.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial: reduce our CO2 emissions as much as possible, and sequester the excess we put into the atmosphere. Then level it off.

 

[Zambo]

How are they "good" alternatives? It's absolutely not "in evidence" that batteries can supply half the world in electricity during the night, especially during very hot or cold days, or during weeks where one barely sees the sun through the clouds. It's fantasy. You need a type of power generation that does _not_ rely on the weather.

Electricity usage is not steady during a 24hr period. Let's say the base load is 20 to 25% of the total and that is what is needed at night. Day time adds another 55 to 60% and then the remaining is a peak of around 20% between around 4pm and 7pm (details depending on the country and whether rural or city).

Wind power does generate at night.

So you need a mix of power sources, wind and solar together with storage can provide most of the requirement. To that you can add hydro (including pump storage), geothermal and nuclear (except for safety reasons I doubt this will be an alternative in the short term for developing countries - and is an expensive power source)

As a first step solar and wind can be used to replace coal while gas is still in use to bridge the gap as countries build up their renewable power grid.

 

[Delvo]

Of course not. We could, alternatively, kill 90% of all humans and largely solve the problem.

The easiest method for which would also involve nuclear technology!

Given the issues surrounding base load needs for maintaining a sufficiently robust electrical grid, how much can we reduce the fossil fuel side and replace it with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc.. Before we start requiring more dependable base load sources?

There's no particular answer because it depends on storage and distribution, and we could go to 100% with enough storage and/or distribution. A solar station with a bunch of batteries/supercapacitors can maintain constant output by charging the storage system in mid-day and letting energy out from it at night. A network of interconnected power plants can distribute power to where the windmills are standing still from where they're spinning and adjust that flow an hour later when both air masses move on. Postulate different levels of storage & distribution abilities, and you get different answers for your question, but there's nothing in particular to stop it from going all the way.

If 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from "agriculture", then better management of our food production systems is an important area of emphasis for trying to stem the most dangerous levels of warming we will otherwise experience over the next several decades... So sure, let's pull down the fences, move the cattle off the feedlots, let them graze native grasses, quit eating them and let their nutrients really return to the soil, and focus on human protein from lab-grown meats...

Once we can make good enough meat without the whole animal, the land we're using on them now can be allowed to return to a natural state, which in some cases would also "sequester" more carbon.

 

[Belz...]

The easiest method for which would also involve nuclear technology!

You mean use nuclear technology AND eliminate 90% of humanity?

 

[Belz...]

Electricity usage is not steady during a 24hr period. Let's say the base load is 20 to 25% of the total and that is what is needed at night. Day time adds another 55 to 60% and then the remaining is a peak of around 20% between around 4pm and 7pm (details depending on the country and whether rural or city).

Yeah, but that's it: the peak of usage is just past the peak light. I'm not sure you can store really that much, and in the hotter or colder days, you need quite a bit of electricity during the night too.

Wind power does generate at night.

Yes but not when the wind is too weak or too strong.

So you need a mix of power sources, wind and solar together with storage can provide most of the requirement. To that you can add hydro (including pump storage), geothermal and nuclear (except for safety reasons I doubt this will be an alternative in the short term for developing countries - and is an expensive power source)

Doesn't sound bad to me.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The easiest method for which would also involve nuclear technology!

There's no particular answer because it depends on storage and distribution, and we could go to 100% with enough storage and/or distribution. A solar station with a bunch of batteries/supercapacitors can maintain constant output by charging the storage system in mid-day and letting energy out from it at night. A network of interconnected power plants can distribute power to where the windmills are standing still from where they're spinning and adjust that flow an hour later when both air masses move on. Postulate different levels of storage & distribution abilities, and you get different answers for your question, but there's nothing in particular to stop it from going all the way.

Yes I have heard this too, but also heard there are some constraints due to cost and manufacturing capacity of unproven storage systems. What I mean is right now at current technology wind is cheaper than coal, and in some circumstances solar too, and hydro always was. So given we could just grab the low fruit where available, and also replace any extra beyond that with natural gas plants replacing coal....how much would that save us here in the US?

Once we can make good enough meat without the whole animal, the land we're using on them now can be allowed to return to a natural state, which in some cases would also "sequester" more carbon.

The natural state of the vast majority of the agricultural land in the US is prairie with even more animals than now! Including but not limited to vast numbers of large herbivores. And that natural biome is a vast carbon sink..even counting the animals.

There is absolutely no reason we must raise our domestic animals in a lab. It is counter-productive. The exact opposite of what is needed.

 

[Zambo]

Yes but not when the wind is too weak or too strong.

You already have CFPP with generation units of 600MW or 1000MW. For maintenance they can shutdown for 2 weeks, a power grid can manage.

I see also a solar plant that is heating salt as a storage, someone else here mentioned fly wheels. Just extending solar by these methods by 3 hours a day helps with the peak load.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from "agriculture", then better management of our food production systems is an important area of emphasis for trying to stem the most dangerous levels of warming we will otherwise experience over the next several decades. But it's no panacea; we need re-thinking of the carbon footprint of our homes and businesses (11%), industry (22%), electricity generation (28%), and transportation (28%).

So sure, let's pull down the fences, move the cattle off the feedlots, let them graze native grasses, quit eating them and let their nutrients really return to the soil, and focus on human protein from lab-grown meats and crickets raised in repurposed skyscrapers that become towers of hydoponic goodness.

Let's also . . .

Deploy solar desalination units. Cut WAY back on flying and driving everywhere. Switch to distributed renewable/nuclear electricity generation, with the renewable almost exclusively installed within the built environment. Grow food where our lawns used to be. Retrofit our homes for increased efficiency. Wear heavier sweaters and stop refrigerating our homes and businesses in the heat of summer. Start making out with random people in huge crowds during flu season. (Gross, but probably effective.)

We need to do all of the above, people. A 100% effort aimed at 10% of the problem can only be a 10% solution.

People who talk about addressing AGW without an emphasis on a nuclear power generation revolution are not actually addressing AGW.

Pretty much agree with everything here except the large crowd makeout sessions and the lab grown meat. That's not a fetish I can get behind at all....so to speak. And lab grown meat is the opposite of whats needed.

Just remember though, 9-10% on the emissions side is meaningless to calculating the sequestration rate. Those two are entirely unrelated things biophysically. The sequestration of carbon in the soil is by no means limited to only 9% of emissions. Instead if agriculture were to sequester 20% of emissions while also reducing agricultural emissions 50 % then the net would be 24.5% reduction in annual CO2 emissions. We could even get over 100% with the right balance.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You can't seriously expect me to have those numbers. You should ask experts in those fields.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial: reduce our CO2 emissions as much as possible, and sequester the excess we put into the atmosphere. Then level it off.

We are both saying that, but you are willing to kill off 90% of the human population and can't even be expected to have any numbers and yet you want to be taken seriously? You just said earlier without nuclear we are screwed, what do you base that on?

 

[lomiller]

Someone should tell the insurance companies this. Maybe then, they would actually insure a nuclear power plant. Instead, these plants are insured by the government because no insurance company will entertain the idea.

From what I'm reading the estimated cleanup is now in the $250 billion range. Even if they were to underwrite it, the likely result is that the company would be pushed into bankruptcy and the bill would fall to the public anyway.


Chernobyl is worse because no one even knows how to clean it up. A newer larger containment facility completely covering the first one was just finished, but building ever larger containment facilities ever 50 years for the 10 000 years isn't exactly a viable plan.