# Thoughts on the EPA Carbon Plan



## woodgeek (Jun 3, 2014)

Probably doomed to the Can, but let's see....

So, the long-awaited plan is to reduce the emission of CO2 from the US electricity sector by 30% relative to the 2005 peak, by 2030.  Since we are already down 15% (in 10 years), the plan really mandates another 15% reduction over the next 15 years, or 1% a year. 

Since electricity is less than 50% of US carbon emissions...the new EPA plan will reduce US emission by ~6% over the next 15 years.

I'll start:

—Yes, you could call it a 'War on Coal' if you want.
—No, I don't think you 'electric rates will necessarily skyrocket'
—The Chamber of Commerce says it'll cost $50B a year...
—the EPA estimates costs will be less than $10-25B a year, and health benefits will be >$50B a year
—Paul Krugman has already pointed out that even if you accept the inflated CoC number, its a 0.2% drag on the US economy....like Dr. Evil asking for 'one meeelion dollars'.

I think its a (small) no-brainer.  But you have to start somewhere.  And the impact of this is about the same as the fleet mpg improvements made in BO's first term.  The EPA is 'doubling down'.


----------



## TradEddie (Jun 3, 2014)

I haven't looked at the details since the politicians and vested interests will change those anyway, so the final product will likely be so watered down, it will achieve neither goal of reducing emissions or improving health.

Cynicism aside, technology and investment has allowed me to reduce my carbon footprint by about 20%, without sacrificing a single comfort, not one extra sweater needed and my cars have more bhp and get more mpg. There is no reason business can't do the same. I don't see even modest 'skyrocketing' electricity prices as a bad thing, it would encourage more conservation, and more alternative energy sources.

TE


----------



## begreen (Jun 3, 2014)

There are many options and opportunities for reducing individual, commercial and governmental carbon footprints. As you have pointed out, a lot of these changes are pretty painless. All it takes is mobilizing the collective will of the people. Easy to do in a nation with a common background and heritage or in a nation of total govt. control. Hard to do in a vast multi-cultural nation like the US. This is ironic because in the land of the dollar there are lots of business opportunities and savings presented by this challenge. Unfortunately the problem is compounded by a few vested interests that don't want to lose their holdings at the top.


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 3, 2014)

Just realize that EPA has stated in recent regulations that based on a flawed study in Mass, that burning biomass is not renewable, thus all of our woodstoves and boilers could become subject to regulatory action.

Hydro Quebec has already offered New England as much power as it wants from hydro dams to be built in far northern quebec, just sign a contract and run a few transmission lines and New England is all set. Of course we didn't have a lot of coal plant left.


----------



## midwestcoast (Jun 3, 2014)

I see it as a really good step over-all.  It might not have much of an effect in some states that are already moving to lower carbon sources for electricity, but in some other states where coal is still King this is a much needed push IMO. 
The opposition will be there no matter what plan is presented IMO, so I'm glad to see they did take a step that should actually reduce emissions (if only moderately).
Not a radical plan, but one that should have a measurable impact.  
Now to see if it survives to implementation...


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 3, 2014)

A bunch of the 40 year old inefficient plants are slated for decommissioning anyway. And the efficient ones are running around 50% capacity. More political football than anything.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 3, 2014)

Def a football....but if it all holds up, the EPA has the authority to alter the caps at will later, as new science comes in, or to push harder if costs come in a lot lower than expected, or in the face of a PV electric revolution.

And prob a decent card to be holding in international negotiations.


----------



## begreen (Jun 3, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> A bunch of the 40 year old inefficient plants are slated for decommissioning anyway. And the efficient ones are running around 50% capacity. More political football than anything.


That's the case in WA state. We are the most affected, slated for a 75% emissions reduction. But we only have one major coal plant and that is already scheduled to go offline in 2025. If however, Fed dollars become available for geothermal in the North Cascades I am all for it. We need to get momentum going and right now politics is the logjam.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 3, 2014)

well i'll try.
 you could try to build the most  modern coal plant and it would never happen. even though most of our excess  electrical needs last winter were covered by inefficient coal plants. once again the gov't which seems to run everything so well here*, has mandated the answer we all have to accept. as we use and mine  less coal the third world will have less power and continue to burn dirtier fuels like dung. keep'em in the dark! only the rest of the world minus the progressives here and Europe will use dirty fuels. there will be no pressure for them to change. it would cause the price of our footwear to go beyond our reach.in the mean time they grow and in real terms the 1'st world shrinks (that's if you consider asia 2nd and 3rd world.
 I say open the ash can leave it open for folks to vent. put this one there and let the people gas away. got to admit in political terms it was a fun place.

*just my opinion of the mods like the current administration and policies, rest of the folks seem to have an interesting mix


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 3, 2014)

So, Doug, I guess you're not worried about increasing that 0.04% of the atmosphere??  

On what do you base your assessment of other countries commitment to reducing CO2?  We are the highest per capita emitters by far (except for small places like Qatar), and have 100 million people who think global warming is a lot of bunk, why can't they say we should go first?


----------



## semipro (Jun 3, 2014)

Policies like these can only enhance development of truly sustainable energy sources. I think 3rd world countries will benefit overall.  The tech developed here will ultimately benefit those elsewhere.

I think if most of us could put all doctors out of work tomorrow by preventing all disease we would.  Likewise, a greater good is served by putting coal miners out of work.  That is, unless, they can truly develop 'clean coal' which seems unlikely given what it takes to get it to the power plants.  

I feel for those dependent upon coal for their livelihood but I also felt bad for those running video stores when Redbox and Netflix came along.  You need to move on. 

I agree with Doug on the Ash Can.  I learned a lot there and miss the lively discussion. Oh well.


----------



## begreen (Jun 4, 2014)

At least it is some movement outside of the DC gridlock. This and the raising of CARB standards are steps in the right direction. The per city costs of protection from rising sea levels will be staggering. Here are some mockups of the plan for NYC. Norfolk, VA has a plea out for 1 billion to temporarily remedy their current constant flooding. 
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/3/5776498/new-york-storm-flood-defense-funded-project-mockups
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-level-rise-swamps-norfolk-us-coasts/3893825/


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 4, 2014)

Coal doesnt have to be "dead". There have been successful sequestration trials on coal plants. It just adds cost and about 10% of the power output is used on to run the sequestration system. Unfortunately in the Northeast there isnt the right geology for sequestration but in other areas of the country there is. CO2 can be used for oil field injection so if coal plant is close to a oil field they can pipe it over to the oil field. 

Carbon Looping and IGCC are both coal friendly and can segregate carbon but the capital costs get it to the point where B&Ws mini nukes start to look affordable. 

It all comes down to the cost of power, raise the price and folks will use less and companies will move to where it costs less. A lot of the rise of the southern economy is cheap power, started out with TVA and then coal took over. Natural gas can be cheaper in the short term but one of these days, like gasoline and diesel, the US will start exporting large volumes of LNG and the price of natural gas will rise to the world market cost so the coal power will cost less.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 4, 2014)

how's the epa record on cost estimates? reported on fox some large electrical unions not happy with the epa moves on their workers plants. forethought and foresight not exactly the governments strong suite.

woodgeek put it out there, it's all about the belief that the .04% of the atmosphere is the problem. while that may come to pass , it might not come to pass. both sides in the discussion use might, if, maybe, ect. the gov't has taken it's side and we are stuck with it. when the epa stopped ddt(widespread overuse led to ban on all use) estimated deaths since are at 60,000,000 plus worldwide but yet proudly proclaims health benefits of their policy here. again no thought of what the overall consequence is with their actions. sounds familiar to overuse of antibiotics problems today, doesn't it.

?bg mentions sea level. are we  ending an ice age. it didn't end 10,000 years ago, we are still in it. ice remains at both poles. history tells us that earth has been  iceless to an ice cube to somewhere in between. earth flourishes in it's warm days, dinosaurs in Jurassic, roman and medieval warm, to today with record food production. cold on the other hand gave us the last ice age with mass extinctions, the dark ages and the little ice age. just some thioughts


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 4, 2014)

On the previous cap and trade efforts, for acid rain, the final costs came in below the EPA estimates.

You and I have a different take on the 0.04% thing, Doug. To me that sounds like a lot, but it will have to wait for another post.

Life does indeed do great with warm climates, but rapid changes, acidic oceans and drowned cities are not so great.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 4, 2014)




----------



## begreen (Jun 5, 2014)

Unfortunately this fiction is not too far off the mark. 
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-epa-regulations-would-force-power-plants-to-fi,36176/


----------



## Woodman37 (Jun 6, 2014)

I work at a coal fired power plant and we have already lowered our carbon emissions by 21 percent since 2005. Clean coal has come a long way and we are still improving the process. I understand the need for newer cleaner electric production but I wouldn't throw coal away all together. We all remember how cold last winter was and if it wasn't for coal many of us would have been in te dark and cold this past January. I don't think we should be too quick to close the doors on our coal fired plants just yet. In an extreme cold or hot weather situation the grid can't handle the demand without our coal units running. Shutting all these plants down will bite us in the rear end sooner or later without a reliable source to replace all those megawatts.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jun 6, 2014)

well two articles why we may not be ready to shutter these plants so quickly. the times article was posted on another thread earlier.  this one makes one think like all the natgas in the world, what difference does it make http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...14-how-fuel-oil-saved-the-day-in-new-england/. long range forecasts already predict a replay of winter 2014? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/business/energy-environment/coal-to-the-rescue-this-time.html?_r=0


----------



## TradEddie (Jun 6, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> well two articles why we may not be ready to shutter these plants so quickly. the times article was posted on another thread earlier.  this one makes one think like all the natgas in the world, what difference does it make http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...14-how-fuel-oil-saved-the-day-in-new-england/. long range forecasts already predict a replay of winter 2014? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/business/energy-environment/coal-to-the-rescue-this-time.html?_r=0


Did you even read the first one? Oil, not coal was the saving factor, and the limiting factor for NG was pipeline capacity, something the market can, and will resolve, especially when coal has to complete on a level playing field of actual cost. Nobody is shuttering coal plants "so quickly", only obsolete plants that need complete overhaul and where the investment needed to meet the same emissions requirements as other fuels is not financially viable.

TE


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 6, 2014)

Woodman37 said:


> I work at a coal fired power plant and we have already lowered our carbon emissions by 21 percent since 2005. Clean coal has come a long way and we are still improving the process. I understand the need for newer cleaner electric production but I wouldn't throw coal away all together. We all remember how cold last winter was and if it wasn't for coal many of us would have been in te dark and cold this past January. I don't think we should be too quick to close the doors on our coal fired plants just yet. In an extreme cold or hot weather situation the grid can't handle the demand without our coal units running. Shutting all these plants down will bite us in the rear end sooner or later without a reliable source to replace all those megawatts.



Lots of different coal tech out there with different efficiency.   If your plant is on the clean side, the new rules could allow it to continue running out its design lifetime, or to get the ROI for its investors.  If the plant is older and more of a sunk cost, your mgmt and owners get to decide is it makes $$ sense to keep it.

Does your plant get cycled seasonally to meet varying loads?  Does it get throttled on a daily cycle, or flat out?  Can it throttle?


----------



## begreen (Jun 6, 2014)

TradEddie said:


> Did you even read the first one? Oil, not coal was the saving factor, and the limiting factor for NG was pipeline capacity, something the market can, and will resolve, especially when coal has to complete on a level playing field of actual cost. Nobody is shuttering coal plants "so quickly", only obsolete plants that need complete overhaul and where the investment needed to meet the same emissions requirements as other fuels is not financially viable.


Correct. The coal plant in WA is old tech and was already slated for shutdown. What is disappointing is that in spite of a lot of posturing and a lot of funding for clean coal tech a decade ago, there still have not been any new IGCC plants built in America since 1996.

Coal plants usually provide the background baseload capacity, while gas and oil plants meet the peak demands.


----------



## Woodman37 (Jun 6, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Lots of different coal tech out there with different efficiency.   If your plant is on the clean side, the new rules could allow it to continue running out its design lifetime, or to get the ROI for its investors.  If the plant is older and more of a sunk cost, your mgmt and owners get to decide is it makes $$ sense to keep it.
> 
> Does your plant get cycled seasonally to meet varying loads?  Does it get throttled on a daily cycle, or flat out?  Can it throttle?


 our units are all 600 series and can run from 350 mw up to about 590mw net load. The unit loads are adjusted by the need for power. It is possible for all three units to run at different loads at the same time. Of course it is optimal to run all three at full load. All three units are equipped with SCR technology and also have jet bubbling reactor type scrubbers of which the by product is gypsum that we sell to make dry wall.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 8, 2014)

Oh well....there didn't seem to be much blowback from the pundits this week.  A few half-hearted public announcements from the 'other side' about jobs.

Let's see.  Could be because the whole idea is very popular with both sides, include 70% of GOP voters and 50% or Tea Partiers. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...heyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/?tid=rssfeed


----------



## jebatty (Jun 22, 2014)

Some re-tuning of the state goals might be appropriate. Article in the local paper today indicated that MN utilities, which have invested heavily in wind turbines in ND and in high efficiency NG turbines to meet variable demand, are not being given credit for those carbon reduction efforts under the proposal. The article states that ND is being given credit for the wind, even though the power is being delivered to MN, and with that change MN is being faulted because it is not using its NG turbines enough to meet the proposed criteria of the rule. On the other hand, since the wind is being credited to ND, ND better meets the proposed criteria, even though practically none of the wind is delivered to ND and ND electricity from coal % is much higher than MN.

That said, the major MN utilities generally support the proposed changes and indicate that they are well on the path to meeting or exceeding the goals of the proposed criteria and state law requirements on % of electricity from renewable and sustainable energy sources and substantial carbon reduction through wind, solar and high efficiency NG turbines.


----------



## DevilsBrew (Jun 22, 2014)

I hate the government.  lol.  I truly do.


----------



## begreen (Jun 22, 2014)

Lke it or not, the govt R US. 

In this case, on the state level I am for a carbon tax to help us reach our goals coupled with a reduction in the the B&O taxes and sales tax.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 24, 2014)

Only seven things are impeding the EPA and preventing the US from achieving a clean, healthy and safe energy future:

*Lust* – having an intense desire or want for more and more comforts and possessions

*Gluttony* – excesses in energy consumption beyond anything needed to sustain a healthy life

*Greed* - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness of creature comforts

*Laziness/sloth *– apathy, disinclined to activity or exertion, stuck in the status quo, unwilling to change behaviors which would result in a healthier world

*Wrath* – strong vengeful anger or indignation directed against those who remind us of the danger faced by current excesses in consumption and inaction

*Envy* – painful or resentful awareness of an apparent advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same apparent advantage gained from wasteful energy consumption

*Pride* - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem based on self-indulgence and consumption


----------



## semipro (Jun 25, 2014)

jebatty said:


> Only seven things are impeding the EPA and preventing the US from achieving a clean, healthy and safe energy future:
> 
> *Lust* – having an intense desire or want for more and more comforts and possessions
> 
> ...


Maybe an 8th deadly sin would be "bureaucracy" in this case.


----------



## begreen (Jun 25, 2014)

Extraordinary lobbying and disinformation efforts backed by almost limitless funds are impeding more than just the EPA.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 18, 2014)

jebatty said:


> Only seven things are impeding the EPA and preventing the US from achieving a clean, healthy and safe energy future:



Ya left out* Profit*.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 22, 2014)

Nothing wrong with profit, but profit wrapped into lust, gluttony and greed clearly would be an impediment.


----------



## sloeffle (Oct 14, 2014)

I know this an old topic but I was reading through our local electric co op magazine. Personally I would call this a scare tactic, but that might be taking it a little too far:

http://www.countryliving.coop/departments/electric-bills-bring-pain-members-gain/

And every month since the proposed plan our wonderful President and CEO of our co op has been writing about how the world is coming to an end because we can no longer burn coal and not have to deal with the effects:

http://www.countryliving.coop/department/viewpoint/

I hope the American public does not buy into this garbage and they see that we need to make renewables apart our energy mix along with coal, NG, nuclear etc.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 14, 2014)

O such whining!  

His first piece: http://www.countryliving.coop/departments/epas-lack-perspective/  basically talks about how the regulatory environment changes every decade or two and he has to change his business model.  Waah.  He decided to spend billions to upgrade pollution controls on his coal plant a few years ago, which anyone familiar with climate change science would consider to be a bad investment, and now look, the EPA is telling him its a bad investment.   Did HE look at the regulatory environment coming down the pipe, like the EPA rules written _5 years ago_ about new coal plants, and choose accordingly?  Nope.  In his mind, of course, he the CEO made the right choice, and the lost billions are someone else's fault!

He cites and interview by oil-man Yergin http://www.countryliving.coop/departments/daniel-yergin-future-energy/ in some place called the 'Wall Street Journal'. Yergin states that maybe the world in 20 years will get 5% more of its energy from RE, otherwise it will be just a big fossil-fuel party.  See, says the CEO, I was right all along!

The good news is Ohio has great RE resources....do you think this guy is ready for a glut of cheap wind and (coming) cheap solar and (coming) cheap grid storage to blow away his business model?


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 14, 2014)

As for the original thread topic....

BO did indeed crow about this policy in front of the UN, while 300,000 people were marching against climate change a few miles away.  There was talk about the US and China making their own joint climate deal, and then bringing it to the big climate meeting in a year as a fait accompli.

My thoughts on the plan have evolved.  Originally I was disappointed that they were only proposing a 15% reduction in 15 years, when the US had been dropping almost that much since 2005 anyway without a plan.  Unlike many such 'political plans' however, it was not backloaded....the plan actually wants most of the reduction on the front end.  Of course, when the much predicted healthy economy shows up, any reduction will be a lot more difficult.  The plan is also flexible, in that once its set up, the EPA can turn the screw, and decide that CO2 reductions have to be steeper.  The plan as written is broadly popular in polls, and the projected costs sound low. 

So, one conclusion is that the administration is betting that the politics of CO2 reduction will get easier with time....more millenial voters, state plans already set up, more/cheaper RE, more reliable cost estimates, more avoided malinvestments (thus fewer counter-lobbyists), more global agreeements, etc.

IOW, an easy to swallow sugar pill to get the process started.  Once it is politically feasible, this system provides a means of ramping up the reductions.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Oct 15, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Does your plant get cycled seasonally to meet varying loads?  Does it get throttled on a daily cycle, or flat out?  Can it throttle?


I thought the only plants that do not get throttled daily were the nukes.
Don't all of the Coal and Heavy Oil plants have to come down to half load at night to "rap & shake" their particulate capture equipment?
Not a pollution control issue, but I know for a fact that the Plants on Long Island all come down to "half boiler" levels a couple of nights a week just to shovel mussels out of the cooling condensers.


----------



## begreen (Oct 18, 2014)

Coal and nukes are base load plants. They run at steady state unless maintenance is required. It's quite costly to cycle them.

http://www.ipautah.com/data/upfiles/newsletters/cyclingarticles.pdf


----------



## DBoon (Oct 19, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Yergin states that maybe the world in 20 years will get 5% more of its energy from RE, otherwise it will be just a big fossil-fuel party.


In 7 years, US solar PV production has increased by an order of magnitude, from 0.1% to 1% of total electrical generation.  This is a >30% growth rate.  In some states, solar PV is 10% of total generation.  With wind, renewables are at about 3% today.  

It is projected that growth will continue at 30% for at least another few years, despite the elimination of federal tax incentives.  If this is the case, then it won't take 20 years for solar PV to reach 5%.  Discounting wind generation additions, solar PV alone will reach 5% in 6 years.  With wind, we should be at 5% in 3 to 4 years.  Sure, the growth rate has to slow down - we can't be at >100% in 15 years - but even a 10% growth rate for 20 years gets us to 5%, and a 15% growth rate gets us to 15%.  

Exciting times.  You can slow the growth but it will be difficult to stop.  Democratizing and distributing power production will result in change far faster than established players can even begin to comprehend.  The electric power industry today (and to some extent, the oil and gas industry) are the equivalent of AT&T and MCI in 1995 - big players with little comprehension of the changes coming their way and what it means for their core business.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 19, 2014)

Agreed.

I have US wind around 4.5% and Solar is 0.5% of electrical energy in 2014, so we are at 5% total for those right now.  Biomass is also huge.

Solar PV is >5% electrical energy in HI and is approaching 5% in CA, with a 30% annual growth rate over the last several years, and continuing.

Yup. Yergin's full of it.  

Sadly, the EIA figures look much like his.  Their approach is to extrapolate current RE trends linearly (rather than exponentially), and then to asymptote them over to some figure like 5-10% in the future without any explanation.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Oct 26, 2014)

begreen said:


> Coal and nukes are base load plants. They run at steady state unless maintenance is required. It's quite costly to cycle them.
> 
> http://www.ipautah.com/data/upfiles/newsletters/cyclingarticles.pdf



Almost all coal plants go up and down daily or many times per day. The lesser efficient ones now-a-days spend most of the time at min load. Nukes are the only ones that do not get dispatched. Coal plants were mostly designed for base load but that is a thing of the past, except for very very cheap ones. A lot of coal plants are even used for regulation now, and the larger amount of wind and other non-frequency responsive and non-regulating generators put even more strain on moving coal plants around. The cost of coal has gone up recently, and the cheaper NG prices has priced a lot of them 'on the bubble'. 

Cycling is usually the term used when talking about shutting plants down overnight and bringing back on the next day. Typically only gas plants do that, as it takes many more hours and a lot more work to shut down and start coal plants.



CaptSpiff said:


> I thought the only plants that do not get throttled daily were the nukes.
> Don't all of the Coal and Heavy Oil plants have to come down to half load at night to "rap & shake" their particulate capture equipment?
> Not a pollution control issue, but I know for a fact that the Plants on Long Island all come down to "half boiler" levels a couple of nights a week just to shovel mussels out of the cooling condensers.



Yes there are all sorts of reasons they come down at night. Usually every few days coal plants have to deslag the boiler. Some units have to rap their ESPs (electrostatic precipitators), backwash condensers and intake screens and all sorts of things.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> As for the original thread topic....
> BO did indeed crow about this policy in front of the UN, while 300,000 people were marching against climate change a few miles away.  There was talk about the US and China making their own joint climate deal, and then bringing it to the big climate meeting in a year as a fait accompli.



So the 'secret' plan with China was announced, with slightly steeper cuts than in the original EPA plan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/w...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
the loyal opposition thinks its a bad deal:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ns-by-at-least-26-percent-over-next-11-years/

I think 'climate' is the one of BO's agenda items, but the one he left for last.  Cutting a deal with China will make the US look like a leader in Paris next year, before the meeting even starts off.  I think this is a good approach, because those meetings tend to be circuses...let the narrative be all about the US-China deal and the global response to it, rather than whatever other noise it would have been about.

BO's timing is also selected as a pick me up after the midterms, to enrage his opponents even more, and to provide some 'backup' if/when it comes time to veto whatever bill congress sends his way with the 'defund the EPA' rider attached.  As in...."The EPA and its carbon reduction plan for the US is central to our recent historic agreement with China to reduce global carbon emissions, and I hope the beginning of a new approach to this critically important problem to be realized at the global climate talks in Paris next year.  This plan represents the critical first step in delivering a livable planet to our children and grandchildren.  For this reason, I am forced to veto...."

Two interesting questions...(1) will the more extreme 'enviros' like McKibben deride this agreement as too little too late, or make (IMO the better strategy) rally their followers to making this deal a priority.  (2) will the deal provide political cover for BO to agree to the Keystone pipeline, perhaps as a compromise, but one that risks losing support from the enviros.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2014)

Interesting stat.....to keep their end of the deal, China will have to field an amount of wind and solar generation (and/or nukes) that would be sufficient to run the entire US, and do so in the next 15 years.


----------



## sloeffle (Nov 12, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Interesting stat.....to keep their end of the deal, China will have to field an amount of wind and solar generation (and/or nukes) that would be sufficient to run the entire US, and do so in the next 15 years.


That will make Germany's adoption of solar look like childs play if they can pull it off. I hope they can do it. That will hopefully get the US's a$$ in gear.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2014)

Indeed.  But on a percentage basis that is only 20% of China's projected energy (not electric) usage in 2030.  Germany could be well ahead of them on a percentage basis at that point.  As could and should be the US.  After all, developed countries should get there first, on a percentage basis.


----------



## dougstove (Nov 12, 2014)

Have you seen the cunning Dutch are installing solar panels embedded in...bicycle paths?
They point out that bicycle paths (30,000 km in the Netherlands) can be connected continuously and with standard components, rather than individual grid ties for every house rooftop


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 12, 2014)

as china becomes the usa raising their middle class, they spew what you say we can't, ours disappears?i don't get it. 97% say it almost to late, what china spews makes no difference what we save. other big economies not even mentioned. in 2030 china will release  some 30 what gazillion tons? in the mean time the USA grabs it's groin.








































5


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2014)

Ok Doug.  They've got 4x the population, and are currently emitting less than 2x what we are, that is about 40% of our emissions per capita.  Projections I've seen say their peak emissions will be 60-80% of our current emissions per capita, and then decline.   Of CO2 emissions in the last century, close to 30% have come from the old USA, about 8% from China.

Based on the above #s, what would you propose would be the fair approach going forward....I think us both 'doing what we can' is pretty fair.

As for timeline...everyone assumes it will take decades to get emissions down...the rush is to get started on the path.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 12, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Ok Doug.  They've got 4x the population, and are currently emitting less than 2x what we are, that is about 40% of our emissions per capita.  Projections I've seen say their peak emissions will be 60-80% of our current emissions per capita, and then decline.   Of CO2 emissions in the last century, close to 30% have come from the old USA, about 8% from China.
> 
> Based on the above #s, what would you propose would be the fair approach going forward....I think us both 'doing what we can' is pretty fair.
> 
> As for timeline...everyone assumes it will take decades to get emissions down...the rush is to get started on the path.


keep telling youself that we are worse and see where that leads your grandkids? per cap b/s keep your gc's in the style you have. let's give the middle finger to china and give the forgotten continent electricity


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2014)

How are we worse?  Where did I say that?

There is this thing called the 'development curve' and all countries are on it marching to the right, say in GDP/capita or standard of living or wealth/capita.  Right now we've got the US, Western Europe and Japan all on a par development-wise.  The only place in China that is close to that GDP/capita or wealth/capita is Hong Kong...the rest of China is much lower. By our standards the Chinese are **poor**.

Less developed places grow faster, but their growth slows down as they get more developed....we've seen that happen in Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc.   Even the US growth followed the same pattern a century earlier.

The US is farther along the growth curve, so our emissions are growing more slowly, and can be pushed down by improvements in efficiency. The Chinese will get caught up eventually, maybe in a few decades. Luckily, with improved technology, they will emit less C per person during their development than the US did.


----------

