links for 2009-10-05

1. Which is a lot like saying that nobody should have died when the Titanic went down, because swimming was very much in fashion.

   That’s not a fair comparison. There’s actually good evidence that the human race has thrived during warming periods, and suffered in colder ones. Of course, to accept that premise, people have to first accept that the global climate is cyclical and has little to do with human action. But that, as they say, is a whole ‘nother issue.

2. And, likewise, the survival of the human race was not in question with the sinking of the Titanic. I think it works pretty well as a metaphor. Because, really, if we’re down to considering whether humanity will collectively survive, we’re in rough shape.

3. Global warming is one of those problems that will not get solved (sort of like congestion in Northern Virginia). An 83% reduction in GHGs in the US would mean no fossil fuels in energy consumption (all sectors). And even then, you would still need to cut out something from either agriculture or human waste management or what we now use instead of Freon. As an aside, the Chamber’s statement there is funny. R-143a the refrigerant replacement to Freon is also a powerful greenhouse gas.

   Most power plants are expected to be around for decades. And we would be replacing nearly the entire fleet in the course of 41 years. To stagger that over time, we need to be building 42, 500-MW, non-fossil-fuel plants every year at a total overnight cost of anywhere from $20 billion to $100 billion per year (and that’s just coal, oil and natural gas plants alone). The total cost over that time period would be in the trillions and that is just the power plants. And to put that in perspective, we are only building a fifth of that required capacity in renewables next year. And that is planned, nameplate capacity. So, in reality, much less power because Wind never gets even close to its nameplate capacity.

   Then we also need to stop using petroleum for transportation, which if we are relying on electricity means even more capital costs for our electric infrastructure. But you also have the problem with what to do with jets and ships. On ships, I guess for the larger ones, we could put nuclear engines on them. For the smaller ones, I guess it is back to sails. For flight, I don’t know what replaces jet fuel. Maybe biomass powered propeller planes? And what about lubricants and asphalt?

   And then you still have end use consumption… So, among other things: no heating oil and no natural gas. I hope you don’t like gas ranges either; those would be out as well. And so if we are converting all of that consumption to electricity, that is another large amount of new generation we need to build.

   And all of this has to be done whilst China and India roar ahead in economic development using tons and tons of fossil fuels to power that growth. And their use of less fossil fuels is predicated on us paying for them to use something else in addition to paying to convert our own economy to something else.

   So, if Florida is going to be underwater, it’s going to be underwater.

4. Economically, spending trillions on new power plants is way cheaper than an underwater Florida. It’s the rational choice.

5. Fight global warming. Support nuclear power.

6. Even if we managed to get on the ball (which is a high bar), all during that period we will be generating GHGs. Even at the end of it, we’ll still be generating GHGs. All of what we generated over time is going to persist in the atmosphere for centuries. What guarantee do we have that after spending all of that money, we will have averted a crisis?

   The best, I think, we are going to get is incrementalism. And if that kind of approach doesn’t result in avoiding some catastrophe, what was the point?

   It may be rational. And we may be able to do all of the things necessary to get us to a massive reduction goal of 83%. But will we? And that is what I was getting at. Not whether we should, but will we implement a solution that really solves this problem? I still even get stuck at can we.

7. Building alt.energy infrastructure sure sounds like a great way to employ all those former knitting mill, call center, car salesmen and whomever that make up the 15 million unemployed, plus underemployed Americans that need work. And by taking the lead, we sell the technology to the rest of the world, like we did photovoltaics. Only this time we get a better deal.

   Moving away from a consumptive economy to an innovative/export economy brings with it a logic that makes carbon sequestration into biomass a solid business model. Think soil, forestry, silvaculture, etc. And if we eradicate institutionalized poverty, and anti-contraceptive dogma we remove incentives to have too many children, who become new engines of carbon emission.

   But most importantly we make a positive start on it, and buy enough time to start making smart decisions about a sustainable civilization. We decide not to ride a handbasket-to-hell of our own making.

8. Quick honest question Bubby: Just exactly how many children is “too many children”?

9. Meri, I think he means in aggregate. There is only so much arable land on the earth and only so much potable water. Then there are the limitations of other resources if we are talking about quality of life. There isn’t enough oil supply in the world in production or in reserve that could handle the full populations of China and India consuming petroleum as we do. That would be even if we mined all of the tar sands in Canada and the US and around the world.

   Also, on nuclear, that is in the ACES bill. And the Senate will probably even add more to support nuclear. Again, is it a wonder why Exelon was pissed at the Chamber? The feds still haven’t figured out where to put all that waste. Though maybe we’ll switch to Thorium. Nuclear is also super expensive on the capital investment side. And you don’t get away from importing the fuel. Though Uranium imports are from friendly countries like Canada and South Africa.

10. Three. Two represent replacement units.

11. Ok. Thanks, Bubby. Odd, but thanks.

Comments are closed.