Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

robe

Zero emissions by 2035 in California

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2022 at 2:20 PM, RSF said:

Sounds more like a temporary situation that a doubling down.  And regardless, the article confirms what I said.

 

China is one of the biggest investors in wind and solar, but jittery leaders called for more coal-fired power after economic growth plunged last year and shortages caused blackouts and factory shutdowns. Russia's attack on Ukraine added to anxiety that foreign oil and coal supplies might be disrupted.

Beijing has spent tens of billions of dollars on building solar and wind farms to reduce reliance on imported oil and gas and clean up its smog-choked cities. China accounted for about half of global investment in wind and solar in 2020.

"This mentality of ensuring energy security has become dominant, trumping carbon neutrality," said Li Shuo, a senior global policy adviser for Greenpeace. "We are moving into a relatively unfavorable time period for climate action in China."

 

 

They are producing more energy.  Including from coal.  There is no plan to reduce their carbon footprint.  They DGAF.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what the article says, but whatever.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 2:28 PM, RSF said:

Not what the article says, but whatever.

Their coal consumption has gone up every year.  Up 4.1% last year and will go up again this year. No...+++++s...given.

You think they just approved the building 33 gigawatts of coal-based power generation, to stop using them in a few years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 3:30 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Their coal consumption has gone up every year.  Up 4.1% last year and will go up again this year. No...+++++s...given.

You think they just approved the building 33 gigawatts of coal-based power generation, to stop using them in a few years?

And their renewables have grown at a greater rate.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 5:45 AM, Akkula said:

I don't know about rail.  I don't really like rail between cities much.   Why not just use a bus on less crowded highways?

You all need to tear out all that grass in the American west.   You need to charge much more for water.  Give a certain amount nearly free and the rest at really high cost for residential.   Did you know grass is one of the largest crops in the USA?  Insanity...  If you actually charged sustainable water rates there wouldn't be a shortage in reservoirs.  Think of how many fewer hours doing lawn care and gasoline saved on mowers. 

There are so many things that could be done that don't even require a ton of sacrifice.   People just get pissed because, "that is the way it has always been done."

"Our addiction to lawns means that grass is the single largest irrigated agricultural “crop” in America, more than corn, wheat, and fruit orchards combined. A NASA-led study in 2005 found that there were 63,000 square miles of turf grass in the United States, covering an area larger than Georgia. Keeping all that grass alive can consume about 50-75 percent of a residence’s water."

https:/www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2019/05/02/lawns-no-1-irrigated-crop-america/3655688002/

I agree lawns should be banned. But note that your quote referenced “residence’s water.” Agriculture uses 80% of the water moved around in the American West. No real change until that is reckoned with. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 2:34 PM, RSF said:

And their renewables have grown at a greater rate.

And?  They need more energy.  If they are continuing to increase GHG production at a rapid pace with no signs of slowing down.  They...don't...give...a...+++++.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine...they're just building those solar and wind farms because they want to kill birds.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 2:37 PM, RSF said:

Fine...they're just building those solar and wind farms because they want to kill birds.

They are building them to become more energy independent.  Period.  Full stop.  Nothing to do with the environment or climate change.  Hence, all the new coal plants they are spending billions on.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 3:39 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They are building them to become more energy dependent.  

giggle...

 

I'm just going off what's in the articles.  Take it up with them.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 2:39 PM, RSF said:

giggle...

Beat my edit.  But, it's true.

Nobody pollutes like China and has done so little to change.  Their GHG's are not showing any sign of slowing down, they are the leading polluter of the oceans.  China is asshole.  Them building solar and wind farms is not proof they care about climate change.  If they did, they would not be increasing their energy output from coal year after year and investing billions on new plants.  They give zero +++++s.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the goal is great.  It may not be possible but then nobody thought we could get to the moon by 1969 either.  JFK was ridiculed.

Point being set the mark high and if you do miss you will still be farther along than you expected.     Fossil Fuels will not die quietly, it will be messy with much gnashing of teeth.  Such a catch 22 of demand versus infrastructure.  It will take a real push to get the transformation into a quicker gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 8:41 AM, NVGiant said:

One problem with these zero emission targets is they deemphasize plug-in hybrids, which is a far more practical technology right now for widespread adoption. They don’t tax existing infrastructure nearly as much as an EV and their smaller batteries mean less mining of rare earth metals, they're easier to mass produce, and less expensive. Some PHEVs get 40+ miles of all-electric range right now, which means most people can drive their daily commute without gas simply by plugging the car in overnight in a regular 120v outlet (the smaller battery means you don’t need a level 2 charger). Anything longer and they drive like a conventional hybrid, with some getting more than 40 mpg, with no range anxiety. All while not sacrificing power (For example, the Toyota RAV4 PHEV has more than 300 hp, and is the fastest car in Toyota’s mass production line).

In other words, the efficiency of PHEVs is a dramatic upgrade from ICEs, without any major sacrifices.

Also, there are issues and limitations with carbon capture, too. The biggest problem right now is the environmental left has taken on an all-or-nothing stance, and the right is still pretending that climate change isn’t real. That combination has long prevented us from adopting a sort of all-hands-on-deck philosophy - more efficient cars (not limited to pure EVs), nuclear power, carbon capture, investment in renewables, etc., etc. - that would be necessary to make a meaningful difference.

In other words, politicians man.

I am not sure how I feel about 100% electric vehicles that don't even have the option of gasoline.   It seems like a bitch to use to travel between cities or longer distances.  I don't think having to sit for hours waiting on a fill up will really work.   I don't think all electric will really take off until a fill up takes as long as a current gas fill up.

I think hybrids are really more the future... especially if you move out of places without all the new infrastructure.   You have to think about other states and countries that do not have all the material wealth to just put charging stations everywhere but already have gas stations.   There are tons of gas stations already in place along highways. 

It seems like you could get 95% fossil fuel usage reduction with plug in hybrids but you won't run out of juice on a long road trip.  I can see a future where people only charge at home but fill up with gas if they are out and about and cannot stop. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 11:14 PM, Billings said:

I think the goal is great.  It may not be possible but then nobody thought we could get to the moon by 1969 either.  JFK was ridiculed.

Point being set the mark high and if you do miss you will still be farther along than you expected.     Fossil Fuels will not die quietly, it will be messy with much gnashing of teeth.  Such a catch 22 of demand versus infrastructure.  It will take a real push to get the transformation into a quicker gear.

 

Not comparable.  The moonshot did not harm citizens and companies if goals were not met.  Even if the goals are met it is going to drastically increase the cost of living, impacting the poor the most, as always.  "technology will improve" does not change the fact you will have to decide which ecosystems to destroy to build enough wind and solar farms to even dream of it.  Or that California is the most energy dependent state in the nation by a an order of magnitude already.  It's a goal without a plan.  

Comparisons to landing on the moon are dumb.  The 2045 goal was already, just earlier this year, considered a moonshot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP is disingenuous as always.   California plans to ban the sale of NEW cars that aren't plug in hybrid or EV by 2035.  It isn't zero emissions by 2035.  There will still be an active used market of gas powered cars,  I am sure. for decades after. 

How is this controversial or unrealistic again?  Just imagine LA with no smog!  Someone has to create a large market for these manufacturers to get economies of scale.  This reminds me of the conjob freakout when they stopped analog tv and forced digital TV signals and phased out incandescent bulbs, etc., etc.  All good moves by the government to kick start a market with hard deadlines provided. 

The sky is falling!

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 6:17 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Not comparable.  The moonshot did not harm citizens and companies if goals were not met.  Even if the goals are met it is going to drastically increase the cost of living, impacting the poor the most, as always.  "technology will improve" does not change the fact you will have to decide which ecosystems to destroy to build enough wind and solar farms to even dream of it.  Or that California is the most energy dependent state in the nation by a an order of magnitude already.  It's a goal without a plan.  

Comparisons to landing on the moon are dumb.  The 2045 goal was already, just earlier this year, considered a moonshot.  

Disagree.  one of the reasons private industry has not begun the overhaul of the grid is because there were no goals or laws saying they had to quickly adapt.   Industry will take the path of most profit and least resistance with a much shorter term view than we really need right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 3:51 PM, Akkula said:

The OP is disingenuous as always.   California plans to ban the sale of NEW cars that aren't plug in hybrid or EV by 2035.  It isn't zero emissions by 2035.  There will still be an active used market of gas powered cars,  I am sure. for decades after. 

How is this controversial or unrealistic again?  Just imagine LA with no smog!  Someone has to create a large market for these manufacturers to get economies of scale.  This reminds me of the conjob freakout when they stopped analog tv and forced digital TV signals and phased out incandescent bulbs, etc., etc.  All good moves by the government to kick start a market with hard deadlines provided. 

The sky is falling!

That was my understanding as well that plug in hybrids are allowed in this goal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 8:20 PM, Billings said:

Disagree.  one of the reasons private industry has not begun the overhaul of the grid is because there were no goals or laws saying they had to quickly adapt.   Industry will take the path of most profit and least resistance with a much shorter term view than we really need right now.

It is an failed ideology that takes individualism to a ridiculous level.  They hate any collective action to better ourselves.   These extremists can't stand the fact that government leadership was needed to win world wars,  go to the moon,  invent the internet,  and defeat covid.   If we waited on individuals to do that we wouldn't have done any of this things. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...