Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

As with our previous exchange, you just don't understand the topic.

 

Coal has done just fine as a single source for the last century. It can continue to do it for at least the next 800 years if the political hacks would just leave it alone.

 

As it happens, renewables are losing ground with the public.
IMF: Recent Surges in Energy Prices Could Complicate Net Zero Goals
Eric Worrall
“… recent surges in energy prices could complicate the achievement of temperature goals …” – The more expensive fossil fuel energy is, the less likely people are to invest in…

 

Alarmist policy prescriptions are collapsing.
‘Al Gore and the End of Climate Policy’ (autopsy time)
Guest Blogger
The mitigation strategy of the United Nations, the UK/EU, and the Biden Administration has failed. . . .

 

Swahili proverb: Slowly, slowly catch a monkey.

Net Zero or Good Enough?
Posted on February 9, 2023
by Russell Schussler and Roger Caiazza

This good enough plan may get you to net zero before the more ambitious ones. It is likely to have less carbon emissions than the more aggressive plans over time. It certainly will be more reliable and affordable.

Continue reading →

 

The reason for coal not being successful as a single source doesn't involve measuring the amount of coal under our land.

 

Wind power costs less per kwh that other sources.

Home solar pays off the homeowner against the cost of grid power. Plus, it makes the home pretty much independent in cases of shortages and disasters.

 

This isn't a binary situation. Progress that is made reduces impact.

There are just too many things wrong about this blog. "Renewable natural gas"??? Hydrogen? "Good enough"?

And, yes, our grid(S) need serious upgrades. That has been known for DECADES. And, there are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with electric cars or whatever. Today our grids are vulnerable to natural disasters as well as attacks. And, electric transmission is causing greater than necessary loss of energy - making transmission expensive.

Plus, your assumption is that doing less will get more - a lovely proposition, but it assumes that all working on these plans are either idiots or are controlled by some other agenda. And, neither you nor this article can show that.

 

Not the point.

 

Still evading.

 

Then what could it possibly involve?

You get the coal, send it to the power plant, and make electricity amply and reliably. What's the problem with that?

 

Well, this is a decided issue.

I'm going to trust that you are interested enough to do the small amount of googling necessary.

 

No, I'm not interested in Googling idiot's opinions. When did a simple coal plant become incapable? And more importantly, why? What cheese brain figured that one?

 

I see no indication of you even slightly caring about why our existing energy policy is formed the way it is.

So, I can not afford the time.

I mean, SERIOUSLY, why would you care about what I said, no matter what I cited for you?

It's just silly for you to ask.

 

I care because what you say makes no sense. Existing energy policy seems to have been increasingly taken hostage by the "climate change" ninnies to the ultimate detriment of society as a whole, particularly the poor and less fortunate who could really use tha help of simple, proven technology.

But then, the elites pushing climate change don't really care about anyone else.

I'm just seeing if maybe there's anything I've missed.

 

Carbon farming and claims of greenwashing in Australia.
‘Something is not right here’: Controversial cash crop in Australia raises eyebrows
Carbon farming — in which landowners are paid to preserve, replant or regenerate carbon dioxide-storing trees and vegetation — is becoming big business in Australia. But critics say it’s greenwashing, and offers lessons for other countries trying to get to net-zero.
By Michael E. Miller and Frances Vinall

 

Dodging the issues of cost and volume, there is no doubt that plants and trees gather carbon from the air. They don't get that carbon from the soil.

So, increasing or even just maintaining plants such as trees is a positive approach.

To work, a system of carbon credits would have to be carefully managed and would have to include regulation and enforcement if it the purpose is to constrain pollution. Australia shows the problem.

I think the problem here is that the regulation surrounding our system isn't NEARLY good enough to cause the change we need.

Plus, I suspect this just rewards the wealthy for being wealthy.

It's an interesting idea. After all, it puts a price on carbon and uses capitalism to guide use.

 

Still a bad idea.

 

You do recognize that my post was not favorable to carbon credit systems, right?

Maybe you could have just given me a "like".

 

The fastest growing fuel type for creating electricity is NATURAL GAS.

The cheapest creation of electricity is wind.

Clean energy is cost effective, and is growing at the same rate as US energy demand is growing.

Are you just focused on coal?

 

Well, that was the specific question I was responding to so, yes it's specifically focused on that one fuel source. But the same could be said of petroleum or nuclear too.

As reliable as the day is long and proven by decades of use.

 

The US uses a good number of sources of energy in creating electricity.

Coal makes up about 22% of our production.

Natural gas makes up about 38% of our production.

Renewables make up about 19% of our production.

You can check it out here:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

We're better off by having a mix, as each source of energy has different characteristics.

I'm not in favor of coal, as it has serious effects on our environment through mining and acidification as well as on air quality issues.

 

Expensive electricity.
Wind, Solar, and Household Electricity Prices
Guest Blogger
From all of the above, ie. from looking at the full picture, wind and solar demonstrably drive up the cost of electricity. . . .

 

This article is more political screed.

In not one single case does the author attempt to understand why prices are what they are in any of the countries mentioned.

It just assumes that the reason is the involvement of clean energy!!

Wind is still the cheapest method of producing power in the USA.

We know that there are upheavals that have caused problems with the energy strategies of a number of countries.

 

• "There’s definitely a visible correlation, with higher wind+solar relating to higher electricity prices."