The Paris Agreement on Climate Change

[Cackalacky]

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change appears to have been finalized and over 200 countries have signed on to it. It is mostly legally binding as well.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

Governments have signalled an end to the fossil fuel era, committing for the first time to a universal agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change.

After 20 years of fraught meetings, including the past two weeks spent in an exhibition hall on the outskirts of Paris, negotiators from nearly 200 countries signed on to a legal agreement on Saturday evening that set ambitious goals to limit temperature rises and to hold governments to account for reaching those targets.

Government and business leaders said the agreement, which set a new goal to reach net zero emissions in the second half of the century, sent a powerful signal to global markets, hastening the transition away from fossil fuels and to a clean energy economy.

The deal was carefully constructed to carry legal force but without requiring approval by the US Congress - which would have almost certainly rejected it.

Six years after the chaotic ending of the Copenhagen climate summit, the agreement now known as the Paris Agreement for the first time commits rich countries, rising economies and some of the poorest countries to work together to curb emissions.

Rich countries agreed to raise $100bn (£66bn) a year by 2020 to help poor countries transform their economies. The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements – including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements – are not.


The deal was equally hailed for delivering a clear message to business leaders.

The International Investors Group on Climate Change, a network managing €13tn of assets, said the decision would help trigger a shift away from fossil fuels and encourage greater investments in renewable energy.

“Investors across Europe will now have the confidence to do much more to address the risks arising from high carbon assets and to seek opportunities linked to the low carbon transition already transforming the world’s energy system and infrastructure,” the group said.

Jennifer Morgan, of the environmental thinktank, the World Resources Institute, said the long term goal was “transformational” and “sends signals into the heart of the markets”.

The deal set a high aspirational goal to limit warming below 2C and strive to keep temperatures at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – a far more ambitious target than expected, and a key demand of vulnerable countries.

It incorporates commitments from 187 countries to reduce emissions, which on their own would only hold warming to between 2.7C and 3C.But it sets out procedures for review at regular intervals to deepen emissions cuts, with countries aiming to peak global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, and then rapidly scale down in the second half of this century.

Critics said the agreement would still condemn hundreds of million of people living in low-lying coastal areas and small islands, after US negotiators demanded the exclusion of language that could allow the agreement to be used to claim legal liability for climate change. But supporters said the negotiations took a significant step forward in getting countries to act together on a global challenge of immense complexity.

Saturday’s agreement was the product of years of preparation, two weeks of intense negotiations, capped off by three sleepless nights, with Barack Obama and Hollande phoning other leaders to bring them on side with the deal.

 

[palinurus]

.

 

[drayer54]

This issue always amazes me. Leaders sitting in a room in a country that gets a vast majority of its energy from a carbon free source. Then the rest sitting around wondering what the big nations could do to reduce power.....
It's like the answer was making steam at cooling towers all around the convention.

What is China doing? India? Turkey? UAE?

We did it once, then the dirt burning industries have fought it and psuedo-scientists have fought it and then the so called science friendly liberals have fought it tooth and nail.

Nuclear is the fastest and best path forward to clean energy and we are doing nothing but driving them offline.

I know the economics of cheap gas are hindering it, but the regulations keep pouring in and the cost per megawatt keeps ticking up with it. It just amazes me that we are going to continue to pretend that wind turbines and some PV's in the sunshine states are going to fix this.

 

[Cackalacky]

This issue always amazes me. Leaders sitting in a room in a country that gets a vast majority of its energy from a carbon free source. Then the rest sitting around wondering what the big nations could do to reduce power.....
It's like the answer was making steam at cooling towers all around the convention.

What is China doing? India? Turkey? UAE?

We did it once, then the dirt burning industries have fought it and psuedo-scientists have fought it and then the so called science friendly liberals have fought it tooth and nail.

Nuclear is the fastest and best path forward to clean energy and we are doing nothing but driving them offline.

I know the economics of cheap gas are hindering it, but the regulations keep pouring in and the cost per megawatt keeps ticking up with it. It just amazes me that we are going to continue to pretend that wind turbines and some PV's in the sunshine states are going to fix this.

What you say about nuclear is true but the end product and waste is worse than any other energy source. The waste has to be stored and buried and has a half life of thousands of years. I know of no way to recycle or reuse nuclear waste.

It has to be solar and wind. The costs are becoming much cheaper and inline with existing energy sources.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0 .

Regulations are for all the dangerous by products, handling and waste disposal of fossil fuels the regulations for solar and wind would mainly be limited to production of materials which are not nearly as dirty and contaminating as fossil fuel discovery, pumping, delivery, pipe lines, storage...

It actually can work, very well in fact. Germany is producing more solar and wind energy than its grid can handle. It will also require a whole new manufacturing and tech based economy to produce on a global scale. This is great for us here.

China is in the midst of a horrible environmental catastrophe right now. They have made several very strong regulations and have even shut down whole cities for days at a time becaue of their disastrous state right now.

Also as to your last sentence, that is really shortsighted. The entire country gets sunshine. PVP can be added to any building year round. Improvements to capacitors will allow for storage to be increased in times of lean solar input. It also can be so much more efficient and less wasteful with improved circuitry, thermostats, vac systems etc. It's all in the works, there just needs to be a push

 

[drayer54]

What you say about nuclear is true but the end product and waste is worse than any other energy source. The waste has to be stored and buried and has a half life of thousands of years. I know of no way to recycle or reuse nuclear waste.

It has to be solar and wind.

We ban the regeneration in this country... for now. That could be used.

We could also stick it under the one mountain (next to the area we dumped tons of test bombs on) where nobody lives and it would be problem solved. The waste can fit in a tight area.

I look for a market solution in either the Carlsbad or West Texas area to accept the waste in our lifetime. It's not like the waste is that immense. The other two mentioned simply can't provide the baseload capacity to run our country.

This is where we're headed. The Night Britain’s Lights Went Out - WSJ

Not much different from the 1800/MW we saw in the NE a few years back.

 

[Cackalacky]

We ban the regeneration in this country... for now. That could be used.

We could also stick it under the one mountain (next to the area we dumped tons of test bombs on) where nobody lives and it would be problem solved. The waste can fit in a tight area.

I look for a market solution in either the Carlsbad or West Texas area to accept the waste in our lifetime. It's not like the waste is that immense. The other two mentioned simply can't provide the baseload capacity to run our country.

This is where we're headed. The Night Britain’s Lights Went Out - WSJ

Not much different from the 1800/MW we saw in the NE a few years back.

Nuclear waste is terrible. Storing t under a mountain and forget about it???? Lol. This is the reason we are where we are now! It does not go away. It is extremely dangerous to life. The negatives for nuclear use are VERY SIGNIFICANT. You don't think the volume of waste would increase ten fold if we replaced all the demand with nuclear? We don't even produce 25% of our current demand with nuclear. And yes waste is immensely difficult to handle, transport and store. There are plans to remediate sites already contaminated by radioactive waste and mining activities that have not begun yet. Solar and wind do not have these issues.

And we are NOT headed in that direction you linked to. The grids must improved no matter what source we use. They have not been improved at all and in fact have been very neglected. Again.... this is a relatively easy fix should the capital be implemented.

 

[drayer54]

Nuclear waste is terrible. Storing t under a mountain and forget about it???? Lol. This is the reason we are where we are now! It does not go away. It is extremely dangerous to life. The negatives for nuclear use are VERY SIGNIFICANT.

And we are NOT headed in that direction you linked to. The grids must improved no matter what source we use. They have not been improved at all and in fact have been very neglected. Again.... this is a relatively easy fix should the capital be implemented.

The downside of nuclear is dry cask storage? It is the safest and most reliable form of electricity we have. I'd rather live downwind of a nuke plant with a half acre of concrete blocks sitting on it than a coal plant or wind farm.

Why is the waste so terrible? Bill Gates is funding ways to burn that spent fuel and then use it for years of clean power. Weapons waste is another story... That is nasty stuff. The commercial stuff is low-level. It sits in a concrete block and sits there.
We'll probably continue to subsidize wind and solar beyond belief and drive out the baseload market.

 

[Cackalacky]

The downside of nuclear is dry cask storage? It is the safest and most reliable form of electricity we have. I'd rather live downwind of a nuke plant with a half acre of concrete blocks sitting on it than a coal plant or wind farm.

Why is the waste so terrible? Bill Gates is funding ways to burn that spent fuel and then use it for years of clean power. Weapons waste is another story... That is nasty stuff. The commercial stuff is low-level. It sits in a concrete block and sits there.
We'll probably continue to subsidize wind and solar beyond belief and drive out the baseload market.

If you have to ask then there is not much I can say. It is a mentality of not leaving waste behind. It is a mentality of net neutral production, zero emissions. It's about not leaving waste behind for our future generations to have to deal with later. This is exactly what our forebears have done to us. Look at the costs we have to pay now because they were as indifferent about their wastes as you are saying here.

 

[Old Man Mike]

.... nice that some sort of agreement finally has been signed.... regardless of whether it's perfect. All attempts at solutions to monsters begin with a serious but imperfect commitment. More creativity, morality, and effort then follows on.

The sad part of this is, it's too late. A whole lot of folks are already dead from the "slow bullets" of water and soil diminution/degradation and general weather shifting [plus the "social problems" which forced migrations cause --- terrorism, genocide et al], and that's whether anyone believes the real sea level rise and fragile Greenland glacier impacts at all. ... and there's a he!l of a lot more than that.

I look forward to people griping about how the accord isn't perfect and then happily turning their backs on the only true issue here --- what are each of us going to do to help out rather than selfishly just going our way? The only real piece of life that one controls is ones own. And that's where we meet our God face to face. But, hey, who cares?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Just another bullet point on Obama's ever growing GOAT president resume

 

[IrishinSyria]

I agree with both @cack and @drayer on nuclear: it's got to be part of the mix, but we need to figure out storage first, then worry about building it up

 

[Grahambo]

Just another bullet point on Obama's ever growing GOAT president resume

 

[Cackalacky]

.... nice that some sort of agreement finally has been signed.... regardless of whether it's perfect. All attempts at solutions to monsters begin with a serious but imperfect commitment. More creativity, morality, and effort then follows on.

The sad part of this is, it's too late. A whole lot of folks are already dead from the "slow bullets" of water and soil diminution/degradation and general weather shifting [plus the "social problems" which forced migrations cause --- terrorism, genocide et al], and that's whether anyone believes the real sea level rise and fragile Greenland glacier impacts at all. ... and there's a he!l of a lot more than that.

I look forward to people griping about how the accord isn't perfect and then happily turning their backs on the only true issue here --- what are each of us going to do to help out rather than selfishly just going our way? The only real piece of life that one controls is ones own. And that's where we meet our God face to face. But, hey, who cares?

 

[GoIrish41]

.... nice that some sort of agreement finally has been signed.... regardless of whether it's perfect. All attempts at solutions to monsters begin with a serious but imperfect commitment. More creativity, morality, and effort then follows on.

The sad part of this is, it's too late. A whole lot of folks are already dead from the "slow bullets" of water and soil diminution/degradation and general weather shifting [plus the "social problems" which forced migrations cause --- terrorism, genocide et al], and that's whether anyone believes the real sea level rise and fragile Greenland glacier impacts at all. ... and there's a he!l of a lot more than that.

I look forward to people griping about how the accord isn't perfect and then happily turning their backs on the only true issue here --- what are each of us going to do to help out rather than selfishly just going our way? The only real piece of life that one controls is ones own. And that's where we meet our God face to face. But, hey, who cares?

Brilliant post!

 

[MNIrishman]

If you have to ask then there is not much I can say. It is a mentality of not leaving waste behind. It is a mentality of net neutral production, zero emissions. It's about not leaving waste behind for our future generations to have to deal with later. This is exactly what our forebears have done to us. Look at the costs we have to pay now because they were as indifferent about their wastes as you are saying here.

I know we're working on reducing coal, but the status quo is worse than nuclear when it comes to emissions: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste - Scientific American

Solar cells ("PV's") are also EXTREMELY bad for the environment, in that the hidden side of manufacture produces immense amounts of toxic waste (Solar Energy Isn't Always as Green as You Think - IEEE Spectrum). It looks like this:

.

Wind has major issues as well, since a "plant" requires dozens or hundreds of turbines each so high as to make routine maintenance very difficult. When components fail, such as the governor, shit like this happens:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZMNqjirbWoQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Modern nuclear technologies, which are largely NOT presently implemented, have the ability to reduce the waste output substantially ((http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221130029.htm)) and generate power for thousands of years to come. This is where we SHOULD be focusing our resources, along with much more fundamental research on PVs.

Unfortunately, we don't have the battery technology to smooth out the production curves created by such transient power sources, even if we were able to solve the significant environmental problems. Even if we did, the $/kWh is still way too high. I cannot endorse the idea of converting our entire power grid into one based on these methods until their problems, which are MUCH MUCH MUCH more significant than nuclear, are more properly addressed.

In the meantime, I'd direct a chunk of our research dollars at fusion, which continues to make headway (Feature: Germany fires up bizarre new fusion reactor | Science/AAAS | News). Our IMMEDIATE solution to climate change must be to focus on modern GEN IV nuclear reactors, with continued research on solar and other alternatives before such underdeveloped and dangerous solutions are globally deployed.

Chernobyl resulted in 56 deaths. Pollution in China results in nearly 100x that every day: Air Pollution Causes 4,400 Deaths In China Every Single Day: Study. Seeing as how we would never build anything as unsafe as Chernobyl in the US, that's not really a concern. Also, nuclear reactors produce many of the isotopes critical to modern healthcare.

Nuclear today. Nuclear tomorrow. Something else down the road when other solutions are little less half-assed.

 

[Irish YJ]

Read a few things about space disposal by 2030

 

[GoIrish41]

This agreement is a huge step in the right direction!

 

[Cackalacky]

I know we're working on reducing coal, but the status quo is worse than nuclear when it comes to emissions: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste - Scientific American

Solar cells ("PV's") are also EXTREMELY bad for the environment, in that the hidden side of manufacture produces immense amounts of toxic waste (Solar Energy Isn't Always as Green as You Think - IEEE Spectrum). It looks like this:

.

Wind has major issues as well, since a "plant" requires dozens or hundreds of turbines each so high as to make routine maintenance very difficult. When components fail, such as the governor, shit like this happens:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZMNqjirbWoQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Modern nuclear technologies, which are largely NOT presently implemented, have the ability to reduce the waste output substantially ((http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221130029.htm)) and generate power for thousands of years to come. This is where we SHOULD be focusing our resources, along with much more fundamental research on PVs.

Unfortunately, we don't have the battery technology to smooth out the production curves created by such transient power sources, even if we were able to solve the significant environmental problems. Even if we did, the $/kWh is still way too high. I cannot endorse the idea of converting our entire power grid into one based on these methods until their problems, which are MUCH MUCH MUCH more significant than nuclear, are more properly addressed.

In the meantime, I'd direct a chunk of our research dollars at fusion, which continues to make headway (Feature: Germany fires up bizarre new fusion reactor | Science/AAAS | News). Our IMMEDIATE solution to climate change must be to focus on modern GEN IV nuclear reactors, with continued research on solar and other alternatives before such underdeveloped and dangerous solutions are globally deployed.

Chernobyl resulted in 56 deaths. Pollution in China results in nearly 100x that every day: Air Pollution Causes 4,400 Deaths In China Every Single Day: Study. Seeing as how we would never build anything as unsafe as Chernobyl in the US, that's not really a concern. Also, nuclear reactors produce many of the isotopes critical to modern healthcare.

Nuclear today. Nuclear tomorrow. Something else down the road when other solutions are little less half-assed.

Good post. I will reply sometime today.

 

[Domina Nostra]

That goodness for this treaty. Now we can credit the non-rise in temperatures to our policy, rather than admitting we don't understand the climate even close to as well as we claim.

 

[Black Irish]

A group of arrogant world leaders decided that they will change the laws of nature and dictate which direction global temperatures go because they all signed a piece of paper.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in taking care of God's green Earth. Don't pollute, don't dump toxic chemicals into the water, etc. But my frustration with the politics of the issue is this; if the situation is as dire as the alarmists make it out to be then it's too late, and we're all doomed. And if it's not nearly that bad, then we have time to make better decisions and better plans then things like the Paris Accord. And by the way, how sizeable was the carbon footprint to have all of these world leaders travel to Paris for this summit? They could have done it remotely by phone or web cast. Oh wait, no photo ops in that.

 

[Old Man Mike]

My teaching life included fifteen years concentrating on being a professor in WMUs Environmental Studies Program. We tried as best and as open-mindedly as we could to present solutions [not just gripes] for each of the monsters out there that were arising. We attempted to present these alternatives based on the real world knowledge and the science/technology that should serve as a basis for problem-solving. I used to attend all the annual AAAS meetings to bring back the accumulated worries and wisdom of the science community. None of the solutions was an easy fix to any of this. The fact that there were real problems, however, WAS clear. AAAS conventions were not upbeat Happy-Dance-All-Night affairs.

No solution to the Energy issue was/is problem-free. However, wind and solar-driven technologies had by far the least concerning "side-effects" and long-term difficulties. They had huge short-term difficulties mainly due to economic costs and powerful status-quo opponents. Things like flaws in the technology were and are not really big deals. The polishing up of these early awkwardnesses always follows TRUE commitments to establishing systems and such are not rationally expected to be an on-going burden. We have NOT made a true commitment to these things and so the Big Movers of the business and technology world have not borne down upon them.

Nuclear fission is a complexity rarely understood by anyone when they casually and often heatedly make comments. To run a holistic "cradle-to-grave" system, one must consider the following general pieces:

1). Get the ore
2). Refine the ore
3). Transport it
4). Create a safe reactor
5). Install the radioactive "rods"
6). Run the plant safely/securely
7). Remove the partially spent fuel rods and securely store temporarily
8). Ultimately decommission the plant and "store" securely temporarily
9). Transport these two types of wastes "somewhere" securely
10).Possibly "treat" these wastes safely/securely
11).Transport treated wastes to some "final resting place" securely
12).Maintain the security of the depository for a long time.

If one looks at that list with honest eyes, one should universally [i.e. everyone should admit this first point at least] that this technology has a rather long and complicated list of concerning "steps" in it that no other energy system has [yes, they all have concerns, but these are unique to nuclear fission and they are not to be laughed off as easy no brainers --- ALL advocates of "nukes" in the professional community admit at least that much.] So, looking at the list, are there any show-stoppers?

That depends upon who you are. There are people [even if we eliminate all the knee-jerk ignorant people who are the huge majority despite their strong unearned opinions] who appear to honestly differ about this. My study of this issue is that the main border between the two camps is the level of fear of disaster felt by one person vs another. Some people are risk-taking dice-rollers. Some people are not. Everyone agrees that there are risks. This main divide centers upon whether we want to take them. And one should note: taking the risks will be INVOLUNTARY for all those on the no-nuke side, as, unlike buying drugs for instance, going nuclear affects more people than the person who decides to take a powerful drug --- no analogy is perfect, but an honest discussant should be able to catch this distinction.

So, where in the list has the scientific and knowledgeable analysis focussed?
#1 surprisingly is not a non-issue. Uranium mining not only notoriously kills miners [for reasons that it takes little reflection to see], but also creates the famous resource-rich world hot-spots which lead almost always to very bad "social" problems, often "solved" militarily;
#s3,9,11: anything to do with transporting radioactive materials is loaded with risks both in terms of human-error accidents and terrorism;
#s7,8: temporary storage of radioactive wastes has the same issues;
#12: the final resting place's construction, location, long-term security.

What would we have to do to install a rational risks vs benefits nuclear fission system?
A). make mining safe for the workers at least --- this would be a moral imperative;
B). make every transportation of radioactive material a serious military operation;
C). create serious temporary storage sites at every nuclear facility, and insist that no such wastes stay there long;
D). locate a geologically stable burial site where there is no possible connection to the water tables; take it over by National fiat [whether the relevant State likes it or not]; and overbuild it somewhat like the French system, including a permanent military mini-base on site.

THIS is the system upon which informed debate should be focussing. Only at the level of details like this can an intellectually fruitful discussion about risks-vs-rewards and rights-vs-responsibilities and distinctions between oppositely-held values be made.

 

[Domina Nostra]

A group of arrogant world leaders decided that they will change the laws of nature and dictate which direction global temperatures go because they all signed a piece of paper.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in taking care of God's green Earth. Don't pollute, don't dump toxic chemicals into the water, etc. But my frustration with the politics of the issue is this; if the situation is as dire as the alarmists make it out to be then it's too late, and we're all doomed. And if it's not nearly that bad, then we have time to make better decisions and better plans then things like the Paris Accord. And by the way, how sizeable was the carbon footprint to have all of these world leaders travel to Paris for this summit? They could have done it remotely by phone or web cast. Oh wait, no photo ops in that.

And the other part is the complete denial by its supporters of money/political motivations. The fact that Gore is worth hundreds of millions as a result of his campaign, billions of dollars are spent a year on research, education, etc., etc., is neither here nor there.

For example, if the President declares a "war on terror" and commits billions of dollars to fighting it--even if it is a perfect logical policy decision--its completely reasonable to ask who benefits, how it shifts power, where money is going, what the intelligence says, etc.

But with the Global Climate Change crowd, you are either a good person who will sign onto any law, spending bill, or international treaty, or a bad person who hates nature, science, and the poor.

 

[IrishLax]

The funny thing to me about climate change is how laughably wrong all of the models were that people made in the 90s and 00s, yet they routinely trot out the term "settled science."

If there is one truism of science, it is that scientists are always wrong. A such, I am very much so pro-environment, and anti-pollution but I think that alarmist "global warming" has generally been proven to be a giant fraud (hence the name change) and it is also arrogant to think that current temperatures are somehow "correct" from a long-term geological standpoint.

I also think that unless you're going to make SERIOUS changes to China/India... which hopefully this is a step in the right direction... that all environmental laws are virtually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[RuntheBall]

Interesting points here.

I have not read too much on the Paris Agreement, so forgive me if I am misinformed; but it seems to me most of talk here and in Paris tries to help the question "How do we generate our electricity as 'climate-conscious' as possible?".
That makes sense, and is the long term solution. But what if we come at it from the other end? How do we make our appliances/vehicles/homes use less energy? It seems to me to be another vital part to the worlds solution, but does not get as much 'play' as the generation topic (except maybe considering automobiles/EV's/hybrids).

 

[drayer54]

1). Get the ore
2). Refine the ore
3). Transport it
4). Create a safe reactor
5). Install the radioactive "rods"
6). Run the plant safely/securely
7). Remove the partially spent fuel rods and securely store temporarily
8). Ultimately decommission the plant and "store" securely temporarily
9). Transport these two types of wastes "somewhere" securely
10).Possibly "treat" these wastes safely/securely
11).Transport treated wastes to some "final resting place" securely
12).Maintain the security of the depository for a long time.

If one looks at that list with honest eyes, one should universally [i.e. everyone should admit this first point at least] that this technology has a rather long and complicated list of concerning "steps" in it that no other energy system has [yes, they all have concerns, but these are unique to nuclear fission and they are not to be laughed off as easy no brainers --- ALL advocates of "nukes" in the professional community admit at least that much.] So, looking at the list, are there any show-stoppers?

It's a system that is happening in the country many times a year. It's being done in a safe way by an industry that has a glowing safety record. Even the final steps are being done at places like Hanford and WIPP. The nuclear waste just sounds a lot worse than it really is. It's being done all around the world and it works for everyone else because they can just shove it in the mountain or wherever and not have aides from Nevada senators derail an entire industry.

 

[drayer54]

Interesting points here.

I have not read too much on the Paris Agreement, so forgive me if I am misinformed; but it seems to me most of talk here and in Paris tries to help the question "How do we generate our electricity as 'climate-conscious' as possible?".
That makes sense, and is the long term solution. But what if we come at it from the other end? How do we make our appliances/vehicles/homes use less energy? It seems to me to be another vital part to the worlds solution, but does not get as much 'play' as the generation topic (except maybe considering automobiles/EV's/hybrids).

I think fuel diversification from carbon free sources should be the ultimate goal. We are headed in a direction of less diversification due to natural gas prices, but the resources in the country aren't equally spread out. I see more nukes in the SE, wind the west, and gas in the NE. The blue states may not like fracked gas, but it's what you got when the Marcellus is mightier than the wind in those parts.

Knocking out coal would be the biggest game changer for the emissions, but it's not going to go away. We have so much that liquefaction processes will likely lead us into shipping it to sand countries that need cheap power. Getting the vehicles away from fossil fuels would be a mighty task, but it is what would need to happen. I think a first step towards using natural gas in vehicles would be possible.

 

[Cackalacky]

I know we're working on reducing coal, but the status quo is worse than nuclear when it comes to emissions: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste - Scientific American

This statement shows a real lack of nuance and and a couple of canards. Burning coal ash produces ash that contains concentrations of NORM than nuclear waste because when you burn it you are left with ash piles. The resulting fly ash and bottom ash however can be reused and once spread out and divided up emit no more radiation than a building because that is where the majority of. Aol ash goes. Into concrete used to build all of our buildings. The same cannot be said for nuclear waste which cannot be repurposed like this.

Solar cells ("PV's") are also EXTREMELY bad for the environment, in that the hidden side of manufacture produces immense amounts of toxic waste (Solar Energy Isn't Always as Green as You Think - IEEE Spectrum). It looks like this:

.

Silicon production for solar cells is performed in the same way as for all other cup chips and components. Yes there are heavy metal loaded sludge produced and yea during the boom of cups we had issues storing and disposing of the sludge by manufacturers. Again, we have made advances in filtration, extraction, repurposing by precipitation, and also have existing hazardous waste facilities that are able to reduce the heavy metal concentrations in waste water to near zero. Also the solar manufactures know what the problems are because the country manufacturers have already gone through it. There are regulations currently in place to govern the generation of heavy metals in wastewater.As a former employee of an environmental engineering firm I have over 10 years in cleaning up, analyzing, solving and helping property owners identify all manner of environmental issues.

Wind has major issues as well, since a "plant" requires dozens or hundreds of turbines each so high as to make routine maintenance very difficult. When components fail, such as the governor, shit like this happens:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZMNqjirbWoQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh no... a piece of mechanical equipment broke down? That has not happened before. This seems sort of petty. Much like cars r other mechanical devices that require near everyday operation they will require maintenance but also can be designed by engineers to withstand such demands. It is not something that can be perfected without there being failures to learn from. This is not even an issue for anyone. As OMM said this is something that is no big deal and will be addressed by manufacturers because who wants to spend that amount if money on a product that will fail.

Modern nuclear technologies, which are largely NOT presently implemented, have the ability to reduce the waste output substantially ((http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221130029.htm)) and generate power for thousands of years to come. This is where we SHOULD be focusing our resources, along with much more fundamental research on PVs.

I don't disagree with this but there are numerous countries that don't have nuclear technology nor do we want them to have it so this is not.an option for them. Further like OMM eloquently stated increased nuclear production is a significant military and societal risk. See his post for much more than I can say.

Unfortunately, we don't have the battery technology to smooth out the production curves created by such transient power sources, even if we were able to solve the significant environmental problems. Even if we did, the $/kWh is still way too high. I cannot endorse the idea of converting our entire power grid into one based on these methods until their problems, which are MUCH MUCH MUCH more significant than nuclear, are more properly addressed.

This is not entirely true Solar and Wind are very quickly catching up to fossil fuel related costs, albeit with limited subsidies that are not as good as the ones fossil fuel companies get. Further investment, further research and more comprehensive infrastructure will b bring the costs down. Just like most markets...right?

In the meantime, I'd direct a chunk of our research dollars at fusion, which continues to make headway (Feature: Germany fires up bizarre new fusion reactor | Science/AAAS | News). Our IMMEDIATE solution to climate change must be to focus on modern GEN IV nuclear reactors, with continued research on solar and other alternatives before such underdeveloped and dangerous solutions are globally deployed.

I posted this link earlier in the science thread. They took a 1milligram sample of helium, blasted it with a huge laser and created plasma for 0.1 SEC. While awesome and promising this represents the bottom of the barrel for available tech.

Chernobyl resulted in 56 deaths. Pollution in China results in nearly 100x that every day: Air Pollution Causes 4,400 Deaths In China Every Single Day: Study. Seeing as how we would never build anything as unsafe as Chernobyl in the US, that's not really a concern. Also, nuclear reactors produce many of the isotopes critical to modern healthcare. [\QUOTE] lots of stuff debunk here but I don't have time. Those deaths are only the ones directly attributable to the explosion and does not include all those who died from radiation sickness and you don't mention that Chernobyl is completely uninhabitable by humans presently. Wind and solar do not do that.

Nuclear today. Nuclear tomorrow. Something else down the road when other solutions are little less half-assed.

 

[Cackalacky]

Interesting points here.

I have not read too much on the Paris Agreement, so forgive me if I am misinformed; but it seems to me most of talk here and in Paris tries to help the question "How do we generate our electricity as 'climate-conscious' as possible?".
That makes sense, and is the long term solution. But what if we come at it from the other end? How do we make our appliances/vehicles/homes use less energy? It seems to me to be another vital part to the worlds solution, but does not get as much 'play' as the generation topic (except maybe considering automobiles/EV's/hybrids).

Yes. You are correct.

 

[woolybug25]

The funny thing to me about climate change is how laughably wrong all of the models were that people made in the 90s and 00s, yet they routinely trot out the term "settled science."

If there is one truism of science, it is that scientists are always wrong. A such, I am very much so pro-environment, and anti-pollution but I think that alarmist "global warming" has generally been proven to be a giant fraud (hence the name change) and it is also arrogant to think that current temperatures are somehow "correct" from a long-term geological standpoint.

I also think that unless you're going to make SERIOUS changes to China/India... which hopefully this is a step in the right direction... that all environmental laws are virtually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

They didn't change the name because they don't think the earth is warming. They changed it so deniers that laugh it off ever crazy winter might understand that global warming doesn't always mean the weather is warmer per se. Rather, the weather as a whole becomes more extreme (drought, hurricanes, blizzards, etc) because of the rising temps.

It's to combat the suber conservative Uncle Eddie that proclaims every blizzard "so much for global warming, hurumph". When in reality, they simply are uneducated regarding the cause and effect of global climate change.

 

[RuntheBall]

I think fuel diversification from carbon free sources should be the ultimate goal. We are headed in a direction of less diversification due to natural gas prices, but the resources in the country aren't equally spread out. I see more nukes in the SE, wind the west, and gas in the NE. The blue states may not like fracked gas, but it's what you got when the Marcellus is mightier than the wind in those parts.

Knocking out coal would be the biggest game changer for the emissions, but it's not going to go away. We have so much that liquefaction processes will likely lead us into shipping it to sand countries that need cheap power. Getting the vehicles away from fossil fuels would be a mighty task, but it is what would need to happen. I think a first step towards using natural gas in vehicles would be possible.

Saw this article earlier in the week:
Ford's KC plant produces first F-150 to run on natural gas - Kansas City Business Journal

Although it uses a separate fuel system, it will be interesting to see how this progresses.