Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sigmetnow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: March 24, 2020, 05:50:35 PM »
Greta and Svante possibly have Corona.

The last two weeks I’ve stayed inside. When I returned from my trip around Central Europe I isolated myself (in a borrowed apartment away from my mother and sister) since the number of cases of COVID-19 (in Germany for instance) were similar to Italy in the beginning. Around ten days ago I started feeling some symptoms, exactly the same time as my father - who traveled with me from Brussels. I was feeling tired, had shivers, a sore throat and coughed. My dad experienced the same symptoms, but much more intense and with a fever.
In Sweden you can not test yourself for COVID-19 unless you’re in need of emergent medical treatment. Everyone feeling ill are told to stay at home and isolate themselves.
I have therefore not been tested for COVID-19, but it’s extremely likely that I’ve had it, given the combined symptoms and circumstances.

Now I’ve basically recovered, but - AND THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE: I almost didn’t feel ill. My last cold was much worse than this! Had it not been for someone else having the virus simultainously I might not even have suspected anything. Then I would just have thought I was feeling unusually tired with a bit of a cough.
And this it what makes it so much more dangerous. Many (especially young people) might not notice any symptoms at all, or very mild symptoms. Then they don’t know they have the virus and can pass it on to people in risk groups.
We who don’t belong to a risk group have an enormous responsibility, our actions can be the difference between life and death for many others.

Please keep that in mind, follow the advice from experts and your local authorities and #StayAtHome to slow the spread of the virus. And remember to always take care of each other and help those in need.
#COVID #flattenthecurve" - Greta Thunberg

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: March 21, 2020, 09:13:25 AM »

Legendary scientist Marie Curie’s tomb in the Panthéon in Paris. Her tomb is lined with an inch thick of lead as radiation protection for the public. Her remains are radioactive to this day.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: March 20, 2020, 07:08:04 PM »
CountourGlobal, a US company that builds and operates powerplants overseas, is cancelling a coal-fired power plant under construction in Kosovo.  They have announced that they'll no longer build or acquire coal fired power plants.

Construction of Coal-Fired Power Plant in Kosovo Halted
Xhorxhina Bami and Eve-anne Travers

March 17, 2020

Environmental campaigners welcomed a decision by US company ContourGlobal to halt construction of a new coal-fired power plant in Kosovo.

US power generation company ContourGlobal has halted plans to build the 500-megawatt coal-fired Kosova e Re (New Kosovo) power plant, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

Kosovo had a 1.3 billion euro contract with ContourGlobal to build the plant, which would have satisfied around half of the electricity demand in a country that suffers from power shortages.

With Kurti now in office as prime minister, ContourGlobal announced it was halting construction of the plant “as a result of the political situation in Kosovo”.

It also said that the US company, which operates over 100 power plants in Europe, Latin America and Africa, “will not develop or acquire coal power plants in the future”.

Concerns had been raised in Kosovo that the environmental impact of building the new coal-fired power plant was too high.

The project had met with fierce resistance from the Kosovo Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development, KOSID, an alliance of NGOs including BIRN Kosovo.

Their campaign led to the World Bank withdrawing its support for the plant in October 2018.

Kosovo is currently working on building a 170-million-euro wind farm, which has raised hopes of increasing the production of renewable energy in the country.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: March 17, 2020, 02:41:48 PM »
Fossil fuels enjoy large built-in inertia in the energy system. That's why it's not sufficient to generate a little bit cheaper electricity by wind or solar compared to coal or oil or gas. It has to be significantly cheaper to have an effect on emissions.

If we started from scratch today, I suppose nobody would suggest the massive upfront infrastructure investments needed to mine, transport, store and burn coal or oil. Unfortunately for decarbonization these things do exist giving FFs huge head-start against renewables. Power grids radiate from massive power plants which are located to maximize efficient fossil fuel logistics. The energy economy is designed to be load-following instead of generation-following. etc.

That's why we have absurd discussions about not having enough EV chargers which would enable to handle fuel logistics by copper wire instead of transportation by pipeline, tanker vessel, refinery, truck and the service station.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 09, 2020, 03:06:11 AM »
How Tesla Sets Itself Apart
Harvard Business Review .
In my view, the traditional automakers are ill prepared to compete in today’s software-centered world. Unlike nimble Tesla, they are big, bureaucratic, slow to respond to customers, dependent on providing customer financing for unit sales growth, and culturally different from a software company.

And they know it. Last fall, the chairman of Volkswagen — still reeling from its auto-emission scandal — declared Tesla a “serious competitor.” The biggest challenge VW and other leading automakers face is that they lack the expertise required to compete in the age of the software car.  Tesla and its flamboyant, and sometimes erratic, innovator Elon Musk have turned the more than a century old industry upside down in a mere 16 years.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: March 05, 2020, 02:01:22 PM »
Is the U.S. Fracking Boom Based on Fraud?


Sounding the Alarm
Bethany McLean was the first reporter to question whether Enron was a financially sound company in a 2001 article for Fortune magazine. McLean went on to co-author the book The Smartest Guys in the Room, which documented the fall of Enron due to its fraudulent practices, including the ones Fastow engineered.

In 2018, McLean also published the book Saudi America, which highlighted many of the financial challenges the fracking industry has faced. In a recent interview for Texas Monthly's podcast Boomtown, McLean explained one of the very accepted and blatantly misleading practices of the fracking industry:

“I’d raise a couple of points. One is that companies have long hyped these break-even numbers. They say we can break even at $25 a barrel, we can break even at $20 a barrel. And then you look at their consolidated financial statements and they are losing money. And so something is going wrong … the people called it to me [sic] … corporate math or investor economics. So they were trying to put together these investor pitch decks that would show investors a set of economics that weren’t real. So they would show you that they could break even on a well at $25 barrel of oil but then yet you’d go to the corporate financial statements and they were losing money.”

Is that a loophole? Where you can openly misrepresent to investors the financial reality of your business? Or is it fraud?

As more and more players in the fracking industry run out of options and file for bankruptcy, investors are beginning to ask questions about why all the money is gone.


Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: March 05, 2020, 07:40:26 AM »
I gave links .

Tesla model 3 is the top selling electric car world wide by a huge margin .
It is acknowledge by the leading car company's COE's that they are struggling to catch Tesla's lead.
They know if they do not compete with Tesla their firms will be history. Before Tesla manufactures  made odd looking electric cars that did not appeal to the mainstream. Legacy auto  now have to make better electric cars than their gas models or die. 
Tesla is leading the charge to electric transport and pulling all others up  behind them. 
Wait a few months and the Y will eclipse the 3's impact.
Tesla has signaled the death knell of oil based personal land transport.

Hornsdale Power Reserve
For showing how one big battery could revolutionize renewable energy
The Hornsdale power reserve has basically made all fossil fuel peaker plants obsolete.
When it was first proposed many said it was impossible . It paid for itself in first year and a half of operation. Proof of concept you can use battery backup to solar and wind on a commercial scale. It also works better than fossil fuel generation at grid modulation and is cheaper to run.

I don't think you understand the significance of Tesla and  Elon Musk.   Musk will be remembered as one of the greatest minds  of human history long after we are all long forgotten dust.

As for Terry
He adds little to the forum of value .
If we went though he comments on the Telsa thread you would find he has been consistently wrong repeating what is nothing but FUD produced by those who would benefit by delaying or destroying Tesla..  I view him with the same contempt I hold for the useful idiots who repeat Climate Denial FUD. His form of human stupidity  is holding us back from resolving one of the biggest threats humanity has faced since we first fell out of trees in Africa.

As for you.
What you suggest on here  has been tried before  it was called Year Zero.
It might seem OK to you on an intellectual level .
To bring it about will result in the same as happened  last time.
Untold unmitigated  Horror.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: March 04, 2020, 07:40:09 PM »
Nonsense arguments from Terry .
How totally surprising /s/
We  either transition away from fossil fuels or we fuck this planet for our civilization.
We do not have the political will to do so immediately.
So we have to except a slow change over time.
Only a gibbering loon would attack Tesla because it has not been perfect when Tesla has measurably  had  more effect to speed this transition than almost any other company on this smegging planet .

Tesla's impact.

By gibbering loon I mean a climate change denier .

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: March 02, 2020, 06:55:53 PM »
The headline says it all.

Shale Drillers Need A Miracle To Keep Production From Falling
By Irina Slav - Mar 01, 2020

With West Texas Intermediate falling below $45 a barrel after the latest burst in coronavirus panic, U.S. shale oil and gas producers are feeling growing heat. Except for the Permian, where production of both oil and gas is still growing, the U.S. shale patch is retrenching. And the Permian may soon follow suit.

This wasn’t all, either. According to Le Peuch, unless the oilfield service sector comes up with new extraction technology that works at lower than current costs, U.S. shale oil production will not return to growth at all, but plateau.

The situation in gas is even worse. As the Enverus report notes, the breakeven cost for gas production in the Denver-Julesburg Basin and the Bakken are now higher than the Henry Hub benchmark and quite a bit higher, at that. Henry Hub futures prices are currently below $2 per million British thermal units until July, when the futures price tops $2 per mmBtu. The breakeven for producers in the Rockies and the Bakken, on the other hand, is more than $3 per mmBtu.

While for oil the biggest problem is the slump in demand in China and the fear of slumping demand elsewhere as the coronavirus conquers new territory, for gas the problem is a persistent overhang in inventories. To make matters worse, the coronavirus fallout is also affecting demand for gas.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: February 23, 2020, 07:41:08 PM »
Then perhaps we should revisit lithium mining from

Most lithium comes from the small island of the coast of here called Australia were the poor mistreated peasants  only get about $120,000AU a week year to dig big holes in remote places.
South america and the middle east are just distractions for the easily confused  by fossil fuel industry PR FUD.   
FWIW they don't mine it in south America they pump up brine underlying  vast sterile salt pans.
No complex life lives in such inhospitable places .
In regions were rainfall is measured in mm a year and some places recording zero rain for decades it is hardly the environmental catastrophe you would think from some comments.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 17, 2020, 04:32:35 PM »
I guess i have to call them tomorrow!

The machine is answering the phone. I tried it several times, no person was reachable.

So i wrote an email. I wrote they lost my vote for being that reactionary. Very formal, not too lengthy.

However, my vote goes to Die Linke anyway. ;)
I suspect they are surprised at the size of the media storm they have created.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 17, 2020, 12:29:41 PM »
A teardown of Model 3 by the Japanese

Some juicy bits:

But when it comes to electronics technology, Elon Musk's scrappy company is far ahead of the industry giants.
One stunned engineer from a major Japanese automaker examined the computer and declared, "We cannot do it."
That means Tesla beat its rivals by six years.

And the meat:

So big automakers apparently feel obliged to continue using complicated webs of dozens of ECUs, while we only found a few in the Model 3. Put another way, the supply chains that have helped today's auto giants grow are now beginning to hamper their ability to innovate.

Young companies like Tesla, on the other hand, are not shackled to suppliers and are free to pursue the best technologies available.

Our teardown underscored this in another way as well.

Most parts inside the Model 3 do not bear the name of a supplier. Instead, many have the Tesla logo, including the substrates inside the ECUs. This suggests the company maintains tight control over the development of almost all key technologies in the car.

Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: February 15, 2020, 01:37:50 PM »
Garnalenvissers hebben het aantal uren dat zij in beschermde natuurgebieden mochten vissen in zowel 2017 als 2018 fors overschreden, meldt de NOS zaterdag op basis van verkregen documenten. Er zouden geen straffen zijn uitgedeeld aan de vissers.

Het gaat om de Waddenzee en Noordzeekustzone, waar een limiet van 130.000 uur geldt. In beide jaren zou er meer dan 200.000 uur gewerkt zijn. Door capaciteitsproblemen bij de Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit (NVWA) bleven de vissers echter onbestraft.

Drie personen zouden verantwoordelijk zijn voor de controles van ruim tweehonderd schepen. Technische middelen waarmee vissers zichzelf kunnen controleren, blijken al vijf jaar niet goed te werken.

This is how our environmental protection works...

There is a limit of 130k hours of fishing for two coastal zones. In 2017 and 2018 both zones saw more then 200k hours of work (shrimp fishing).

No penalties were handed out because only 3 persons have to check in the 200 ships.
The technical aids the fishermen can use to control themselves don´t work properly.

So this is yet another example were the economic needs win over environmental concerns. This is basically normal which is also why we ended with the agricultural sector we have now.

Basically the only thing you need is constant location data which ships have anyway?

So the rules are simple. Location on. Timing starts from you going into the zone.
If the location beacon inexplicably fails you return to port to fix it.
Ignoring this rule should lead to an automatic one or two month grounding. No sailing no fishing.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: February 13, 2020, 05:48:59 PM »
Used to be you'd only see articles about the potential fossil fuel stranded assets in magazines like Rolling Stone.  Now they're appearing on industry websites, this one from, summarizing a column in the Financial Times.

A Third Of Fossil Fuel Assets May Soon Be Stranded
By Alex Kimani - Feb 12, 2020

Fossil fuel companies hold vast oil, gas and coal riches that they frequently tout to the investing universe to help elevate their market values. However, not a single energy company has ever told investors about the potential effects on the environment if all their hydrocarbon reserves were burned.

Yet, the specter that these assets might one day end up stranded and theoretically worthless as the clamor for clean energy heats up looms large.

According to estimates in the Financial Times’ Lex column, nearly $900 billion worth of reserves - or about one-third of the value of big oil and gas companies - is at risk of one day becoming worthless as market and policy forces continue to undercut hydrocarbon economics due to the threat of climate change.

In effect, these companies could see a third of their value evaporate if governments aggressively attempt to restrict the rise in temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the rest of this century and avert catastrophic climate change as per Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates.

Consequently, investors are likely to increasingly price in the risk of asset writedowns by the world’s leading oil and gas companies unless a solution to the ongoing climate change is found within the next decade.

In the US, lenders won't extend more credit to fossil fuel companies because they've become unprofitable in the face of competition from cheaper renewables.  Now those companies wont be able to sell stock.

Without new infusions of cash, their exploration and expansion will cease.  Given how quickly current oil fields, especially those relying on fracked wells, decline, production will crash.

Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: February 09, 2020, 03:49:22 PM »
Berlin artist uses 99 phones to trick Google into traffic jam alert

Link >>

New trend: Trick your local AI!  ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: February 05, 2020, 06:29:12 PM »
Please include the Africans in your meaning of the 'poor'. Your Tesla is a Rolls Royce to us. You show very privileged behaviour in my opinion and try to transform it into a green BAU future 'solution' for 'everyone'. That is: 'I don't want to radically change'-leisure-class-behaviour.
And, dare i say it, you likely don't care so much about what happens to others far away.
Well, if we're defining "poor" according to world standards, then I would strongly disagree that you choose to be poor. You choose to enjoy benefits of a developed nation and economy that much of the world does not have access to. If you really chose to be poor, you would refuse your country's welfare programs. And since part of your choice is one to not work, I would also say you are voluntarily part of a leisure class by world standards. That you spend significant time discussing such things on the internet is evidence of that.

This is not meant to diminish your choices, which I think are admirable. I appreciate having your perspective in these discussions. But please do not make the mistake that you represent the views of all poor people, or that those who choose to consume more than you do not care about poor people. We can all share our individual ideas here without resorting to shaming or magical thinking about societal attitudes.

Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: February 05, 2020, 11:21:27 AM »
This could go into multiple threads...

There’s a new boom in the Permian Basin — wastewater

In the Permian Basin, now the most prolific oil field in the world, hundreds of miles of plastic pipelines snake along dirt roads, drilling pads and the edges of farm fields. But they are not carrying oil. Instead, they’re transporting an equally precious commodity in this arid region straddling the New Mexico-Texas border: water.


Without water, there would be no oil and gas boom. Fracking, the most common drilling method in the basin, pumps massive amounts of freshwater — along with sand and chemicals — into shale formations as deep as 10,000 feet, or nearly two miles underground. The fluid cracks open the rock, releasing the oil trapped inside. When the oil gushes to the surface, some of the water and chemicals come up too, along with briny water that occurs naturally in the rock layers — the vestige of an ancient sea.

For every barrel of oil produced in the Permian, about four barrels of this “produced water” come out of the earth along with it. In 2018 alone, New Mexico’s share of the Permian Basin generated 42 billion gallons of oil and gas wastewater, according to the New Mexico Environment Department.


Supporters envision a day when treatment technologies are advanced enough to make produced water safe for irrigation — maybe even safe enough to drink from the tap.

But others contend that produced water is too contaminated to ever be anything but waste.

“Even if we could treat produced water to drinking-water standards, why would we?” asked Rebecca Sobel, senior climate and energy campaigner for WildEarth Guardians, a Santa Fe-based environmental group. “Why would the poorest state in the nation invest tremendous amounts of resources into finding a mechanism to turn one of the most toxic substances out there into potable water?”


In five years, the Permian is forecast to generate 32 million barrels of produced water per day, up from four million a day currently. By 2030, that number could rise to 38 million barrels daily, analysts say. And it will be increasingly difficult to dispose of the wastewater. Industry analysts say the basin will eventually run out of suitable places to drill disposal wells — another incentive for oil and gas operators to recycle.

At the same time, the constant flow of freshwater needed for fracking is ever harder to come by in this parched region, which lies in the Chihuahuan Desert and receives only about 13 inches of precipitation a year.


More than 95% of oil and gas leases issued on federal lands in New Mexico since 2017 were in areas of “extremely high” water stress, a 2019 report by the Center for American Progress found.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 04, 2020, 07:03:53 PM »
Burn you bastards.
Tesla is leading the charge to electric transport.
Those of us who follow the brand have seen the FUD being spread and know almost all of it is baseless.
It is not hard to work out why. The number of industry's looking at death if Tesla is successful and the amount of money involved.....

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: February 02, 2020, 10:05:01 PM »
Basically they should just use the following scenarios:

1 C Probably safe AIM FOR THIS oops

1,5 C Lets see if we can limit the damage (because we pledged this)

Anything beyond that is just plain bad as anyone can see by the current state of the planet.

Basically the IPCC scenarios are a report about how high you can stoke the fire in the living room while ignoring the fact that the curtains might catch fire.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: February 02, 2020, 01:28:28 AM »
Sorry wdmn but I disagree your first sentence. Most natural sciences and also many other sciences are not politicised in my opinion. e.g. Physics?
Perhaps you mean that much research is starved of funding through governmental policies.

Nanning, I don't want to derail this thread too much, but I will offer up a response that I hope will be stimulating to some, while far from complete (though far too long).

Yes, not politicized means exactly that we don't think of them as political (and this is itself a political movement). We've depoliticized science for at least 4 centuries. It is a fundamental part of "modernity" that we think of economics, politics, science as separate spheres, just as we think of ourselves as both part of and separate from nature: at once subject to its laws, which we learn with science, while also free to organize ourselves as we deem fit (cultural animals), so long as we remember that the two realms must be kept distinct!

What is politics? Or, a more manageable question, "with what does politics concern itself?"

Isn't politics the way in which we organize society and the state (the polis)? The systems and methods we set up defining power relationships within the polis, which voices will be heard, who will have the right to make decisions (i.e. who is sovereign)?

When we think of science as being apolitical we usually mean that it is transcendent, absolutely sovereign, and so we want to grant it a voice that speaks with absolute authority that must be respected no matter your ideology. So then what political role do scientists have within the polis? Are they disinterested, neutral, dressed in beige, as inhuman as their facts, only concerned with Truth and nothing else? Are they priests of nature who speak for it wielding their instruments as the shaman wields a drum, and who must be obeyed; i.e. to which we are subject (political subjects)? Are they agents of the state, asked to unravel secrets of nature in order that the polis might achieve more power (as was done with the Manhattan project, for example)? Are they dangerous heretics threatening the democratic order by speaking with a voice that tramples the will of the people; are they -- as some climate deniers will insist -- corrupted agents, seeking power and money through the manipulation of data and instruments? Is RCP 8.5 just a scientific model, or is it a rhetorical device designed -- as all RCPs -- to be used as a tool of persuasion? Do scientists really not care, are they "neutral" sitting on the sidelines, with no skin in the game? Or do they hope that their work will wield power, that it will be taken seriously, as Fact?

No matter how we choose to answer these questions, the work of the scientists bears on the collective: from the way that we discuss things, to the way the our economy functions, to the way that we have sex, and so to the way that power is distributed.

I can think of no better example than the physics of greenhouse gasses to draw out this point. It turns out that there has been a great divide over whether our measurements of these gasses, and our understanding of the physics of how they work, should bear on the organization of our society. It turns out that in order to keep making the measurements and gaining insight into the physical responses of components within the climate system (such as ice sheets), the scientists need funding, that one can as easily smash the equipment by defunding the scientists as by storming their laboratories. The scientists, it turns out, are a branch of the government, and their efficacy depends on whether or not they recognize that their struggle for (the) power (of their work) is a political one. Even scientists could find their heads in the guillotine (figuratively or literally).

Does the non-human compound CO2 have a force, a political voice? Yes, but is it that of a backbencher, or that of a king? Or something else altogether?

I would suggest that right now many of our poleis have descended into a state of a cold civil war (that could warm up quite rapidly in some instances). Our social contracts are torn to pieces over a disagreement over what sort of political agents the scientists and their facts are, and to what extent the voice of the people is to be subject to them. Too much, it appears, was left out of our constitutions.

If anyone wants to read more on the subject, I recommend the book, "We Have Never Been Modern," by Bruno Latour, which is available here:

From that text:

"every ethnologist is capable of including within a single monograph the definition of the forces in play; the distribution of powers among human beings, gods, and nonhumans; the procedures for reaching agreements; the connections between religion and power; ancestors; cosmology; property rights; plant and animal taxonomies. The ethnologist will certainly not write three separate books: one dealing with knowledge, another with power, yet another
with practices. She will write a single book...


Native Americans were not mistaken when they accused the Whites of having forked tongues. By separating the relations of political power from the relations of scientific reasoning while continuing to shore up power with reason and reason with power, the moderns have always had two irons in the fire."

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: January 31, 2020, 10:17:05 PM »
It seems some posters are deliberately misinterpreting the Nature Commentary linked to upthread in order to discredit it.  Here is a link again.

Here is what the authors say about the need to limit future temperature increases.

We must all — from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers — stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable. Pressingly, it might result in poor planning, whereas a more realistic range of baseline scenarios will strengthen the assessment of climate risk.

This admission does not make climate action less urgent. The need to limit warming to 1.5 °C, as made clear in the IPCC’s 2018 special report13, does not depend on having a 5 °C counterpoint.

For those making real-life decisions, the choice of scenario becomes important14,16. Emphasizing ways of adapting to an extreme RCP8.5 scenario with around 5 °C warming in 2100 is out of step with the requirement to build resilience and reduce vulnerabilities in the near-term. Most users of climate scenarios care more about the world as it is now, rather than what might have been had global emissions not slowed over the past decade7. Users focused on mitigation are keen to capitalize on emerging opportunities such as cheap renewables, or to avoid overinvesting in stranded assets in dying industries. For example, they want to know whether the rapid cost declines in renewables might make investments in fossil fuels high risk. A RCP8.5 baseline renders these applications useless, because it implies that recent climate policies and technological progress are halted or even reversed.

For policymakers, mitigation policies that depend on the assumptions underlying high-emission baseline scenarios such as RCP8.5 will seem exorbitant, because they do not incorporate the plummeting costs of many low-carbon technologies over the past decade. The marginal investments required to move from 3 °C of warming to well below 2 °C (the main Paris goal) will be much less than moving from 5 °C to well below 2 °C. A narrative of progress and opportunity can make the Paris targets seem feasible, rather than seemingly impossible.

And they are clearly show how out of line with reality the RCP 8.5 (and its successor SSP5-8.5) are:

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: January 30, 2020, 07:52:35 PM »
Not sure if this is the best place to post this...

For those who are unaware, there's been a schism in the climate community over RCP8.5, whether it represents BAU, and whether it should even be included as a pathway anymore.

Yesterday Glen Peters and Zeke Hausfather published a comment in Nature making their case as to why RCP8.5 is not BAU and why it is extremely unlikely that we will follow it:

While this reasonable dismissal of RCP8.5 is supposed to be a positive thing, another consequence of the discussion is that both Glen and Zeke have been very candid that currently the 1.5 and 2C targets are impossible.

They couch this by pointing out that 2.5C is actually quite doable. So they suggest that we refocus our efforts on that threshold, and try to be positive that not all is lost.

In a more subdued voice they also concede that there are uncertainties within the climate system (mostly frozen GHG feedbacks). But what must we extrapolate from this?

If we are unlucky and feedbacks kick in, it is not 2C that is currently impossible, it's 3C, and it's not 2.5 that's doable, it's 3.5C (see graph, with a hat tip to ASLR)

Oh, and to make the whole thing even more messy, the BBC ran the headline, "Climate Change: worst emissions scenario 'misleading'

Which was not what Zeke and Glen were arguing (but rather that calling it BAU is misleading), but which will nevertheless be food for the deniers at this critical juncture.


Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: January 29, 2020, 04:31:12 PM »
Here is a look at the competition - ICEVs
The recession in global car sales shows no sign of ending

Davos, Switzerland (CNN Business)
The global auto industry plunged deeper into recession in 2019, with sales dropping more than 4% as carmakers struggled to find buyers in China and India. The pain is likely to continue this year.

The number of vehicles sold across major global markets dipped to 90.3 million last year, according to analysts at LMC Automotive. That's down from 94.4 million in 2018, and well below the record 95.2 million cars sold in 2017.

The slump has upended an industry that is grappling with the huge challenge of ditching the internal combustion engine to tackle the climate crisis. Some experts have even begun to speculate that the world may have reached "peak car," or the point at which global demand for vehicles begins an inexorable decline.

Recession comes with big ramifications for the global economy. According to the International Monetary Fund, the car industry accounts for 5.7% of economic output and 8% of goods exports. It is the second largest consumer of steel and aluminum.

The biggest blow to carmakers last year came in China, the world's largest market for vehicles, where a sharp slowdown in economic growth and the elimination of tax incentives for electric car purchases caused demand to plummet. The number of vehicles sold dropped 2.3 million from 2018, said LMC.

In India, another huge market where carmakers had invested heavily, consumers held off on big purchases because of a credit crunch and a weakening economy. Conditions were also tough in Europe, where Brexit and Volkswagen's (VLKAF) diesel emissions crisis continued to scare off potential buyers and force executives to review investments.

The pressure has sparked a wave of partnerships across the industry. Fiat Chrysler (FCAU) is merging with Peugeot owner PSA Group (PUGOY) and Volkswagen (VLKAF) has teamed up with Ford to develop electric cars. German rivals Daimler (DDAIF) and BMW (BMWYY) have joined forces to develop ride sharing and driverless technology.

Yet the outlook for 2020 isn't much brighter. China's industry minister Miao Wei said Monday that this year and next would be "critical" for the car market and that vehicle sales in the country could be flat "or slightly negative" in 2020.

LMC expects global sales to fall below 90 million, down 0.3% on the previous year.
"There is unlikely to be any real support to the global total from the mature markets like western Europe and the United States," said Jonathon Poskitt, director of global sales forecasts at LMC.
The big question is when — or even whether — the auto industry will return to growth.
Poskitt said the vehicle sales record hit in 2017 is unlikely to be surpassed in the next few years, in part because of reduced demand in wealthy cities that are struggling with traffic congestion and increased pollution. In those urban areas, potential buyers might be more likely to use car sharing programs or public transportation. But LMC forecasts that demand in less developed areas will eventually result in new global sales records, starting in 2023.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: January 29, 2020, 02:36:28 PM »
Using BTUs to compare electrical sources seems to be deceptive.  For thermal sources (fossil fuels) at least 1/3 of the energy is in waste heat, it just goes right up the smokestack.  Wind and solar don't have that issue.
What interests me is progress towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and as regards electricity generation the inroads Solar+Wind are making on consumption of coal and gas.

As you say, at least one-third** of the energy used from fossil-fuel production of electricity is non-productive. So 1 unit of electrical energy produced from Solar+Wind reduces fossil fuel energy use by 1.5 units.

That is why I produce graphs on primary energy consumed rather than electricity produced. Why British Thermal Units ? - because most of the EIA data on primary energy use is in BTU, except for coal (in short tons - but the EIA gives a conversion factor to BTU).

The same applies to EVs replacement of energy from refined crude to power ICEVs, though I presume with a higher multiplier.
** While for total electricity generation the energy wasted is about 1/3rd, surely that is because there is little or no wasted energy from renewables + nuclear + hydro. I believe  energy efficiency of coal electricity generation is at best a bit over 40%, and for gas at best up to 60% . That 1/3 proportion of waste heat is an underestimate?

If you include the energy loss from mining, extraction, processing and transportation (EROI), i.e. the ratio of the amount of usable energy (the exergy) delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of exergy used to obtain that energy resource, that 1/3 proportion of waste heat needs increasing even more.

Conventional gas and oil, EROI about 18:1.
Shale gas, performs at about 6.5:1 to 7.6:1.
Tar sands oil 2.9:1 to 5.1 Some say if processing to refined product is included 1:1
Corn ethanol, 1.3:1 Bio-diesel is shown to be pretty dumb.
COAL about 30:1 (excluding transportation)
I could not find a table of generally accepted EROI standard measures.
So my back of envelope calculation says that each unit of electrical energy produced from Solar+Wind reduces by at least 2 units of energy consumed by Coal+Gas

Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 29, 2020, 10:52:07 AM »
I think Ebola and this coronavirus are two different beasts that must be approached in a different manner. If my understanding is correct, while Ebola is much more deadly, this coronavirus (needs nickname) spreads like the common cold. We still haven't figured out how to stop the common cold other than by yearly vaccinations.

Since there are isn't a vaccine for this(even if there was, it can't be deployed in time), then the spread must be stopped through physical means. That is done by decreasing the rate of interaction of the population and increasing hygiene ( handwashing, face masks).

That's the biology side of it. On the sociology side of it, China has a large central control and resources. The African countries affected by Ebola don't.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 28, 2020, 03:13:31 PM »
I've been flat on my back for a week, and started to get bored before the end of day#1. Looking for something interesting to read, I decided to do the whole Tesla glory/failure thread. Beginning to end. Over five thousand posts and climbing, plus links.

Well, I've just finished. Have you guys thought of publishing? It's got everything: heroes, villains (interchangeable depending on your outlook), triumph/disaster, cliffhangers, narrow escapes, cast of thousands, celebration, despair, style/fashion arguments, impossible dreams, science-fiction becoming fact...

Talking of science fiction, I didn't spend the whole time reading a screen. I dug out a few old SF books as well. Isaac Asimov (in the 1940s) had slide rules twenty thousand years in the future; Eric Frank Russell (in the 1950s) had glass photographic plates loaded on to a starship. A lot has happened in the last seventy years. And is still happening now.

I also read the copy of "If", by Rudyard Kipling, which hangs on my bedroom wall. I'd say Elon scores about 70% on it :)

If you can keep your head when all about you   
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: January 23, 2020, 02:08:05 PM »
It is the number widely used in public discourse. Using any higher number if if more realistic would lead to discussions which distract from the need for action.

Interesting that most papers leave out that part of the speeches....

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: January 19, 2020, 10:23:49 PM »
To me the link attached is a "must read" to help understand the form of Capitalism currently running the USA and UK (and elsewhere?)

So the men and women in suits are gathering in Davos, ready to save the planet. Mind you, they knew the way it was going 5,10, 20 years ago. So why do they take it seriously now? Self-interest.

I am always stunned when I find out a bit more how the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand has taken such deep root amongst our elite, including the new elite in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the Technology world.

Rand called her philosophy - now taught to A-level students alongside Hobbes and Burke - Objectivism the belief that

“man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself”.

Republicans and British Conservatives started giving each other copies of Atlas Shrugged in the 80s was that Rand seemed to grant intellectual heft to the prevailing ethos of the time. Her insistence on the “morality of rational self-interest” and “the virtue of selfishness” sounded like an upmarket version of the slogan, derived from Oliver Stone’s Wall Street, that defined the era: greed is good. Rand was Gordon Gekko with A-levels.

Trump is notoriously no reader of books: he has only ever spoken about liking three works of fiction. But, inevitably, one of them was Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." “It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions. That book relates to ... everything,” he said last year.

So why does Trump claim to be inspired by her? The answer, surely, is that Rand lionises the alpha male capitalist entrepreneur, the man of action who towers over the little people and the pettifogging bureaucrats – and gets things done. As Jennifer Burns puts it: “For a long time, she has been beloved by disruptors, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, people who see themselves as shaping the future, taking risky bets, moving out in front of everyone else, relying only on their own instincts, intuition and knowledge, and going against the grain.”

So Rand, dead 35 years, lives again, her hand guiding the rulers of our age in both Washington and San Francisco. Hers is an ideology that denounces altruism, elevates individualism into a faith and gives a spurious moral licence to raw selfishness. That it is having a moment now is no shock. Such an ideology will find a ready audience for as long as there are human beings who feel the rush of greed and the lure of unchecked power, longing to succumb to both without guilt. Which is to say: for ever.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: January 16, 2020, 12:06:40 AM »
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that 76% of the new electrical generating capacity additions in the US in 2020 will be wind and solar.  Natural gas will only have 22% of the new capacity.

Of the 42 GW of new capacity that the EIA expects to start commercial operations in 2020, wind accounts for 44%; solar for 32%; and natural gas for 22%. The remaining 2% of the additions will come from hydropower and battery storage. There are no coal-fired power plants scheduled to start commercial operations this year. But the capacity additions of wind and solar are breaking all records (chart via EIA):

Perhaps in more alarming news for the gas industry is that fairly new natural gas plants are starting to be retired.

Of the 11 GW in scheduled capacity retirements in 2020, coal power plants will account for 51%, natural gas power plants for 33%, and nuclear power plants for 14%:

Of the 3.7 GW in natural gas power plants to be retired, 60% will be in California, mostly plants built in the 50s and 60s. But interestingly, the Inland Empire Energy Center, an efficient, modern (10 years old) combined-cycle plant with a capacity of 0.7 GW will also be retired because it has been operating under capacity for years.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: January 15, 2020, 06:05:23 PM »
Yet another large gas company admits that they can't keep going in the current ponzi scheme.

U.S. Gas Giant Downgraded To Junk Status
By Nick Cunningham - Jan 14, 2020

The largest natural gas driller in the United States just announced a massive write-down for its assets, offering more evidence that the shale sector faces fundamental problems with profitability.

In a regulatory filing on Monday, Pittsburgh-based EQT took a $1.8 billion impairment for the fourth quarter, as the natural gas market continues to sour. EQT said that the write down comes as a result of the “changes to our development strategy and renewed focus on a refined core operating footprint,” which is a jargon-y way of saying that some of its assets are now worth much less.

So far, the company’s problems continue. Natural gas prices slid sharply in 2019, and are at rock-bottom levels, particularly for the time of year. According to the FT, while Henry Hub natural gas prices for February delivery trade at $2.24/MMBtu, they are only trading at around $1.83/MMBtu at the Dominion South hub in Pennsylvania.

EQT itself admits that it can’t succeed in this environment. “Gas prices are down. It has a big impact, the difference between $2.75 gas and $2.50 gas,” Toby Rice said in December “A lot of this development doesn’t work as well at $2.50 gas.”

Moody’s cut EQT’s credit rating on Monday to Ba1 with a negative outlook, moving it into junk territory after the gas giant said it would issue new bonds to refinance debt. “EQT's significantly weakening cash flow metrics in light of the persistent weak natural gas price environment and the company's intent to refinance its 2020 maturities in lieu of debt reduction through repayment drives the ratings downgrade,” Moody’s senior analyst Sreedhar Kona said.

These problems are obviously much larger than EQT. Range Resources recently slashed its dividend in order to pay off debt, while also taking out another $550 million in new debt in order to pay off maturing debt this year. Meanwhile, Chesapeake Energy, the second largest gas producer, is now trading at pennies on the dollar and faces the prospect of being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.

EQT’s predicament reflects the broader financial questions that have long plagued the shale industry. Fracking can produce lots of oil and gas, but steep decline rates make profits elusive. If the largest gas producer in the country is struggling, and has a credit rating in junk territory, then something is wrong with the business model.

The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: January 14, 2020, 08:59:13 PM »
In case your local astronomer seems agitated, the big dog gravitational wave detector
@LIGO just detected an ‘unknown or unanticipated’ burst of gravitational waves somewhere deep in space. 👀

Link >>

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 13, 2020, 04:23:16 PM »
No you were making a judgement about what I know about it.
You wrote it would make more sense for Tesla to build cars in Japan and ship them to Europe than build GF4 in Germany. I questioned if you have any facts to back up this rather outlandish idea.

Let's not spread baseless disinformation.

I have made a career of running projects, mainly in mainland Europe, for most of the last 20 years. I live, mostly, in France.
Ok, so as expected your opinions are just that, opinions. You have no factual basis to claim building GF4 in Germany is a bad idea.

You might wish to study the movements in the Automotive manufacturing industry in Germany.
So one year ago German auto workers got more money and more days off. I suppose Tesla was aware of local labour costs when they made the decision to invest in Germany.

They probably also know which unions they need to negotiate with.
Or the working time study done.  Check the German (D),  plants against the rest. For monthly working hours.
Your study has data from 1998.  That's 22 years ago.

One could hope Tesla did find out how many hours they can expect their workers to work in 2020. Maybe it's more, maybe less but I'm sure Tesla knows it.

The places which run extended shifts and longer hours and weekend working are Poland and Spain.

Again, you need to know the differences between EU countries.
Neil, everybody knows there are differences between EU countries. Spain has something like 20 public holidays per year, Sweden grants one year paid paternity leave and France is on strike every second month. You really think Tesla decided to make a multimillion dollar investment before finding all this out? They could have built in Spain, Czech Republic, The Netherlands or Romania, or somewhere else. Yet they went for Germany.

Maybe labour costs are not the most important issue to Tesla, a company making top-market cars in highly automated factories? After all their NA factories are in the US, not in Mexico.

The way I see it that Tesla is becoming a global company and want to be present in the major markets. Maybe they want to get advantage of the German automotive know-how which until recently has been considered world class.

There are more things at play than a Sunday trucking ban.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: January 12, 2020, 11:19:10 AM »
Das is cool!

Learn German vocabulary by reading in your native language !!

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: January 12, 2020, 10:41:36 AM »
How do you access the Internet?

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: December 28, 2019, 11:13:12 PM »
Florida town sees the future:

“I don’t look out the windows anymore because I’m afraid I’ll see flooding,”

"Her only choice, she said, is to sell the home she’s lived in for 53 years, the one she had planned to die in."

"her town, Surfside, is pioneering what appears to be a first of its kind solution for residents in the decades to come — a fund for potential buyouts."

"“This is my life I am planning. You have got to tell me the truth,” she insisted."

"She said staff told her that even if she raised her sea wall 2 extra feet, she would only buy herself around seven years before the floodwaters started licking at her door."

“Our risk is undeniable. The modelers get it. The mortgage institutions get it. Insurance gets it.”


Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: December 24, 2019, 07:38:21 AM »

Since the ending of the Sanders presidency in 2028, democratic institutions are stronger than ever. The US is on its way to zero emissions. The green new deal is working. Because millions of additional worker where needed refugees from all over the world found a new home in the US. The big topic everyone is talking about these days is the weakening concept of arbitrary nation-states. The UN is slowly transitioning into a global government.

While Asia already is at zero emissions in most parts, Europe is still behind. The economy is no more competitive, still relying on gas and oil from Russia. Europeans are faced with high power bills and protesters on the streets have long become part of the interior.

Extreme weather kills crops all over the planet. The Russians saw a market evolving and in 2025 began to ramp up food production. It since became their number one export product. The south delivers power in exchange for goods from the north. This strong interdependency is the fundament for peace talks taking place all over the planet. And massive military downgrading already occurred. The talks are now focusing on the last remaining missile systems and how to utilize them for non-military purpose.

Additional land use is illegal worldwide since 2028. The bill was highly controversial, but the shrinking population made the decision easier. 78% of people are living in cities anyway nowadays. First positive signs of recovering ecosystems are already obvious.

In the early 2020s, a non-profit organisation developed and open-sourced a revolutionary desalination plant. In 2030 the UN chief announced that deployment at all strategic places on earth will be concluded by 2034. She ended her historic speech with the words "Let's green our deserts. No more water wars!".

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 16, 2019, 09:58:31 AM »
I have sworn to myself our current ICE family car is the last one ever.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 16, 2019, 04:07:59 AM »
 200-250 mile range may seem ridiculous only a few years from now.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: December 13, 2019, 07:51:28 PM »
Another one (coal mine) bites the dust.  This time in Indiana.  And the local paper isn't sad to see it go.

Briggs: The coal industry is dying. Indiana should let go.
James Briggs, Indianapolis Star Published Dec. 4, 2019

Indiana is about to lose a substantial chunk of its coal mining jobs in one fell swoop — a reminder that, despite the political forces propping it up, the coal industry is much less important to the state’s economy than you might think.

Gibson County Coal, which operates a mine in southern Indiana, recently gave notice to the state that it plans to lay off 184 workers in January. Parent company Alliance Resource Partners attributed the impending job losses to a decline in demand.

"A substantial portion of production from the Gibson Complex has been dedicated to supplying the international coal markets," Alliance CEO Joseph W. Craft III said in a statement. "The export markets have deteriorated over the last seven months and have contributed to an over-supplied domestic market."

Those 184 Gibson County workers amount to 6.3% of all coal mining jobs (2,923) in Indiana, according to year-end figures for 2018. To put that in perspective, Indiana has 35 individual employers that each account for more jobs than the state’s entire coal mining industry, according to Indianapolis Business Journal data.

If all of the state’s coal mining jobs were combined under a single company, that employer would rank just below the Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (a utility that just so happens to be in the process of shutting down coal-fired plants) and far below the nearly 40,000 workers that No. 1 employer Walmart has in the state.

Indiana is a perfect example of why future industry growth is extremely unlikely. The aforementioned Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (NIPSCO) has accelerated plans to retire its five coal-fired plants by 2028 — a plan that couldn’t be stopped earlier this year by Trump's former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, who lobbied state lawmakers to slow down that process.

Coal has faced no adversary in Indiana except for its own obsolescence. That is proving too much for the industry to overcome.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 08, 2019, 10:52:47 PM »
Well it is a holding company so they can still call the factory Gigafabrik. I think it is the lure of the Ringel-s which all germans i know call the Eszett. Where else in the world can you use that nice letter?

Sort of looking forward to Tesla expanding to Wales already.  8)

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: December 05, 2019, 04:04:44 PM »
Never thought i'd live long enough to actually experience it, but here we go! \o/

Germany's Social Democrats Are Moving Left. Will it Save the Party?

As you can imagine the mainstream media doesn't like the move left. But this is IMHO the only possibility for them to survive. And the further left the better.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 03, 2019, 07:53:01 PM »
I googled for Tesla Solar Roof with the option "News".

What a load of crap opinion with no data or evidence until I found..

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: November 26, 2019, 10:33:12 PM »

ps: Ken, how do you rate the chances of reducing CO2 emissions in 2030 by 55% (7.5% p.a.) for +1.5 celsius, 25% for +2 celsius ?

With solar and wind now cheaper than fossil fuels in about three quarters of the world (already cheaper in the developed countries and now at grid parity in China), pretty good.

Given that we're already seeing drops in global coal consumption (down 3% in 2019) and softening of demand for oil and a huge glut in natural gas, the major wildcard is how quickly battery electric vehicles take over the transportation market.  The forecast year for cost parity between BEVs and ICEs is now 2022.  So we should see peak oil demand within the decade.

I doubt we'll see a new coal power plant built after 2025 or a new natural gas power plant after 2035.  Sales of new ICE vehicles will probably be banned in most countries in the 2030s.

I suspect that we wont hit the 7.5% annual decreases needed for the 1.5 degree C target until the 2030s, but we should be able to hit the 2.0 target for emissions reductions in the 2020s and exceed them in the 2030s and 2040s.  With global temperatures increasing at around 0.18 degrees per decade and the five-year average increase around 0.9 C, we'd hit 1.5 degrees in the 2050s. So we'll end up somewhere by 1.5C and 2.0C temperature increase before looking at options for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

When people think of CDR, they usually think of artificial leaves or other large machines to suck CO2 from the air and pipe it underground (or deep under the sea).  However, there are much better options that can be used to increase global carbon sinks from better agricultural practices, which are increasingly being used.  Look up regenerative agriculture, biochar, sustainable grazing, renewable natural gas, or reductions in methane from rice farming. 

And there are possibilities in kelp farming, with the kelp reducing acidity in the oceans and then being fed to ruminants to reduce their methane emissions.

In the past decade, a lot of progress has been made in all of these areas.  Keep that in mind when you read a gloom and doom report.  We must continue to press our leaders for more rapid changes to reduce greenhouse gases and improve carbon sinks, and we shouldn't give up hope that it can be done.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 22, 2019, 11:40:49 PM »
While the closure of the huge Navajo coal plant got a lot of attention, the installation new solar farms on Tribal lands is an increasing source of revenue for the Tribes.

U.S. News Nov. 22, 2019 / 2:30 AM
As coal dwindles, Southwest tribal solar farms pump out power
By Jean Lotus

DENVER, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- New, large-scale solar farms are bringing jobs to reservations and electricity for the first time to families living on tribal lands in remote areas of the Southwest.

Along with selling renewable energy on a large scale to cities like Albuquerque and Los Angeles, solar power generated by tribes pays for infrastructure to power up homes that have been waiting decades for electricity.

The Navajo Tribal Utilities Authority successfully brought online two large solar projects that generate 55 megawatts in Kayenta, Ariz., over the past year. The two sites now provide enough electricity to power the entire 17-million-acre reservation.

Building the two solar farms employed more than 400 people, most of them tribal members, said Deenise Becenti, the utility's spokeswoman.

"Tribal lands in the Southwest are the Saudi Arabia of solar because they're largely under-developed and undeveloped," said Karl Cates, a Santa Fe-based energy analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank that studies sustainable energy.

"Solar is gaining market share much faster than anyone thought it would have as recently as a year ago, and it's all market-driven," Cates said.

New Mexico's Public Regulation Commission heard a proposal earlier this month to approve the Jicarilla Solar Project, a 500-acre, 50-megawatt solar farm on Jicarilla Apache Nation tribal lands in northern New Mexico's Rio Arriba County.

Through an agreement with Public Service Co. of New Mexico, the deal will provide electricity to supply Albuquerque with 54 percent of its electric demand.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 20, 2019, 08:16:46 PM »
And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

Where do they get the batteries?

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 20, 2019, 08:06:26 PM »
Also, it would help if policymakers made the whole process easier for folks! 
Tesla lets you order an EV, solar and batteries with a few clicks, and they are working to get more municipalities to accept their generic electronic installation-proposal document, so permitting can take days rather than weeks.  More installers should be made able to do this.


Another idea would be to subsidize people more who make their charging port public.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 20, 2019, 07:52:57 PM »
Anecdotal but real-world home-charging reports. 
I thought this was interesting, so I decided to make my own graph. I only have one year of data for solar and one for EV/PHEV, so it's not very smooth (August is an outlier because we were away from home).

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 19, 2019, 04:57:27 PM »
All the tech executives tend to be raising their kids tech free.

That is very significant and should make consumerist parents scratch their heads and change their ways.

Maybe interesting in this context:

"Apple's Tim Cook says he wouldn't let a child use social media"
May I ask why the suggestion to prohibit teens from using social networks is now such big a topic in this thread? Is this an attempt to hinder Greta's work? It should be obvious that without social networking there would be no Friday for Future and only a few locals in Stockholm would have noticed Greta's school strike. Her superpower was multiplied by social media. And FFF is build on the ability to communicate effective and international.

Thus this kind of critics by some "tech executives" is a bit strange. And I would like to discuss with them directly which kind of addiction they practiced when they were in the teens. And what is the purpose of their critics? Internet only for people with drivers license or for the people of age 50+? Or for whom?

And does "tech free" include television, cars, computers, any other electrical things or only communication? What is bad with communication? No communication would be worse.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 19, 2019, 02:00:19 AM »
The existing grid is built on receiving power from a relatively few large power sources. The grid will have to be redesigned to take power from a vast array of large and small wind and solar power plants and perhaps take power from and give power to of millions of individual houses / offices / factories.

I love this description of the challenge.  This is exactly what must be done. While doing it, we will gain resiliency for free.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 18, 2019, 07:21:01 PM »
avoiding cascade failure

Driving the grid close to 100%

the grid must be more robust

Neil, when one reads that, they could get the impression it's hard to install plugs.

Turns out, mankind is pretty good with installing plugs. There are plugs all around you.

With 100% EVs we need 20% more power. It takes like 10-15 years to get near to this 100%. Are you really believing that mankind isn't able to install 20% more (slightly different) plugs in 15 years? C'mon...
Plugs ?
We are talking about the grid. Transmission lines, large transformers etc etc.
We are also talking about far more than 20% more power.
We are also talking about replacing the majority of current fossil fuel electricity production with renewables.

The existing grid is built on receiving power from a relatively few large power sources. The grid will have to be redesigned to take power from a vast array of large and small wind and solar power plants and perhaps take power from and give power to of millions of individual houses / offices / factories.

This will take real money and real hands-on management. Both are in short supply.

C'mon. Plugs- really.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15