Global Warming

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by kptvol, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    I can understand the benefit of non volitile​ global food supplies, but crop rotation and crop diversification would avoid these events would it not?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     
  2. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Great question. Wheat can be grown with little water, and with a winter rotation. Water is a significant limiting factor for much of the grainbelt. It just isn't feasible for many areas to switch to corn or vegetables. As it is, groundwater depletion is coming to a head in much of the Midwest. The reason the plains aren't forest is because of insufficient rainfall. Corn and many vegetable crops are water intensive and require substantial irrigation in that climate. This is true in much of Africa, and parts of India. Natural climate and water availability constrains flexibility.
     
  3. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    No comment on my renewables as a national security issue?
     
  4. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    The issue wouldn't be food for people. The vast majority of grain goes to livestock not people.

    We'd increase our grazing practices and not feed livestock as much grain. We'd be more like New Zealand which would spread out production.

    This would also help to end the government sponsored monopolies on meat packaging due to grain subsidies leading to centralized feedlots and reducing the amount of meat packers in the market.
     
  5. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    I missed that post. How much of the oil we use now come from the Middle East? I believe the answer is very little.

    My gripe is that today factoring in all the cost to build and maintain a nuclear plant, nuclear energy is still substantially cheaper than solar. Yet the narrative is nuclear bad solar good. I don't doubt that solar will continue to get better but as today we have an option that could almost eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet TVA is selling or just sold a nuclear plant that was on the shelf collecting dust. I don't believe we've built a new plant in the US since the 70s.

    It's great that solar and wind have zero environmental impact (outside of dead birds), and it's great that one day it might be the way we generate almost all our power. But today it's twice as expensive as current clean options.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     
  6. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    It's not hard to fine a couple hundred acres in a rural area to build a plant. We have to move more towards nuclear for baseline output since the wind isn't always blowing, the sun isn't always shining, and we can't constantly run water through dams. At some point if we're not burning coal, oil, or gas we have to have a reliable source come from somewhere. Unless aliens come and give us the tech for efficient energy storage we're decades away from that.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     
  7. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I have no data, but I think this would be harder than anyone can imagine. NIMBY.
     
  8. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    We import about 10-15% from the Middle East. About 20-25% from ME and Africa.
     
  9. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    On what basis are you seeing that nuclear is substantially cheaper than onshore wind or solar PV? Based on current investment that doesn't look right and levelized cost of electricity ($/MWhr) including capital recovery is almost 2x that of onshore wind and solar PV. Wind cost has come down rapidly. As has solar. Even the nuclear energy guys show a LCOE flat with solar and wind higher - but they are using wind figures from a few years ago that are pretty inflated. EIA is pretty solid and they say almost 2x.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  10. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

    Most of the oil we import comes from Canada followed by Saudi Arabia. The fact we import less than we used to is irrelevant. That import number should be (and can be) a big fat ZERO. The conservative mantra is, "git at 'ere gubmint ousta muh bidness!!!" Yet, "conservative" elected officials are more than happy to let foreign govts like the Saudis (home of Wahhabism and 19 of the 9/11 terrorists) and the Russians (who have a well documented history of weaponizing their vast fossil fuel deposits) have an inordinate amount of control over our everyday lives as citizens, our budget as a nation (defense spending goes down BIGLY if we don't have to guard the world's oil supply which is globalist bullshit) and our national security. Oil is a global commodity. Therefore, global forces (supply manipulation, wars, corruption, terrorist attacks, crown princes gettin' indegestion, and numerous other forms of crooked bullshit) controls the price. The fact that the Saudis are the world's #1 exporter followed by Russia at #2 makes 2 countries that don't particularly have the best interests of the US (remember, 'Mericuh First, by God!) the most control over the price and the supply of ALL oil. Global commodity. Traded on a global market... Oh noes! Trump's orb grabbin' sword dancin' embrace of the Saudis show he's secretly a globalist cuck that has conned his base!!!

    Energy independence is numbers 1-10 on the list of importance for the well-being of our beloved United States. It's not even debatable, imo. The fact that better, cleaner and soon to be cheaper (currently and forever less volatile) sources of energy are readily available makes the decision simple enough for even Trump (and his legendary 2 minute attention span) understand. It's criminal that we haven't already made the switch (that's an indictment of the evil Kenyan born and known baby eater Obama too, btw). I remember well what it was like when OPEC issued an embargo of oil to the US in the 1970s causing prices to skyrocket, prices greater than the pre-economic crisis of 2008 after adjustments for inflation, and hours long waits to get a rationed amount of gas, if you could find any station that had gas. After that global energy crisis, the nation of Brazil decided they had had enough of the globalist energy game of Russian roulette. They decided to stop importing a single barrel of oil for their fuel production. They wanted Brazil's fate in the hands of Brazilians (Brazil First!!!). To accomplish that goal, they went to 100% renewable and MUCH cleaner ethanol from domestically produced sugar cane. They told the Wahhabist controlled OPEC organization to go cuck themselves. And they've been in control of their own energy destiny ever since. One of the most referenced target of ridicule from the right, President Jimmy Carter, suggested the US follow suit and take control of its own energy destiny. He received nothing but mockery and contempt for doing so. Jimmy got the last laugh on that one. The Brazilian govt had more concern for its citizens and security and resolve to control their own energy destiny than any US govt has displayed. Surely, our greatness won't be overshadowed by Brazil, will it?


    As to your comments on nuclear, I have stated that I'm not anti-nuke. I think it also should be a bridge energy source though. The reasons no new plants have been built are several, but I'll just comment on a few. 1. Three Mile Island's partial meltdown, Chernobyl's disaster and Fukushima's earthquake/tsunami fiasco has blunted enthusiasm for nuclear, deserved or not. 2. Nuclear, one could argue, produces even more dangerous and a longer lasting threat to the enviroment. Nobody wants to store that waste that could be used for dirty bomb type terrorism if it's not kept secure. 3. Nuclear is one of those deals that lots of people support, but nobody wants the plant in their backyard. I have a pretty good grasp of this notion. As the crow flies, my house is less than 5 miles from the abandoned Phipp's Bend Nuclear Plant project. The project was abandoned abruptly by TVA in the early 1980s. I remember the whole thing well. The only reminders are the massive rusting steel support framework that was to be the cooling tower and the deteriorating concrete structure that was to be the reactor building. On a positive note, that backdrop has served as the backdrop and set of several apocalyptic locally produced D level films based in the future.

    To sum up, it is wholly appropriate and supportive of the MAGA/go to hell world viewpoints of our current administration and its most ardent and vocal supportive individuals to fully embrace and to transition to 100% domestically produced/controlled energy sources. It's a no-brainer. We get to screw 2 of our biggest haters, Wahhabists and Russians, at the same time all while vastly increasing our national security and slashing budget expenditures even if the govt funded the renewables 100%. Don't believe me? Check out our defense budget. The funding for a national renewable energy program would be dwarfed by defense expenditures that either directly or indirectly to protecting energy supplies in other countries. That's neither a MAGA nor America First! mindset. Not even remotely. I'll close my Tennyesque tirade by leaving you a visual representation of just how much land area would be needed to power the entire world via environmentally friendly, 100% renewable solar energy. The graphic is not just current needs. It also reflects the land areas needed in the future.

    Not only should we do it, it's 100% achievable.....right now. Fun fact: the sun bombards the earth with enough energy in 1 hour to power the entire planet for a whole year....

    [​IMG]
     
  11. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/editor/14

    I only said solar was twice as expensive. According to link is anywhere from 30-150% more. The downside with wind is you need a lot more acreage to generate the same amount of power. My understanding is the LCOE factors in the true cost of energy including plant construction, maintenance, disposal, etc. I know this is your area let me know if this is not true.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     
  12. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Wonder how we built those oil, gas, and coal plants. I live less than 15 miles away from an active nuke plant. I couldn't tell you the last time I had any concern about it.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     
  13. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    I'm more than happy to continue the move towards renewable energy. However if we did that today using current technology everyone's power bill goes up substantially. I have no doubt the technology of tomorrow will change that. So as you said why not use the cheaper non polluting technologies we have today a bridge (basically what my post was and you've started several times on this board). I feel like you're looking for a boogey man here in which case you'll most likely be disappointed.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     
  14. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    People fear nuclear contamination far more than breathing in coal dust or an ash spill into a stream. Three Mile Island practically killed nuclear growth in this country.
     
  15. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    You are right about what LCOE is.

    That wiki page is citing the EIA study from two years ago.

    Take a look at the most recent, released in April. Table is on page 7.

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

    Compare those onshore wind and solar PV numbers to the wiki page and you can see how rapidly the costs have fallen over the last few years. Wind is exploding here in Texas and solar is booming in California. And you can see from the PDF that it isn't just the tax credits that lead these renewables to beat nuclear now. Even without credits, onshore wind is about 60% of nuclear and solar PV is 80% of nuclear.
     
  16. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Grazing doesn't have the same yield as feed lots. Don't take that as me being anti-grazing. The net effect would be less total food for export, and thus higher prices abroad. Is that the direction we should go in? Maybe, but we need to do it slowly and in an organized fashion. Otherwise we may inadvertently starve a lot of people in the third world.
     
  17. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Interetingly, due to new capacity and the fact that it was windier than usual, wind displaced about 2.4 bcf/d more natural gas this winter than it did the winter before. Next winter, there will be about another 2-3 BCF/d of capacity coming online. This winter, instead of being short 4 BCF/d natural gas, it was only 2. As a result, natural gas prices were about 25-40 cents (10%-15%) cheaper than they would have otherwise been if that extra wind hadn't been available.

    Also, from that EIA study you can see that the cost of onshore wind competes directly with the cost of natural gas fired plants (for capacity coming online in 2022).

    Until we figure out system-scale energy storage, these intermittent renewables will not be the full answer. But they could easily grow to be 30% or a bit more of our infrastructure with gas baseload and peaking being most of the rest. And as energy storage is addressed you would see those renewable numbers climb.
     
  18. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    What you say is not absolutely true. The sun is ALWAYS shining somewhere. The wind is ALWAYS blowing somewhere. And water can be pumped upstream for storage. This isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff, this is a present reality that is being exploited in some way already. This criticism is a bit stale and disproven by more than one large grid-level study. The more build-out of solar across longitudes and wind across either spatial dimension, the more constant and regulated those sectors are. When the sun is setting in the eastern US, solar is at peak output in the west. And the wind is always blowing offshore somewhere.

    I am not saying we don't want or need nuclear, I am saying we don't really want or need nuclear to be the entire power grid. And not only do many not want coal, but coal is absolutely a legacy at this point. Gas beats it every which way.

    storage can be accomplished many ways, and it is simply a matter of capital and will at this point. Coal is the past and natural gas is a bridge.

    I strongly urge you to think about how "unreliable" wind and solar truly are on a grid scale. Onshore wind employs far more people than coal already. Solar employs more people than coal already. And they're both getting cheaper very quickly.
     
  19. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    It also doesn't have the nearly the input cost and high concentration of waste that often runs into water supplies.

    Proper grazing techniques actually builds soil and would sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
     
  20. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    They are very hard to get built now than they were not too long ago. It is very hard to build any power plant of any kind. I am tangentially within this realm now, professionally. Not impossible, but hard.

    Also, coal plants are still closing. I think 3 in the last week or so, and many more still scheduled. Many coal plants are mostly in standby, outside of the south and midwest. Natural gas has made them into standbys.
     

Share This Page