CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Birdnuts

Birdnuts wrote: »

Batteries decline in charging power over time and you are also forgetting the energy used in their manufacturing

The energy used in their manufacture is included and you only manufacture them once and use several thousand times as opposed to fossil fuel which is burnt only once.

Thargor

Lithium batteries will be used thousands of times in vehicles, then spend their retirement as powerwalls aiding renewable energy adoption, then they'll be recycled into new batteries. Laughable to compare them negatively to burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

The US pays 20bn a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry a year Do you have 40 other failed .5bn projects a year to balance out your post?

What a very misleading statement in terms of the language used. The USA does not "subsidise" the fossil fuel industry.

A casual Irish person reading that would through no fault of their own conjure up an image of Trump sending out cheques to the CEOs of these fossil fuel companies totalling US$20 Billion. (when taking the agricultural EU CAP scheme here into account).

What Trump and pretty much every previous administration, including the beloved Obama have done is given special tax rates to these companies.

In other words they pay less tax on their turnover - this action provides energy security and supply (where renewables cannot) and has recently turned the USA into a net exporter of fossil fuel energy. These actions have created thousands of jobs for American workers.

I have read: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs and one of the most alarming points made in it was:

another source of federal aid to the fossil fuel industry is the discounted cost of leasing federal lands for fossil fuel extraction. Some fossil fuel subsidies provide public assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which assists low-income households with heating costs.

This "subsidy" which is similar to the "Fuel Allowance Scheme" in Ireland and provides winter time top-up payments to the elderly and the unemployed to purchase heating is also attracting the ire of the Green Lobby.

It's amazing how the Green Lobby don't have any issue with "subsidies" (as they call them) for brand new EVs (which directly benefit the rich), a ~tripling/quadrupling~ of the PSO levy to actually subsidise the wind turbines in Ireland. Crickets on that one.

Akrasia

Birdnuts wrote: »

No they don't - and expansion of NG tech has reduced emmissions there far more quickly then the likes of Germany and their colossal spend on Wind subs for which they still use coal as their biggest source of energy

Yes they do and the 20bn figure is a very conservative figure
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-bounced-back-strongly-in-2018

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

What a very misleading statement in terms of the language used. The USA does not "subsidise" the fossil fuel industry.

A casual Irish person reading that would through no fault of their own conjure up an image of Trump sending out cheques to the CEOs of these fossil fuel companies totalling US$20 Billion. (when taking the agricultural EU CAP scheme here into account).

What Trump and pretty much every previous administration, including the beloved Obama have done is given special tax rates to these companies.

In other words they pay less tax on their turnover - this action provides energy security and supply (where renewables cannot) and has recently turned the USA into a net exporter of fossil fuel energy. These actions have created thousands of jobs for American workers.

I have read: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs and one of the most alarming points made in it was:



This "subsidy" which is similar to the "Fuel Allowance Scheme" in Ireland and provides winter time top-up payments to the elderly and the unemployed to purchase heating is also attracting the ire of the Green Lobby.

It's amazing how the Green Lobby don't have any issue with "subsidies" (as they call them) for brand new EVs (which directly benefit the rich), a ~tripling/quadrupling~ of the PSO levy to actually subsidise the wind turbines in Ireland. Crickets on that one.

Subsidizing polluting industries is a bad idea when there is a cleaner alternative that is struggling to compete with the dirty industry on price

The subsidies to help low income households pay for energy should be targeted at sustainable energy solutions, better insulation, only allow them to use the subsidy to pay for renewable energy

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Subsidizing polluting industries is a bad idea when there is a cleaner alternative that is struggling to compete with the dirty industry on price...

As I clearly outlined they're not. They receive tax breaks, no government department is sending them cheques.

The alternatives are getting subsidies in the traditional sense, I earlier outlined how US$537 million was lost on a vanity solar energy project - the second such instance that the public are aware of.

Akrasia wrote: »

The subsidies to help low income households pay for energy should be targeted at sustainable energy solutions, better insulation, only allow them to use the subsidy to pay for renewable energy

Poorer people who cannot afford to change can freeze to death? Meanwhile you have no issues with grants for new EVs - these grants only help the already rich. This attitude from the green movement is alarming. Class warfare.

Birdnuts

Thargor wrote: »

Lithium batteries will be used thousands of times in vehicles, then spend their retirement as powerwalls aiding renewable energy adoption, then they'll be recycled into new batteries. Laughable to compare them negatively to burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine.

Its laughable that you would come out with nonsense like that when the reality of the industry is so different -as we speak vast amounts of wind farm related junk like blades etc. is simply dumped in landfills - and then there is the devastating affect of mining for rare-earth metals and their medium term supply issues. You sound like those melons who 10 years ago told us diesel engines were the answer to everything:rolleyes:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills.

Birdnuts

Deleted User wrote: »

The energy used in their manufacture is included and you only manufacture them once and use several thousand times as opposed to fossil fuel which is burnt only once.

Included where?? Also most of the time the grid will be running on fossil sources eg. Germany despite a vast investment in wind still depends on coal to large extent. The supply issue is another little nugget that the greenwashers ignore

https://www.mining.com/tesla-warns-upcoming-battery-minerals-shortage/

Thargor

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its laughable that you would come out with nonsense like that when the reality of the industry is so different -as we speak vast amounts of wind farm related junk like blades etc. is simply dumped in landfills - and then there is the devastating affect of mining for rare-earth metals and their medium term supply issues. You sound like those melons who 10 years ago told us diesel engines were the answer to everything:rolleyes:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills.

Well this bit of whataboutery about something completely unrelated to lithium batteries has certainly convinced me I was wrong, thanks.

Nothings going to be perfect at the very beginning of a transition to a new way of doing things, wind turbine blades arent being recycled right up until someone starts recycling them or the EU and the rest mandates they be made recyclable. Renewable energy is completely superior to burning fossil fuels in every way no matter whatever failed projects the climate denier blogs are crowing about this week.

Amazing the concern for the environment from the Boards global warming denial crew every time lithium ion batteries are mentioned, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction and combustion?

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

As I clearly outlined they're not. They receive tax breaks, no government department is sending them cheques.

The alternatives are getting subsidies in the traditional sense, I earlier outlined how US$537 million was lost on a vanity solar energy project - the second such instance that the public are aware of.



Poorer people who cannot afford to change can freeze to death? Meanwhile you have no issues with grants for new EVs - these grants only help the already rich. This attitude from the green movement is alarming. Class warfare.

It is about time that people began to call into serious question the constant mismanagement of their hard-earned tax money by hyper rewarded and hyper entitled top public servants, Government officials and so called 'experts', not just in the US, but across the entire Occident, and certainly no less in this country. As you rightly say, this is class warfare and these cretins have proved themselves to be the true enemy of the people time and time again. The modern-day aristocracy who are no longer placed under scrutiny by the so called 'guardians of the public interest', but instead, revered by them, as they increasingly turn their ire towards the very people who are providing them with every comfort imaginable without any inkling of gratitude given in return.

July 1789, we haven't forgotten.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

As I clearly outlined they're not. They receive tax breaks, no government department is sending them cheques.

The alternatives are getting subsidies in the traditional sense, I earlier outlined how US$537 million was lost on a vanity solar energy project - the second such instance that the public are aware of.



Poorer people who cannot afford to change can freeze to death? Meanwhile you have no issues with grants for new EVs - these grants only help the already rich. This attitude from the green movement is alarming. Class warfare.

Tax breaks are subsidies. And I never said poor people should freeze. The terms of their allowance should should just say that they have to use suppliers that get their energy from renewable sources
It would boost the marketplace for energy companies supplying renewable energy rather than propping up the fossil fuel industry

Birdnuts

Thargor wrote: »

Well this bit of whataboutery about something completely unrelated to lithium batteries has certainly convinced me I was wrong, thanks.

Nothings going to be perfect at the very beginning of a transition to a new way of doing things, wind turbine blades arent being recycled right up until someone starts recycling them or the EU and the rest mandates they be made recyclable. Renewable energy is completely superior to burning fossil fuels in every way no matter whatever failed projects the climate denier blogs are crowing about this week.

Amazing the concern for the environment from the Boards global warming denial crew every time lithium ion batteries are mentioned, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction and combustion?

That statement is laughable and shows a high degree of ignorance concerning the main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss here and elsewhere, not to mention the realities of running a national grid etc.

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

Tax breaks are subsidies. And I never said poor people should freeze. The terms of their allowance should should just say that they have to use suppliers that get their energy from renewable sources
It would boost the marketplace for energy companies supplying renewable energy rather than propping up the fossil fuel industry

Every business gets "tax breaks" eg. Vat refunds on stationary etc. Comparing such things to the vast subsidies that the wind/solar industry gets is nonsense

Thargor

Birdnuts wrote: »

That statement is laughable and shows a high degree of ignorance concerning the main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss here and elsewhere, not to mention the realities of running a national grid etc.

I didn't realise lithium ion batteries and wind turbines were the 'main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss', do you have any sources for that?

Thargor

Birdnuts wrote: »

Every business gets "tax breaks" eg. Vat refunds on stationary etc. Comparing such things to the vast subsidies that the wind/solar industry gets is nonsense

You think fossil fuels get less subsidies than renewables? And yes tax breaks are subsidies, it being free money and all:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.

Birdnuts

Birdnuts wrote: »

That statement is laughable and shows a high degree of ignorance concerning the main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss here and elsewhere, not to mention the realities of running a national grid etc.

Thargor wrote: »

I didn't realise lithium ion batteries and wind turbines were the 'main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss', do you have any sources for that?

I am going to assume that he is actually referring to biofuels, but has lumped in energy harvesting systems as well.


I would agree with that statement in relation to biofuels but not with wind & solar.
As for the habitat loss, lithium mining uses far less land than any biofuel crop production.

Nabber

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the habitat loss, lithium mining uses far less land than any biofuel crop production.

Not sure I agree with the downplay of mining here. The current mining is large in of itself, but assuming we were to replace fossil fuels with renewable tech, then the mining would increase by many magnitudes of today mining.

I know another poster mentioned we could recover the rare earths and metals, but there is a trade off and it's not 100% in 100% out, and currently requires an additional energy input to extract. Further increasing or energy dependency.

Green energy is not without it's flaws, I agree it's a better source than fossil fuels, but still inferior to nuclear. Fossil fuel is still the best form of stored energy we have.

“In Norway, the government tell us we have to sacrifice our fjords to mine copper for clean energy,” said Silje Karine Muotka, a member of the indigenous Sámi Parliament, which is fighting a mine proposal in their traditional reindeer herding grounds. “I recognize that we need materials for new technologies, but we should look for ways to get them that do not harm the environment or threaten native culture.”

https://earthworks.org/media-releases/report-clean-energy-must-not-rely-on-dirty-mining/

Sacrifice the few for the many, a dangerous path to take.

Birdnuts

Thargor wrote: »

I didn't realise lithium ion batteries and wind turbines were the 'main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss', do you have any sources for that?

Wind farms have already damaged many peatland and upland habitats in this country - Ireland is currently paying daily fines to the EU over its failure to implement the Birds and Habitat Directives in respect of same.

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-fined-eu-court-of-justice-wind-farm-4887792-Nov2019/

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=201271&doclang=EN

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30971658.html

Similar issue in other parts of the world

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/wind-farms-deliver-a-blow-to-birds-of-prey-says-study/articleshow/66626564.cms

Thargor

Yes thats environmental damage, like all human activity really, and fairly minimal at that compared to other industries, hardly the main driver of extinction and habitat loss like you claimed I was ignorant about, also this is a thread about climate change, and raising the temperature and acidity of the oceans as well as all the land based ecosystems plus the sea level rise caused by releasing the stored carbon of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a short period and the associated greenhouse effect is going to be orders of magnitude worse if we continue with business as usual with our heavily subsidised fossil fuel based economy so Im not even sure what you're arguing with me about tbh. If you're concerned about habitat loss and extinction theres better uses for your time than arguing against moving to cleaner energy systems.

Wanderer78

Thargor wrote:

Yes thats environmental damage, like all human activity really, and fairly minimal at that compared to other industries, hardly the main driver of extinction and habitat loss like you claimed I was ignorant about, also this is a thread about climate change, and raising the temperature and acidity of the oceans as well as all the land based ecosystems plus the sea level rise caused by releasing the stored carbon of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a short period and the associated greenhouse effect is going to be orders of magnitude worse if we continue with business as usual with our heavily subsidised fossil fuel based economy so Im not even sure what you're arguing with me about tbh. If you're concerned about habitat loss and extinction theres better uses for your time than arguing against moving to cleaner energy systems.

Would probably help though, moving to cleaner energy systems

Birdnuts

Thargor wrote: »

Yes thats environmental damage, like all human activity really, and fairly minimal at that compared to other industries, hardly the main driver of extinction and habitat loss like you claimed I was ignorant about, also this is a thread about climate change, and raising the temperature and acidity of the oceans as well as all the land based ecosystems plus the sea level rise caused by releasing the stored carbon of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a short period and the associated greenhouse effect is going to be orders of magnitude worse if we continue with business as usual with our heavily subsidised fossil fuel based economy so Im not even sure what you're arguing with me about tbh. If you're concerned about habitat loss and extinction theres better uses for your time than arguing against moving to cleaner energy systems.

Yeah - but that "activity" is not masquerading as "green" is it?? If you add in the likes of biofuels from Palm oil, large Hydro dams etc, it adds up to a very significant amount of habitat and biodiversity loss which certain elements of the "Green" movement are either wholly ignorant of or don't care

PS: Your claims about sea-level rise etc. are based on nothing more then extreme scaremongering which distracts from current and real threats to biodiversity.

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Would probably help though, moving to cleaner energy systems

I don't know that anyone is arguing that.

I think most of the debate around green energy is that it's not the fairy dust solution that the majority think it is, least not how politicians and the media have portrayed.
Green energy has been painted as squeaky clean, which it is clearly not. The reality of current green energy is it's dirty and completely dependent on fossil fuel for raw materials, manufacture, distribution and installation.

'Evil' oil companies will be replaced by 'evil' renewable energy companies. In all likelihood both industries at some stage are going to be dependent on one another.

The level of habitat loss required to sustain current energy demands and future production will be the new problem.

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote:

I think most of the debate around green energy is that it's not the fairy dust solution that the majority think it is, least not how politicians and the media have portrayed. Green energy has been painted as squeaky clean, which it is clearly not. The reality of current green energy is it's dirty and completely dependent on fossil fuel for raw materials, manufacture, distribution and installation.

I do agree, I'm not completely convinced renewables can fill the gap of fossil fuels, and I also think a combination of nuclear will be required, but that ll be a difficult one to implement, we may have to wait until it's urgently needed, before society accepts this need. Naturally, since we re currently fossil fuel junkies, it's gonna take time to purge the system of them, until we completely end their usage, we will remain to have this 'dirty' element, but it should reduce over time, as renewables come online, it will take time though.

Nabber wrote:

'Evil' oil companies will be replaced by 'evil' renewable energy companies. In all likelihood both industries at some stage are going to be dependent on one another.

They already rely on each other, as explained above, maybe nuclear will actually become the new 'evil', or even 'more evil' than it currently already is

Nabber wrote:

The level of habitat loss required to sustain current energy demands and future production will be the new problem.

Unfortunately I also agree here to a degree, our power needs are astonishing, we need to keep working on making everything more power efficient, we need to dramatically change our production systems, and the whole way we think about economics. this will be a monumental task, possibly the single most complex problem ever to face humanity, this wont be easy. We ve approached economics in an extremely dangerous way, and not just environmentally, the fundamentals of which are deeply flawed, we largely haven't accepted this yet, if we truly want to save ourselves and this planet, this to will have to be addressed also, and it's becoming a matter of urgency now, again, not just environmentally.

Thargor

Birdnuts wrote: »

Yeah - but that "activity" is not masquerading as "green" is it?? If you add in the likes of biofuels from Palm oil, large Hydro dams etc, it adds up to a very significant amount of habitat and biodiversity loss which certain elements of the "Green" movement are either wholly ignorant of or don't care

PS: Your claims about sea-level rise etc. are based on nothing more then extreme scaremongering which distracts from current and real threats to biodiversity.

You do realise theres a massive ecological cost to fossil based industry aswell dont you? Coal in particular? Its a question of efficiency, and moving to a broad mix of closed loop renewable systems and nuclear is the way forward. And no its not scaremongering its well proven scientific fact.

Akrasia

To get the topic back on track, A recent study has narrowed down the range of climate sensitivity from the previous 1.5c - 4.5c to basically remove the lower estimates and put the lower end of the range to 2.6c while keeping the upper range at 4.1c with the likely ECS being about 3c


The lowest range of 2.6c would be a calamaty while 4.1c would result extreme consequences that would transform many parts of the world unrecognisably from how they have been for the entire history of human civilisation

There should be absolutely zero argument about our need to reduce GHG emissions asap to avoid doubling our atmospheric CO2 concentrations, instead we should be focusing on which renewable or carbon neutral technologies we should be focusing on (The answer is likely to be a complex mix of Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal)

We need to be leaving the vast majority of our proven oil and gas reserves underground if we are to avoid changing the atmosphere from 280ppm (pre industrial) to 700-900 ppm and a level not seen since 50 million years ago (when there were no ice caps)

Akrasia

Thargor wrote: »

You do realise theres a massive ecological cost to fossil based industry aswell dont you? Coal in particular? Its a question of efficiency, and moving to a broad mix of closed loop renewable systems and nuclear is the way forward. And no its not scaremongering its well proven scientific fact.

It's a double whammy, Strip mining of Coal, peat, Driling for oil etc all have their immediate local environmental consequences, but on top of this there is the long term cumulative impact of the emissions released through burning these fuels as well as the impact on human health from reduced air quality and smog

Mining materials to make batteries for electric cars is a once off cost with a much cleaner life cycle in the aftermath.

I know there currently are not enough regulations in place regarding the future recycing of spent batteries to recover the valuable metals and elements but this is just another engineering problem that we will need to address through regulations and new industrial processes to ensure that the elements are recycled in a environmentally sustainably way

And on top of this, new battery technologies are in development that use far less problematic elements (things like carbon, and sodium)

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

To get the topic back on track, A recent study has narrowed down the range of climate sensitivity from the previous 1.5c - 4.5c to basically remove the lower estimates and put the lower end of the range to 2.6c while keeping the upper range at 4.1c with the likely ECS being about 3c


The lowest range of 2.6c would be a calamaty while 4.1c would result extreme consequences that would transform many parts of the world unrecognisably from how they have been for the entire history of human civilisation

There should be absolutely zero argument about our need to reduce GHG emissions asap to avoid doubling our atmospheric CO2 concentrations, instead we should be focusing on which renewable or carbon neutral technologies we should be focusing on (The answer is likely to be a complex mix of Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal)

We need to be leaving the vast majority of our proven oil and gas reserves underground if we are to avoid changing the atmosphere from 280ppm (pre industrial) to 700-900 ppm and a level not seen since 50 million years ago (when there were no ice caps)

Link?

Nabber

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Link?

Perhaps this one https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/inpress/inpress_Sherwood_sh02800e.pdf

Akrasia can correct if it is wrong.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

Perhaps this one https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/inpress/inpress_Sherwood_sh02800e.pdf

Akrasia can correct if it is wrong.

Yeah that’s the paper. Sorry I thought I included the link in my post but obviously forgot to paste it in

Nabber

A carbon fee is crucial, but not enough. Countries such as India and China need massive amounts of energy to raise living standards. The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.
James Hansen ,June 26, 2018

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/26/thirty-years-later-what-needs-change-our-approach-climate-change/dUhizA5ubUSzJLJVZqv6GP/story.html