Hypothetical carbon emission question

[Eastoff]

Would you accept a system where all coal/gas power plants are banned, and all non-commercial cars are forced to be electric cars? Let's pretend for some magic reason the costs associated were within a 5% change, and all you are concerned about is environmental factors.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If I were concerned about "envoironmental factors" I wouldn't drive a car with hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries.

 

[Eastoff]

If I were concerned about "envoironmental factors" I wouldn't drive a car with hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries.

Interesting point, but the batteries aren't typically exposed like car emissions.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

I'd rather not legislate options. If they are the most commercially viable and economical options, they should win out. I am NOT in favor of legislating for the "better" of man. (Read - Obamacarelessness)

 

[Denny Crane]

How about we all stop exhaling CO2?

 

[MARIS61]

Nuke plants and electric vehicle batteries are probably the 2 most permanent forms of manmade pollution. No to either one.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Nuke plants and electric vehicle batteries are probably the 2 most permanent forms of manmade pollution. No to either one.

Hard to believe, but something we can agree on.

 

[Denny Crane]

20% of our power comes from nuclear power plants. Turn them off and we can share in 4.8 hour rolling blackouts to make up for their loss.

At our current rate, and it's VERY expensive already, it would take about 125 years to replace that power with energy from renewable sources.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I'd rather not legislate options. If they are the most commercially viable and economical options, they should win out. I am NOT in favor of legislating for the "better" of man. (Read - Obamacarelessness)

I sort of get what you're saying and in a vacuum I'd agree, but purely market driven solutions often fail to account for things like public health (clean water and clean air) or the cost of cleanup borne by other entities. Look at China and the mess they've created with coal-fired power plants for an example.

 

[MARIS61]

20% of our power comes from nuclear power plants. Turn them off and we can share in 4.8 hour rolling blackouts to make up for their loss.

At our current rate, and it's VERY expensive already, it would take about 125 years to replace that power with energy from renewable sources.

Nuclear energy is several trillion times more expensive than any other known form of energy, when you figure in it's true costs which include cost of permanent safe storage of nuclear waste (which has not even been invented yet) and the cost of replacing the planet Earth eventually.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nuclear energy is several trillion times more expensive than any other known form of energy, when you figure in it's true costs which include cost of permanent safe storage of nuclear waste (which has not even been invented yet) and the cost of replacing the planet Earth eventually.

The guys who aren't fictitious persons posting on message boards say the cost is $.08 per kWh in the US. ALL costs accounted for in that figure: regulation, waste storage, etc.

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/which-energy-source-receives-the-largest-subsidy/

Compare with solar, which govt. subsidizes $.96 per kWh.

We do have a "Manhattan Project" for renewable energy going on, and for years. Govt. subsidies were more than NASA's entire budget since 2000.

 

[donkiez]

So solar is to expenisve.

Nuke is to radioactive.

Coal and Oil are to dirty.

Fracking is to destructive.

Hydro kills all the fish and causes other river type damage.

and wind is an eye sore and takes up lots of space.

I kind of wonder where peole expect us to get our energy from.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Interesting point, but the batteries aren't typically exposed like car emissions.

Until one of those "cars" is obliterated by an out-of-control log truck...

 

[BlazerWookee]

So solar is to expenisve.

Nuke is to radioactive.

Coal and Oil are to dirty.

Fracking is to destructive.

Hydro kills all the fish and causes other river type damage.

and wind is an eye sore and takes up lots of space.

I kind of wonder where peole expect us to get our energy from.

Burning hippies?

 

[donkiez]

Burning hippies?

Lol and Portland becomes the world leader in energy production. Texas is screwed.

 

[Denny Crane]

So solar is to expenisve.

Nuke is to radioactive.

Coal and Oil are to dirty.

Fracking is to destructive.

Hydro kills all the fish and causes other river type damage.

and wind is an eye sore and takes up lots of space.

I kind of wonder where peole expect us to get our energy from.

The dangers of fracking look way over dramatized to me. The USGS says their studies show "hydraulic fracking is only rarely the direct cause of felt earthquakes." The chemicals are rarely spilt and never are found in drinking water. The most troublesome issue is the fracking brings salts to the surface that are not biodegradable. Complaints about it are mostly limited to odor caused by bio components of the process. The EPA and similar state organizations aren't finding reason for alarm, tho practices can be improved.

A lot of the time, the fluids that rise to the top are collected in big pools and then either shipped to water treatment plants, or trucked away to be reused at another well. In some cases, the treatment plants are not built to handle the salts.

I think the market is doing well. There's a transition to natural gas going on. Municipal vehicles all over are now using natural gas. It has far less pollution effect when burned, and within a reasonable time 10-15 years), much of our coal plants will be replaced with natural gas.

Fracking is an economic boom for the towns and farmers where it goes on. The oil companies pay people $500,000 or more to rent land to frack on, and leave the land in excellent shape.

There's enough gas to last centuries, during which time alternate energy sources will emerge that are technologically and economically viable.

Back in the '70s, there was plenty of public discourse about fracking and other techniques. They were too costly to employ at the time when gas was $.299 per gallon, but now there's economic incentive.

Going by your list of choices, you missed one. Chopping down trees to make firewood to cook on and stay warm, and making candles to use to see in the dark. If we go that route, a significant amount of everyone's time will be spent gathering energy; a lot less leisure time.

 

[donkiez]

The dangers of fracking look way over dramatized to me. The USGS says their studies show "hydraulic fracking is only rarely the direct cause of felt earthquakes." The chemicals are rarely spilt and never are found in drinking water. The most troublesome issue is the fracking brings salts to the surface that are not biodegradable. Complaints about it are mostly limited to odor caused by bio components of the process. The EPA and similar state organizations aren't finding reason for alarm, tho practices can be improved.

A lot of the time, the fluids that rise to the top are collected in big pools and then either shipped to water treatment plants, or trucked away to be reused at another well. In some cases, the treatment plants are not built to handle the salts.

I think the market is doing well. There's a transition to natural gas going on. Municipal vehicles all over are now using natural gas. It has far less pollution effect when burned, and within a reasonable time 10-15 years), much of our coal plants will be replaced with natural gas.

Fracking is an economic boom for the towns and farmers where it goes on. The oil companies pay people $500,000 or more to rent land to frack on, and leave the land in excellent shape.

There's enough gas to last centuries, during which time alternate energy sources will emerge that are technologically and economically viable.

Back in the '70s, there was plenty of public discourse about fracking and other techniques. They were too costly to employ at the time when gas was $.299 per gallon, but now there's economic incentive.

Going by your list of choices, you missed one. Chopping down trees to make firewood to cook on and stay warm, and making candles to use to see in the dark. If we go that route, a significant amount of everyone's time will be spent gathering energy; a lot less leisure time.

Good post DC, I agree almost 100%. The only thing I disagree with is what the problem with fracking is. As I see it the practice is safe as long as certain precautions are taken and it does not occur close to a major water source or city. The issue I see with fracking is how the companies are in bed with the government and use intellectual property laws to not disclose the chemicals they use to anyone. Currently if you live near a fracking center and suspect you have been exposed you go to a doctor, the doctor does all his test ruling out various illnesses, and then when they've run out of options they apply to the fracking company a list of their chemicals used, which means they have to sign a non disclosure agreement as they chemicals are a proprietary mix. NDA then makes it illegal to disclose this information to anyone, even the doctors patient or the physician they are referred to. All the doctor can do is say you need to see a specialist. For this to be a real viable energy source we need transparency and we need to prioritize public health over corporate profits. The only thing our laws do is protect the frackers lawsuits or accountability. England is working on opening up fracking in their country and one of the major requirements is public access to the chemicals used.

Besides all that I agree that fracking is a bone for our economy and a gift from God or science or (or the flying spaghetti monster) which will propel our country into a future of energy independence that was unthinkable 10 or 20 years ago. In short we can tell the Saudis to go fuck themselves. I also think though that this "gift" should not be wasted, we need to double down on fracking, and use our advantage to double down on promoting green technology advancement.

 

[Denny Crane]

Surprise, surprise.

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

http://fracfocus.org

 

[donkiez]

Surprise, surprise.

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

http://fracfocus.org

at first glance it seems a little biased sourcing, but if its genuine then it alleviates a lot of my concerns over fracking. Drill Baby Drill

 

[speeds]

Lol and Portland becomes the world leader in energy production. Texas is screwed.

If hipsters qualify, Austin has a solid amount.