NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
33 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg Rau
Feb 10, 2017, 2:33:21 AM2/10/17
to Geoengineering
Perhaps a glimmer of hope over here stateside:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=pl-share
aryt alasti
Feb 10, 2017, 8:00:22 AM2/10/17
to gh...@sbcglobal.net, Geoengineering
Here's a response to that proposal, by Brad Plumer:
On Feb 10, 2017 2:33 AM, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Perhaps a glimmer of hope over here stateside:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=pl-share
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Greg Rau
Feb 10, 2017, 4:27:15 PM2/10/17
to aryt alasti, Geoengineering
Good points. An additional concern is that this does not address legacy fossil energy production and legacy CO2 already in the air. There is no incentive to decarbonize fossil energy other than to kill fossil energy, and this can't and won't happen overnight. By their own admission the tax they envision addresses <50% of emissions over the coming decades. So what is the plan for the other half, esp without any additional incentives to mitigate point and non-point sources and air. E.g., have we just wasted $20B on CCS R&D?
Greg
From: aryt alasti <aryt....@gmail.com>
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
Adam Dorr
Feb 10, 2017, 4:45:01 PM2/10/17
to Greg Rau, aryt alasti, Geoengineering
I think the incentives supporting fossil fuels are not as insuperable in the longer-term as is often assumed. If oil and gas weren't currently so cheap from a supply glut - say, < $80/barrel - then PV solar would already be cost competitive for electricity production. And on the current cost decline curves, PV solar plus storage beats all fossil fuels across the board on LCOE without subsidies by 2025 in the majority of global geographies. That's with fossil fuel prices running fairly close to the cost of production (it isn't clear yet what the price floor is to sustain fracking, but it certainly isn't $20/barrel).
This is only my personal opinion of course, but think PV solar WILL kill fossil fuels on economics alone almost everywhere by 2030.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good points. An additional concern is that this does not address legacy fossil energy production and legacy CO2 already in the air. There is no incentive to decarbonize fossil energy other than to kill fossil energy, and this can't and won't happen overnight. By their own admission the tax they envision addresses <50% of emissions over the coming decades. So what is the plan for the other half, esp without any additional incentives to mitigate point and non-point sources and air. E.g., have we just wasted $20B on CCS R&D?Greg
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
Here's a response to that proposal, by Brad Plumer:On Feb 10, 2017 2:33 AM, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:--Perhaps a glimmer of hope over here stateside:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
Greg Rau
Feb 10, 2017, 8:06:47 PM2/10/17
to aryt alasti, Adam Dorr, Geoengineering
I side with Doug McMartin on the parallel geo thead; there is a real risk that non-fossil cannot substitute for fossil energy fast enough globally under the best of economic incentives. China will not abandon their 100s of new coal plants in the next 20 years. Replacement of fossil with PV and wind assumes that we have solved the energy storage problem. If we don't or can't, then what is Plan B? So we need to also invest in decarbonating fossil energy and air if we are serious about stabilizing and then lowering air CO2 and global temps. Maybe the $40/tonne tax will be enough to incentivize the search for $35/tonne CCS and CDR.
G
To: Adam Dorr <adam...@ucla.edu>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:18 PM
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
I agree with that, but we do still need more proactive initiatives, on multiple fronts, sooner!
Aryt
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.co m.
Adam Dorr
Feb 10, 2017, 10:13:20 PM2/10/17
to Greg Rau, aryt alasti, Geoengineering
Well, fossil fuels are already *today* only marginally competitive for electricity production relative to PV solar which is near grid parity in sunny places already. If you then add a large carbon tax to fossil fuels, I don't see how they could possibly remain cost-competitive. So that would mean we're talking about taxing the fossil fuel industry out of existence - which would be great, but is it politically feasible in many places?
As for China's coal plants, I think we can indeed count on them being abandoned as soon as they stop making economic sense. There are entire CITIES in China that have been built, only to be abandoned because the economics stopped making sense
--
Adam DorrUniversity of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
Urban Planning PhD Candidate
adam...@ucla.edu
adam...@gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I side with Doug McMartin on the parallel geo thead; there is a real risk that non-fossil cannot substitute for fossil energy fast enough globally under the best of economic incentives. China will not abandon their 100s of new coal plants in the next 20 years. Replacement of fossil with PV and wind assumes that we have solved the energy storage problem. If we don't or can't, then what is Plan B? So we need to also invest in decarbonating fossil energy and air if we are serious about stabilizing and then lowering air CO2 and global temps. Maybe the $40/tonne tax will be enough to incentivize the search for $35/tonne CCS and CDR.G
aryt alasti
Feb 11, 2017, 11:22:24 AM2/11/17
to Adam Dorr, Greg Rau, Geoengineering
The "We Mean Business" ever-expanding coalition of organizations is successfully reaching a very large and diverse audience with decarbonization advocacy.
Renaud de_Richter
Feb 11, 2017, 5:08:58 PM2/11/17
to geoengineering, aryt....@gmail.com, adam...@ucla.edu, gh...@sbcglobal.net, oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com
Greg, Aryt, Adam, group,
Making the assumption that
fossil fuel power plants will make progress in the cleansing, washing and removing
exhaust pollutants (reducing SOx & NOx emissions; eliminating heavy metals,
soot and particulate matter…), and thus in the future just emit CO2; then there
is no reason
for the coal mining industry or to the oil industry to fear a
carbon tax or to stop building new fossil fuel power plants.
A new paper by Oeste et al., suggests that just by doubling current tropospheric Iron emissions can stop global warming. www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/esd-8-1-2017.pdf
The iron has not to be emitted in the stratosphere.
Best wishes,
Renaud de Richter
Le samedi 11 février 2017 02:06:47 UTC+1, Greg Rau a écrit :
I side with Doug McMartin on the parallel geo thead; there is a real risk that non-fossil cannot substitute for fossil energy fast enough globally under the best of economic incentives. China will not abandon their 100s of new coal plants in the next 20 years. Replacement of fossil with PV and wind assumes that we have solved the energy storage problem. If we don't or can't, then what is Plan B? So we need to also invest in decarbonating fossil energy and air if we are serious about stabilizing and then lowering air CO2 and global temps. Maybe the $40/tonne tax will be enough to incentivize the search for $35/tonne CCS and CDR.G
From: aryt alasti <aryt....@gmail.com>
To: Adam Dorr <adam...@ucla.edu>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
I agree with that, but we do still need more proactive initiatives, on multiple fronts, sooner!Aryt
On Feb 10, 2017 4:44 PM, "Adam Dorr" <adam...@ucla.edu> wrote:
I think the incentives supporting fossil fuels are not as insuperable in the longer-term as is often assumed. If oil and gas weren't currently so cheap from a supply glut - say, < $80/barrel - then PV solar would already be cost competitive for electricity production. And on the current cost decline curves, PV solar plus storage beats all fossil fuels across the board on LCOE without subsidies by 2025 in the majority of global geographies. That's with fossil fuel prices running fairly close to the cost of production (it isn't clear yet what the price floor is to sustain fracking, but it certainly isn't $20/barrel).This is only my personal opinion of course, but think PV solar WILL kill fossil fuels on economics alone almost everywhere by 2030.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good points. An additional concern is that this does not address legacy fossil energy production and legacy CO2 already in the air. There is no incentive to decarbonize fossil energy other than to kill fossil energy, and this can't and won't happen overnight. By their own admission the tax they envision addresses <50% of emissions over the coming decades. So what is the plan for the other half, esp without any additional incentives to mitigate point and non-point sources and air. E.g., have we just wasted $20B on CCS R&D?Greg
Cc: Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.c om>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] NYT: A Conservative Case for Climate Action
Here's a response to that proposal, by Brad Plumer:
On Feb 10, 2017 2:33 AM, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--Perhaps a glimmer of hope over here stateside:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@goo glegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages