Jump to content

Grid monitor warns of U.S. blackouts in ‘sobering report’


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

The problem is CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels. The solution is to phase out the use of fossil fuels ("decarbonization") as much as possible, as soon as possible.

The trees won’t like that.  Plants need CO2 to live and through photo synthesis produce O2 and capture carbon.  To balance out the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can limit the amount produced through phasing out fossil fuels and/or increase the consumption through reforestation.  It doesn’t have to come from all one side.  I find the lack of expanding green zones and overall energy conservation concerning.  Tree lined boulevards look nice and keeps temps down in summer.  It is several degrees cooler just getting out of downtown Raleigh to the tree lined streets farther out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, slemke said:

The trees won’t like that.  Plants need CO2 to live and through photo synthesis produce O2 and capture carbon.  To balance out the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can limit the amount produced through phasing out fossil fuels and/or increase the consumption through reforestation.  It doesn’t have to come from all one side.  I find the lack of expanding green zones and overall energy conservation concerning.  Tree lined boulevards look nice and keeps temps down in summer.  It is several degrees cooler just getting out of downtown Raleigh to the tree lined streets farther out.

 

Uh I don't think we'll have  CO2 shortage issue if we quit using fossil fuels. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Uh I don't think we'll have  CO2 shortage issue if we quit using fossil fuels. 

Yeah we have it back to front but surprisingly, plants and trees are increasing processing of CO2 in response to rising concentrations- in no way giving us a free pass on man made CO2 but just an interesting scientific observation of how the planet seeks to correct an imbalance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2022 at 4:14 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

Uh I don't think we'll have  CO2 shortage issue if we quit using fossil fuels. 

 

Yeah, it's like saying you are worried about running of air because we are entering a building. We definitely not going to run out of CO2 if we removed excess emission from the atmosphere. 

 

Reforestation is good for the ecosystem when done correctly but it is not a major solution for climate change. It takes 200 to 300 years for temperate forest to reach a point where they are can remove meaningful amount of the CO2. We don't have time for that. Plus most of the suitable habitat for forest are shifting due to climate change so you literally have to be planting where there has never been a forest to get ahead of the climate change. That could do more harm than good - e.g. you may have to dig up permafrost to start planting forest which will release massive amount of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2022 at 11:21 PM, bzcat said:

 

Yeah, it's like saying you are worried about running of air because we are entering a building. We definitely not going to run out of CO2 if we removed excess emission from the atmosphere. 

 

Reforestation is good for the ecosystem when done correctly but it is not a major solution for climate change. It takes 200 to 300 years for temperate forest to reach a point where they are can remove meaningful amount of the CO2. We don't have time for that. Plus most of the suitable habitat for forest are shifting due to climate change so you literally have to be planting where there has never been a forest to get ahead of the climate change. That could do more harm than good - e.g. you may have to dig up permafrost to start planting forest which will release massive amount of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.  

What’s your background on this? You’ve told us you work in the energy sector, but not what your role or title are.  You throw out lots of info to discredit others, but not what your credentials are or sources of your info.

 

I’ve never said we were in danger of running out of CO2 or there would be a shortage.  This was a while back, but Duke University had done a research experiment on CO2 levels and found that increased levels resulted in more growth.  It was more tongue in cheek that I said trees wouldn’t like it if we didn’t keep increasing their CO2 so they could grow faster.

 

Still, though, why the apparent animosity towards reforestation, creating green spaces, using trees to reduce cooling?  Your response makes it seem like it is a complete lost cause and not something we should be doing in addition to reducing dependence on fossil fuels.  If it is such a dire situation, why not do more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, slemke said:

Still, though, why the apparent animosity towards reforestation

 

Where is there apparent animosity toward reforestation? There are hundreds of initiatives going on nowadays all around the globe to repopulate the world's trees. Together let's plant a Trillion Trees! (trilliontreecampaign.org)

 

In the context of Ford Motor Company, as mentioned earlier in this thread, last year it gave the National Forest Foundation its largest single year corporate donation ever for reforestation programs. Ford's initiative, called Bronco Wild Fund, will result in the planting of 1 million trees. Bronco Wild Fund Collaborator | National Forest Foundation (ford.com)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Where is there apparent animosity toward reforestation? There are hundreds of initiatives going on nowadays all around the globe to repopulate the world's trees. Together let's plant a Trillion Trees! (trilliontreecampaign.org)

 

In the context of Ford Motor Company, as mentioned earlier in this thread, last year it gave the National Forest Foundation its largest single year corporate donation ever for reforestation programs. Ford's initiative, called Bronco Wild Fund, will result in the planting of 1 million trees. Bronco Wild Fund Collaborator | National Forest Foundation (ford.com)


But they don’t have the funding or public awareness of the climate catastrophists because that doesn’t fit their agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was the catch phrase, "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"? Was it done so you really couldn't disagree that the climate changes? Hasn't the earth's climate changed many times over millions of years, even when there weren't factories and SUV's? In the 70's a cover of Time magazine said we were heading into another ice age. In 2000 scientists declared that the sea levels were going rise drastically and that numerous coastal cities were going to disappear by 2012. I don't recall which cities have disappeared? Have to wonder why some of loudest voices who scream about the melting of the polar ice caps and the dangers to coastal communities by the rising tides have purchased multi million dollar homes on the coasts, not in the mountains to be safe from the coming floods, but in places they say are going to flood in 7years. Also, I believe NASA's own documentation shows that the average temperature has risen by only 1.5 degrees F. How much did the temperature rise on earth to dry the water that covered the Grand Canyon? I don't believe we had factories or SUV's back then either. Could it be that the earth changes position and that causes the fluctuations in temperature and nothing we do can stop it? Clean air and water is a wonderful goal, but the U.S. can become carbon neutral and it wouldn't have any impact on the earth if India, China and Russia, among others don't become carbon neutral as well. We need to be smart in how we approach reducing carbon emissions, I do not want to end up like Sri Lanka. Anyway, more trees are good, just clean up the forests so when fires start they don't have so much fuel to burn.   

Edited by rlp450
Spelling
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, akirby said:

But they don’t have the funding or public awareness of the climate catastrophists because that doesn’t fit their agenda.

 

Governments, businesses, NGO, and individuals around the globe have provided funding for and promoted awareness of reforestation initiatives for decades. In fact, reforestation was specifically mentioned in the 2020 Davos World Economic Forum meeting, which led to the Trillion Tree Campaign going on nowadays.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are really serious about a transition to 100% BEV vehicles in the next 10-20 years something needs to change. The generation sources and grids are not up to the task right now and the situation appears to be getting worse not better.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-power-grid-blackouts_n_62df17bce4b0aad58d1e19a6

Edited by 2005Explorer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 10:58 PM, rlp450 said:

Why was the catch phrase, "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"? Was it done so you really couldn't disagree that the climate changes? Hasn't the earth's climate changed many times over millions of years, even when there weren't factories and SUV's? In the 70's a cover of Time magazine said we were heading into another ice age. In 2000 scientists declared that the sea levels were going rise drastically and that numerous coastal cities were going to disappear by 2012. I don't recall which cities have disappeared? Have to wonder why some of loudest voices who scream about the melting of the polar ice caps and the dangers to coastal communities by the rising tides have purchased multi million dollar homes on the coasts, not in the mountains to be safe from the coming floods, but in places they say are going to flood in 7years. Also, I believe NASA's own documentation shows that the average temperature has risen by only 1.5 degrees F. How much did the temperature rise on earth to dry the water that covered the Grand Canyon? I don't believe we had factories or SUV's back then either. Could it be that the earth changes position and that causes the fluctuations in temperature and nothing we do can stop it? Clean air and water is a wonderful goal, but the U.S. can become carbon neutral and it wouldn't have any impact on the earth if India, China and Russia, among others don't become carbon neutral as well. We need to be smart in how we approach reducing carbon emissions, I do not want to end up like Sri Lanka. Anyway, more trees are good, just clean up the forests so when fires start they don't have so much fuel to burn.   

Clearly, global warming was changed to Climate change to underscore the impact of that change. The whole point of having global agreements is to get global polluters to the table and discuss a road map. Let’s no forget that China, Russia and India all benefitted form the West shifting a lot of their manufacturing and CO2 output to their countries and away from Europe and North America, so a large transfer of responsibility.

 

No one has all the answers but at least folks are trying, consumers will ultimately make better choices if they can see a payoff for them and currently, that’s a real mixed bag. In my opinion, BEVs were chosen to co-opt the public into more green energy but the tougher problem is changing base load power supply to renewable energy - that is happening now with some US a states reaching upwards of 60%.

 

Recently, I was saddened to see the UK and Europe experiencing what looked like a patch of Australian summer and thousands died because of the weather, houses not built for that type of climate. Thank goodness it was only a short period but all those folks now ask, what if that happens again, will we be ready? So yeah, some changes happening but I’m sure the deniers will say it’s just a temporary spike and will go away all by itself…..sorry sounding like you know who..


Economics over green agenda?

People pointing to China’s mass switch to Electric vehicles in part to reduce smog in their cities but more economically, elimination of imported gasoline and diesel, the latter being very bad for health in dense population areas. Most of the added BEV load is being covered by increased solar, wind and renewable energy. At some point I imagine that China will switch from coal to nuclear power and declare themselves clean and green, just like the French did. So maybe that’s an option to liberate the west from the last vestiges of coal and gas fired electric generation. 
 

No one has all the answers but I’m sure that we’ll all be made pay for a century or more of indulging in easy coal fired power, no one gets away free.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...