Support NeoGAF

[TheLostBigBoss]

I haven't done a ton of research on it, so I recognize I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, but I just get this feeling that the conversation has changed from "we have to stop climate change" to "we have to stop climate change from being really really shitty." Which is depressing.

Yes, that's the reality. We've already warmed the planet by around 1 degree Celsius, you're already living in a world that's been changed by the human footprint.

This goal is important for a few reasons.

Paris is coming up. Talks are already positive between negotiators, and when a major economy comes in with something ambitious like this it gets heads turned and talks moving. I think lots of things are moving in motion that people don't realize yet. China's economy is at the end of 10% GDP growth, it's coal growth is going to be capped by 2020, and arguably it may have already capped out as in the first half of the year coal use has dropped around 8%, bringing around a 5% emissions drop, which is following last years coal drop and slight emissions drop.

As the years go on and clean energy gets cheaper and cheaper, those emission targets are going to get larger and larger as countries feel more effects of climate change. What is 30% now could easily turn to 40% by 2030, and other nations are most likely going to face the fact that it's not going to be worth it to build fossil fuel plants to just shut them down decades before their life span is up.

The US has installed double the capacity of renewable energy than natural gas (which is basically the only fossil fuel still being used in energy growth in America) in 2015. The world already installed more clean energy than fossil fuel last year, so the next logical step is to replace the old shit with continuingly cheap energy (Offshore wind is going to be on par with natural gas in five years, and in some cases it's already on par with it). Also don't forget the sun is free energy, and solar is only going to be dropping in price, with some estimates being a 40% cost drop in two years)

 

[Mimosa97]

^^ I'm French and I don't have much hope in the Paris summit. That stupid president of ours is a wimp. He thinks it will be the biggest (and probably only) achievement of his presidency (knowing that he'll never be reelected).

 

[SilentRacoon]

Obama should change his name and grow a beard. I think he could fool everybody enough to run for a third term.

I mean he already fooled us into thinking he was an American citizen so I don't think republicans would mind if he actually did this.

 

[Elfforkusu]

The three mile island incident unfortunately still casts a long shadow over the usage of Nuclear energy.

And it will continue to do so for as long as we let it.

More than a little bit silly, since the Three Mile Island incident was a molehill of a "disaster".

 

[speculawyer]

Paris is coming up. Talks are already positive between negotiators, and when a major economy comes in with something ambitious like this it gets heads turned and talks moving. I think lots of things are moving in motion that people don't realize yet. China's economy is at the end of 10% GDP growth, it's coal growth is going to be capped by 2020, and arguably it may have already capped out as in the first half of the year coal use has dropped around 8%, bringing around a 5% emissions drop, which is following last years coal drop and slight emissions drop.

Pretty much every climate talks event has been a disaster. However, there is some hope for the Paris talks. The fact that a lot of work has already been done by various parties helps a lot. China & USA having struck an agreement before the talks is like 60% of the world's emissions right there. And the technology has really turned the corner. Solar PV is pretty cheap now. And onshore wind is even cheaper.

This might be the first time they accomplish something useful.

 

[Makki]

Sooooo my power bill will triple now?

 

[shadyspace]

Didn't some study come out that we're already past the point of return and we're fucked no matter what we do?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Sooooo my power bill will triple now?

no, it's going to get cheaper.

Didn't some study come out that we're already past the point of return and we're fucked no matter what we do?

That sea level change study? It wasn't peer reviewed and used a whole new model that is basically a worst case scenario for many different events and lots of extrapolations.

It's an important study, but not the end all be all.

 

[ryseing]

Why couldn't we have this Obama from 2009-2010? =(

Remember, 2015 Obama is the one who dropped the n-word on a podcast.

He's in no fucks given mode at this point.

 

[speculawyer]

Sooooo my power bill will triple now?

Sure. And Obamacare has death panels, gay marriage will bring the apocalypse, and Obama was born in Kenya.


*rollseyes*

 

[Deleted member 80556]

You guys are making me feel hopeful for the future with you saying that something might come out of Paris later this year.

If they withstand the expected legal challenges

God, please, let this happen. I really want this to happen. I hope that the legal challenges are thrown away. This is not a change that will happen overnight, it has to be worked every day, a slow transition for the states and cities that depend on coal.

Remember, 2015 Obama is the one who dropped the n-word on a podcast.

He's in no fucks given mode at this point.

Holy crap, no way. Hahahaha. I need to listen to this.

 

[Instro]

Hope there is some nuclear measures bundled in there :.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sooooo my power bill will triple now?

Nah but coal industry folks will lose their jobs. But then again the courts will probably shitcan this regardless.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

You guys are making me feel hopeful for the future with you saying that something might come out of Paris later this year.



God, please, let this happen. I really want this to happen. I hope that the legal challenges are thrown away. This is not a change that will happen overnight, it has to be worked every day, a slow transition for the states and cities that depend on coal.



Holy crap, no way. Hahahaha. I need to listen to this.

It's going to be very hard to go against Obama's plan.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carbon Dioxide being a pollutant that can cause damage to human health, the EPA has major precedent and law on their side.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Obama is on a roll. Fuck, I wish I could vote for him a third time...

 

[Arkeband]

I can understand the opposition to wind and solar, since it takes an ungodly amount of square mileage of thousands upon thousands of turbines and panels to equal one nuclear plant's output. We literally don't have room for that.

But we'll never improve the tech to a point where it's feasible if we don't start somewhere. And our current energy industry is killing us.

Obama gets a lot of money from this sector, so it's less of his legacy and more of a debt owed. But I'm optimistic.

 

[speculawyer]

Didn't some study come out that we're already past the point of return and we're fucked no matter what we do?

No one really knows. All forecasts have a lot of uncertainty in them. The climate system has so many variables, stochastic behavior & feedback loops.


There are some academics that think it is completely hopeless and that mankind will be extinct in 30 years (Guy McPherson). But that is an extreme fringe view.

However, a fair number of them are in a state of suppressed panic. Lots of feedback mechanism that could cause climate change to accelerate.
-Permafrost methane being released
-Reduced albedo due to less ice
-More wildfires means more CO2 & soot released that absorb heat
-Underwater methane clathrates that are melting and bubbling to the surface
-Droughts causing many trees & plants to die which then decompose & release methane & CO2.
etc.

Gonna be a wild ride the next 50 years. 2015 & 2016 might be interesting years themselves due to the big El Nino forming in the Pacific. :-/

 

[speculawyer]

I can understand the opposition to wind and solar, since it takes an ungodly amount of square mileage of thousands upon thousands of turbines and panels to equal one nuclear plant's output. We literally don't have room for that.

That's just not true. I have solar panels on less than 1/5th of my rooftop and I generate more electricity than I need for both my house and my electric car. OK, I do live in California so I have that advantage. But most places have their own local advantages (hydro in the Pacific Northwest, wind in the central plains, etc.)

Wind turbines have a very small footprint . . . and they don't make the land useless . . . the land is still good farmland or ranchland.


It won't be easy but this is all very do-able if we just decide to do it.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

No one really knows. All forecasts have a lot of uncertainty in them. The climate system has so many variables, stochastic behavior & feedback loops.


There are some academics that think it is completely hopeless and that mankind will be extinct in 30 years (Guy McPherson). But that is an extreme fringe view.

However, a fair number of them are in a state of suppressed panic. Lots of feedback mechanism that could cause climate change to accelerate.
-Permafrost methane being released
-Reduced albedo due to less ice
-More wildfires means more CO2 & soot released that absorb heat
-Underwater methane clathrates that are melting and bubbling to the surface
-Droughts causing many trees & plants to die which then decompose & release methane & CO2.
etc.

Gonna be a wild ride the next 50 years. 2015 & 2016 might be interesting years themselves due to the big El Nino forming in the Pacific. :-/

There was a study in Nature on permafrost

We reviewed the published findings from the most up-to-date earth system models. Our study suggests that around 90 billion tons of carbon could be released by 2100 under a high emissions scenario. This would equate to 5-15% of the total permafrost carbon store.

At these rates, the release of the permafrost carbon pool are unlikely to occur at a speed that could cause abrupt climate change over a period of a few years to a decade. Instead, our review suggests emissions will be a gradual and prolonged process over many decades and centuries. But though this may temper the worst fears of a greenhouse gas " time bomb", the release will still make the climate warm more quickly than we would expect from human activity alone.

Because of momentum in the climate system and continued warming and thawing of permafrost, emissions are expected to affect the climate for many centuries to come. We estimate that 59% of total emissions from permafrost will occur after this century.

These emissions translate into an additional climate warming of 0.13-0.27C by 2100, and up to 0.42C by 2300.

Exactly how much of the thawed carbon will be released to the atmosphere will also depend on how fast the climate warms, which is primarily driven by the ongoing release of greenhouse gases from human activities.

And based on past warming, massive hydrate emissions aren't something that seems to happen.

I think the main feedback issues are going to be the reduction in major forest areas taking up CO2, reducing the worlds carbon budget, meaning more drastic cuts must be made as the years go on.

 

[KevinRo]

I'm so ashamed the States can't have a nuclear power percentage like the French.

 

[Jonm1010]

That's just not true. I have solar panels on less than 1/5th of my rooftop and I generate more electricity than I need for both my house and my electric car. OK, I do live in California so I have that advantage. But most places have their own local advantages (hydro in the Pacific Northwest, wind in the central plains, etc.)

Wind turbines have a very small footprint . . . and they don't make the land useless . . . the land is still good farmland or ranchland.


It won't be easy but this is all very do-able if we just decide to do it.

And like with anything, the more we commit to it, the more minds and more economic drive we will have working toward optimizations, new breakthroughs and general cost scaling that will drive prices down.

 

[speculawyer]

And like with anything, the more we commit to it, the more minds and more economic drive we will have working toward optimizations, new breakthroughs and general cost scaling that will drive prices down.

Oh, it has been happening. A big thanks to Germany, Spain, California, and other areas that had programs encouraging people to install solar PV. By having a mass market, prices did indeed fall down.

Solar panel prices are now very cheap such that it is the rest of the costs that need to be pushed down (permitting, installation, inverters, racks, etc.)

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/surveys/free-solar-panel-price-survey/

 

[Dartastic]

Something needs to be done as soon as possible. If we don't do something we're all fucked.

 

[KingK]

Obama's been so fucking good this year. I cannot believe how much he's accomplished with congress doing literally nothing but trying to stop him.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

History will likely be kind to him considering the social demographics he's helped will be much larger 20-40 years from now and his critics now will be part of the minority (or at least shrinking). His changes to healthcare though will probably not be remembered as fondly.

huh?!

 

[Monocle]

Obama's been so fucking good this year. I cannot believe how much he's accomplished with congress doing literally nothing but trying to stop him.

Muslin extremist Hussein Obummer is finally revealing his true colors. Expect a naked power grab where he "humbly accepts" the "honorary title" of Princeps Civitatis within the next few months. By Christmas he'll grow a scraggly goatee with a stylish streak of gray down the center and then don a turban.

 

[Wall]

No one really knows. All forecasts have a lot of uncertainty in them. The climate system has so many variables, stochastic behavior & feedback loops.


There are some academics that think it is completely hopeless and that mankind will be extinct in 30 years (Guy McPherson). But that is an extreme fringe view.

However, a fair number of them are in a state of suppressed panic. Lots of feedback mechanism that could cause climate change to accelerate.
-Permafrost methane being released
-Reduced albedo due to less ice
-More wildfires means more CO2 & soot released that absorb heat
-Underwater methane clathrates that are melting and bubbling to the surface
-Droughts causing many trees & plants to die which then decompose & release methane & CO2.
etc.

Gonna be a wild ride the next 50 years. 2015 & 2016 might be interesting years themselves due to the big El Nino forming in the Pacific. :-/

I am not a climate scientist, but I have read the literature and that would be me; but then again, I am a pessimist by nature and panic easily. That is probably why my politics lean on the impatient side (hi Hillary and your recent evasive answer on the Keystone pipeline).

 

[unholyrevenger72]

The three mile island incident unfortunately still casts a long shadow over the usage of Nuclear energy.

It's not even that, we don't want to use Nuclear Recycling methods for fear of domestic terrorists getting their hands on the tech and recycle some nuclear waste into a bomb.

 

[maquiladora]

China tho

 

[Winter John]

Quite a lot like Johnson or maybe Reagan. President Obama will never be considered one of the "greats" like FDR or Lincoln, but will be a favorite among his party for decades. He'll be quoted by future candidates and studied pretty intently by future historians. Most importantly, every political reform of the 2010s (gay marriage, Cuba overhaul, drones, and healthcare) will be seen as Obama's own doing.

Good lord. He'll be lucky if he gets ranked next to Jimmy Carter. The man's had 8 years and has achieved very little.

 

[Sabre]

Any plan for base load (aka: "we're shutting down coal plants!") that doesn't involve nuclear is doomed to fail.

So... uh... hopefully this plan does something to help with that?

Contrary to popular belief, renewable energy can function as baseload power. All you need is a smart storage system. Pumped water storages and lithium-ion batteries are already functioning for this purpose today, but the most interesting prospects for a longer time (e.g. seasonal) mass storage lie with creating synthetic methane with renewable electricity. The technologies exist already but are not yet profitable on a wide scale. But eventually they will be. It’s very possible to have 100% renewable energy systems in the future.

With that in mind, the best friend for renewables during the transition phase (until we have 100% renewable) is natural gas, not nuclear. Why? First, it is flexible. Gas turbines can be started up considerable faster than coal or nuclear, meaning that they can be used for peak-power. And secondly, because it uses the same infrastructure that can eventually be used for synthetic gas. Granted, natural gas still has considerable CO2 emissions, that’s why it should be used primarily as a transitional technology, not the long term solution.

The big issues with nuclear (in addition to potential risks) are inflexibility and economic viability. Nuclear technologies are not fit to complement renewables with peak-hour use, they are designed to be on operating constantly. Secondly, while costs of renewables are going down rapidly, costs of building new nuclear plants have increased over the long term. This is due for example to constant need for additional safety measures. Case in point, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor under construction in Finland is almost a decade late and the costs are around three times higher than originally planned. Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants are also often considerably higher than originally planned.

 

[Manmademan]

Why couldn't we have this Obama from 2009-2010? =(

Potential fallout for congressional elections.

 

[Link]

Good lord. He'll be lucky if he gets ranked next to Jimmy Carter. The man's had 8 years and has achieved very little.

Considering the unprecedented levels of obstruction he's had to deal with, he's actually accomplished a lot. An impressive amount, even.

 

[KHarvey16]

Good lord. He'll be lucky if he gets ranked next to Jimmy Carter. The man's had 8 years and has achieved very little.

Lol, what? This is one of those weird folk wisdom things that never wants to die.

 

[Chris R]

I wonder how Arctic Drilling fits in this "tough" climate plan.

 

[BertramCooper]

Why couldn't we have this Obama from 2009-2010? =(

Well, he did try to pass cap-and-trade in his first term, so it's not like he's been inactive on the issue.

 

[KHarvey16]

I wonder how Arctic Drilling fits in this "tough" climate plan.

He asked earlier this year to have almost 13 million acres classified in such a way to permanently prohibit drilling.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I wonder how Arctic Drilling fits in this "tough" climate plan.

at current prices arctic drilling isn't even viable.

 

[harSon]

Good lord. He'll be lucky if he gets ranked next to Jimmy Carter. The man's had 8 years and has achieved very little.

He's definitely no Saint Raegan

 

[CharlieDigital]

huh?!

Read that as "history will be kind to him because the people that will write history in a few decades will be the people he gave social/financial handouts to".

LMAO.

 

[BertramCooper]

Good lord. He'll be lucky if he gets ranked next to Jimmy Carter. The man's had 8 years and has achieved very little.

Comprehensive health care reform is "very little?"

 

[jerry113]

Getting governments from all over the world to cooperate to deal with short term crises is tough enough as it already is.

Trying to get a unified response from the world governments to deal with a problem that operates on huge time scales and multiple human generations - longer than any individual human lifespan and more importantly, longer than any politician's term for re-election - is probably the most challenging thing the human race will have to deal with.

The incentives are not there for the politicians to tackle the problem, the money isn't there, and the population as a whole is misinformed and understandably, finding it difficult to grasp an issue that gradually increases over hundreds of years.

 

[KingK]

Well, he did try to pass cap-and-trade in his first term, so it's not like he's been inactive on the issue.

Yeah, i feel people are vastly over-emphasizing the fact that he's term limited as a reason for his recent popular achievements. Stuff like Cuba and Iran was undoubtedly started in his first term. He appointed two SC justices who voted for gay marriage (as well as refusing to defend DOMA, repealing DADT, and eventually coming out for gay marriage support) all in his first term. He passed healthcare reform (something nearly every progressive since Teddy Roosevelt had tried and failed) in his first term, despite all of his advisors telling him it was likely political suicide. He tried to get cap and trade in his first term, and there were some good green energy initiatives in the stimulus. And oh yeah, speaking of the stimulus, he came into office with the country on the brink of another great depression.

I don't like that this meme, of Obama being a coward in his first term and only becoming good now that he's term limited, seems to be gaining steam around here.

The reason he wasn't going balls to the wall with executive action early on is because obviously legislation passed by congress on immigration and climate change would be able to be more comprehensive and durable to legal challenges/changing presidents. Now that republicans will be controlling both chambers for the rest of his presidency there's no reason to attempt to wait for congress to act since it's guaranteed nothing will happen there at least until the next president. Not to say that him not running again plays absolutely no role, just that people are exaggerating the effect and not really giving him credit for what he did prior to this year.

 

[Melon Husk]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would defend the plan if she was elected to replace Mr Obama.

"It will need defending. Because Republican doubters and defeatists - including every Republican candidate for president - won't offer any credible solution," she said.

"The truth is, they don't want one."

Excellent

Edit:

@BarackObama

Tune in at 2:15 p.m. ET to watch President Obama discuss the importance of the Clean Power Plan: http://ofa.bo/b53C #ActOnClimate
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/628250229024821248

 

[cdyhybrid]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067


Excellent

Edit:

@BarackObama

Tune in at 2:15 p.m. ET to watch President Obama discuss the importance of the Clean Power Plan: http://ofa.bo/b53C #ActOnClimate
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/628250229024821248

Good. Hope this stands up.

 

[Dedication Through Light]

Link. Searched and didn't see a thread.

That new rule also demands that power plants use more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. While the proposed rule would have allowed states to lower emissions by transitioning from plants fired by coal to plants fired by natural gas, which produces about half the carbon pollution of coal, the final rule is intended to push electric utilities to invest more quickly in renewable sources, raising to 28 percent from 22 percent the share of generating capacity that would come from such sources.

Awful plan proposed, were the leading nation on natural gas production, why give up American energy independence on enforcing this measure when it is more logical to move to nat. gas while further exploring nuclear power and more.

"We now have over a 100-year supply of clean-burning natural gas that we didn’t know about just a few years ago. The natural gas industry supports nearly 3 million jobs and adds more than $385 billion to the national economy"

Wind farms and solar power would take up so much space on the natural landscape that it makes no sense to throw all our eggs in that basket. Our current legislation is fine as is or needs scaling back.

 

[KHarvey16]

Awful plan proposed, were the leading nation on natural gas production, why give up American energy independence on enforcing this measure when it is more logical to move to nat. gas while further exploring nuclear power and more.

"We now have over a 100-year supply of clean-burning natural gas that we didn’t know about just a few years ago. The natural gas industry supports nearly 3 million jobs and adds more than $385 billion to the national economy"

Wind farms and solar power would take up so much space on the natural landscape that it makes no sense to throw all our eggs in that basket. Our current legislation is fine as is or needs scaling back.

28%, not 100%.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Awful plan proposed, were the leading nation on natural gas production, why give up American energy independence on enforcing this measure when it is more logical to move to nat. gas while further exploring nuclear power and more.

"We now have over a 100-year supply of clean-burning natural gas that we didn’t know about just a few years ago. The natural gas industry supports nearly 3 million jobs and adds more than $385 billion to the national economy"

Wind farms and solar power would take up so much space on the natural landscape that it makes no sense to throw all our eggs in that basket.

No it wouldn't/won't.

Natural Gas isn't going to be the bridge go clean energy, natural gas still produces CO2.

Energy independence is easily achieved with zero carbon energy and will produce a far more stable energy economy than hoping the price of oil isn't going to dive below break even points for your plant/area.

Just go look on GAF and see how well people in the industry are doing when supply is so high and demand isn't high enough. We are already installing more wind and solar, basically double in new capacity when compared to natural gas.

 

[blackw0lf]

Why couldn't we have this Obama from 2009-2010? =(

He did take strong action to address climate change before, just hardly anyone noticed.

1. 90 billion of investment in clean energy from the stimulus plan
2. Doubling fuel efficiency standards by 2025, which could have almost as much impact as the clean power plan announced today.
3. Cracking down on mercury and other air pollutants

This article sums up why today's announcement is just one piece of Obama's larger climate agenda.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/2/9086559/obama-climate-plan-preview

 

[Elfforkusu]

Contrary to popular belief, renewable energy can function as baseload power. All you need is a smart storage system. Pumped water storages and lithium-ion batteries are already functioning for this purpose today, but the most interesting prospects for a longer time (e.g. seasonal) mass storage lie with creating synthetic methane with renewable electricity. The technologies exist already but are not yet profitable on a wide scale. But eventually they will be. It’s very possible to have 100% renewable energy systems in the future.

Why so confident?

I suspect we'll have widespread nuclear fusion before we have any sort of "smart storage". The scale and energy constraints of storing power at the utility scale are too large to be practical. The energy density of the plausible solutions are too low. It's not gonna happen any time soon. Even when somebody prototypes a system, reliability will be decades away.

The big issues with nuclear (in addition to potential risks) are inflexibility and economic viability. Nuclear technologies are not fit to complement renewables with peak-hour use, they are designed to be on operating constantly. Secondly, while costs of renewables are going down rapidly, costs of building new nuclear plants have increased over the long term. This is due for example to constant need for additional safety measures. Case in point, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor under construction in Finland is almost a decade late and the costs are around three times higher than originally planned. Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants are also often considerably higher than originally planned.

That is literally what base load is. That you could run a coal/gas plant hotter if you wanted to is somewhat irrelevant, power output under normal conditions is "close enough" to constant.

Yes, nuclear plants are expensive and time consuming to build. They also have very little fuel cost (apart from the obvious one: disposal), and last much longer than coal or gas plants.

But more importantly, they're CO2 free in a time period where that is absolutely essential.