Climate Change

[♦ nivek ♦]

As far as reuse-recycle to help from inserting more pollutants of all kinds (carbon is a minor player in dangerous aerial pollutants) this cat in Mexico is using already made and in turn discarded plastics of ALL kinds to make structural panels for building structure. I love this idea. Indeed  process does require more energy to produce panels, however inclined to think much less than from virgin materials built at and in a First World factory.

It isn't THE answer for all the worlds problems. It IS a start and good for the people who will now have some opportunity where little to none was prior.

 This company turns plastic waste into affordable housing in Mexico

Quote

EcoDomum

EcoDomum is turning an environmental problem into a housing solution.

When Mr McGuire dropped his epic 'one word' on Benjamin in The Graduate, little did we know that the 'great future' in plastics would also include an epic environmental boondoggle. Once lauded as a dream material, plastics is now one of our technological advances that is contributing to massive global pollution. That great future from plastics has come, boosted the mass production of both the useful and the wasteful, and is leaving a toxic legacy all over the world. The ease with which plastics can be molded into a bazillion different complex yet lightweight shapes, and then pumped out by the thousands millions has enabled an entirely new sort of industrial revolution, which perhaps could best be described as the disposable revolution.

...snipped

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

 

Posting this here for your viewing pleasure. This is from daffodil's post in ToT. Maybe throw a different perspective on the discussion.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks DB. Will respond tonight- unlike in ToT I moderate my responses to be more thought out here... and that takes time... will save me PMing you and Daffodil  

 

PS - everyone keep it apolitical and objective. florduh will hit you with his stick if you don't  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 2/14/2017 at 11:53 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Well since we are having multiple conversations about the topic I thought I'd go ahead and post the topic I wanted to start here:

 

Please note, the reason I posted here instead of in ToT is to keep it fairly serious and have a good discussion as opposed to just throwing articles and jabbing each other. So looking for fairly serious considerations of members views on the subject.

 

I'll kick off with a series of questions I think might help everyone to understand where everyone else stands on the issue. My answers in Italics.

 

This should hopefully give a good comparison of positions/beliefs/thoughts with the understanding that any party can change their mind based on new info that comes to hand.

 

1) Do you believe that the climate is warming? Why/why not?

 

LF answer: Yes, it's been warming since the last Ice age due to environmental factors that include everything's from the suns cycles to gravitational effects on our planet from other planets.

 

2) Do you believe humans CAUSE climate change?

 

LF answer: No, the climate has changed since 4.7 billion years ago, sometimes disastrously.

 

3) Are humans having any INFLUENCE on the climate?

 

LF Answer: Yes, more likely than not. Data indicates that CO2 does create an insulation effect that traps heat from the sun from going back to space. (To steal from you BO I'm a 7 on this one)

 

4) Can we accurately predict the effects of any climate change?

 

LF answer: This is the corker. I would say yes but only to a confidence level of 5. There are so many variables that as Josh said reality could slap us in the face despite our best attempts to figure out what is going to happen. Time here will be the great equaliser. (I say this to my father when he talks about going in the rapture - one of us is right I say, and only time will tell)

 

5) Is global warming (assuming it to be true for this question) an existential threat?

 

LF answer: Not in and of itself. Assuming humans didn't nuke themselves in a land/resource war humans would survive and learn to adapt to the more hospitable environs. A massive ice age on the other hand could be devastating.

1) yes I believe the climate is warming.  Even in my own life time I remember as a child yearly snowfall was an annual event. Now we have only had about 3 or 4 good snowfalls since the blizzard of 93. My Barber is in his 60s or 70s and he talked to me about how it is so much different now than it was in his youth. There is definitely something going on.

2) No I don't believe human's have caused the climate change

3) yes I believe humans are making an impact and possibly even making it worse. Maybe even unending.

3) I don't know if we can accurately predict the future impact. But I do believe as information is gathered we may be able to.

5) yes I believe it is a threat. If the earth does in fact go through natural warming and cooling cycles our current impact on those cycles could become catastrophic at some point in the future.

 

I would also like to share something I never here anyone point out referring to our impact on climate. And it is also something that not even politicians would touch on if they did present it as a variable. That is the fact that human growth has completely changed the earth's surface for the foreseeable future. We have ripped down forests, built cities, and paved a good portion of the earth's surface. We have removed the earth's natural shade if you will. The trees soak up and use the suns rays, while shading the earth beneath them. Likewise with all other plant life. 

     I'm sure everyone here has seen heat waves rolling on roadways during the summer and roadways also get so hot in this are at times you can cook eggs off the surface of them. They probably just wouldn't taste very good. I imagine that is even worse closer to the equator. But if this is a large variable on the issue like I think it is, I don't think it would be mentioned because no one wants us to stop building roads or expanding our cities. It is much easier to put the bulk of the blame on co2 gasses which we can control. 

     But in the end we aren't stopping the problem. The climate steadily rises every year according to graphs already posted. So the end result is the same. We are still losing the war, just slower. 

[Daffodil]

Thanks DB!  I normally stay out of this forum for lack of knowledge, but I'm going to stay for this, if only to broaden my understanding ?.

[LogicalFallacy]

15 hours ago, Daffodil said:

TLDR:  Reasons to question the current model of climate change being all humanity's fault.  

 

I'm not sure on every scientists position here, but I don't understand the current consensus to be that climate change being ALL humanity's fault. Certainly certain media and politicians portray it that way, but as far as science goes, I don't think they actually think that. What they try and do, and its very hard because of the immense complexity of earths eco systems, is model what extra impact human induced CO2 is having.

 

11 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

What do you think about the study the video brought out? I have my own thoughts about climate change but will save them for now. I would like to here some thoughts on the content of the video.

 

DB

 

The video was very good, and mentioned both a number of interesting questions, and made some salient points which should be noted.

 

1) Randall has questions over validity of 97% consensus. I need to look into this further. (Is there a new survey that has more updated results?)

 

2) Related to #1, Randall had issues with the way questions were phrased. One was "Do you agree that humans have had an impact on the climate". Randall pointed out that he doesn't know anyone that 1) Denies that the climate changes 2) That humans have had an impact on the climate. So there are no climate change deniers among the scientific community, but they argue that global warming is not human induced. Thus they are skeptical of anthropocentric global warming. I incidentally agree with the claim that it's not human induced (As per my opening post the planet has been warming since around 10,000 years ago), but I think that humans accentuate the warming and should take steps to reduce the amount by which we accentuate natural increases in temperature.

 

3) There are problems establishing a baseline temperature to work off because of the effects of coming out of a little ice age.

 

4) An interesting note, in the dark ages, forest growth halted during little ice age.

 

5) Humans do better in warmer climates that colder climates. Studies show that during the little ice age the European population did not fare well, except in a warming period in the middle of the little ice age. Research has also found there was a cathedral building phase during warm period that abruptly ceases at return of ice age - hence unfinished cathedrals.

 

6) Randall thinks current warming is within natural norms and that scientists are ignoring GW being within natural norms.

 

7) This is where BO has a big issue, money and instructions were/are given to scientists to prove man made global warming. I would agree this is a problem, but doesn't prove that global warming isn't happening. Only that the cause may be falsely identified. Lets face it, assuming warming is entirely natural, but the predictions is still for X feet of sea level rise. We are still going to have to deal with the issue of displaced populations regardless of the cause. I think this is the elephant in the room that all sides are forgetting. Also Trump has just signed a bill for more coal plants - ignore the warming issue - these coal plants will still pollute the environment and cause rain to turn acid thus wreaking what it falls on regardless of any warming/cooling/stable effects on temperature. However at this point I think the conversation is going into political territory, and we want to find out the science of climate change, what is causing it, do we need to do anything about it, can we?

 

8) He mentioned uniformitarianism vs catastrophism then the vid cut off, but as far as climate change goes it only shows that yes humans sometimes get things wrong and need to update their understanding. Same thing with theory of gravity, evolution etc

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Daffodil said:

For the record, everyone, he is not a climate change denier.  He says in the interview that he absolutely agrees that humans are having an impact, but he claims it is far more complicated and has different ramifications than what the politicians claim. 

 

This is true, and this is why the predictions are so hard to get accurate, and why we should not stop listening to the scientists because their predictions were not met.

 

 

7 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

1) yes I believe the climate is warming.  Even in my own life time I remember as a child yearly snowfall was an annual event. Now we have only had about 3 or 4 good snowfalls since the blizzard of 93. My Barber is in his 60s or 70s and he talked to me about how it is so much different now than it was in his youth. There is definitely something going on.

2) No I don't believe human's have caused the climate change

3) yes I believe humans are making an impact and possibly even making it worse. Maybe even unending.

3) I don't know if we can accurately predict the future impact. But I do believe as information is gathered we may be able to.

5) yes I believe it is a threat. If the earth does in fact go through natural warming and cooling cycles our current impact on those cycles could become catastrophic at some point in the future.

 

I would also like to share something I never here anyone point out referring to our impact on climate. And it is also something that not even politicians would touch on if they did present it as a variable. That is the fact that human growth has completely changed the earth's surface for the foreseeable future. We have ripped down forests, built cities, and paved a good portion of the earth's surface. We have removed the earth's natural shade if you will. The trees soak up and use the suns rays, while shading the earth beneath them. Likewise with all other plant life. 

     I'm sure everyone here has seen heat waves rolling on roadways during the summer and roadways also get so hot in this are at times you can cook eggs off the surface of them. They probably just wouldn't taste very good. I imagine that is even worse closer to the equator. But if this is a large variable on the issue like I think it is, I don't think it would be mentioned because no one wants us to stop building roads or expanding our cities. It is much easier to put the bulk of the blame on co2 gasses which we can control. 

     But in the end we aren't stopping the problem. The climate steadily rises every year according to graphs already posted. So the end result is the same. We are still losing the war, just slower. 

 

DB, I think you have a point regarding the intensity of human activity in the last century. We've doubled our population, intensified farming. Rainforests are being cut down at the rate of a football field every second! This also is having an impact. However Josh had a link on page 1, I think it was, that showed a greening effect.

 

I have a thought, and I'm not sure if its backed up by studies, that plants should do better in a warmer CO2 rich environment. Plants 'breathe' CO2. Give them more, make it warmer, and as long as there is suffcient mosioture they should grow bigger and faster. This is what happened in the age of dinosaurs where Co2 was 400PPM (I think that's the figure)

 

6 hours ago, Daffodil said:

Thanks DB!  I normally stay out of this forum for lack of knowledge, but I'm going to stay for this, if only to broaden my understanding ?.

 

That's a great attitude - you best learn by participation IMO.

 

As a final note I think that not all global warming would be bad. As the globe warms plant life will expand into areas too cold, as can humans and their agriculture. However we don't know that it will be as simple or as nice as colder areas on earth becoming warmer and habitable. There would likely be detrimental effects as well.

 

PS Here is an article on the for and against of man made global warming: http://climatechange.procon.org/ 

 

PSS Here is a recent scientific paper (So this is very detaily... rather a hard read) about sea surface temperatures being actually higher that previously thought due to errors in measuring. No that's not good, it means temperatures have increased more, not less.

 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full 

 

And because I like to be fair here are two opposing sites:

 

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 (Skeptical of man made global warming)

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ("Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" Haha love that tag line)

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

these coal plants will still pollute the environment and cause rain to turn acid thus wreaking what it falls on regardless of any warming/cooling/stable effects on temperature. However at this point I think the conversation is going into political territory, and we want to find out the science of climate change, what is causing it, do we need to do anything about it, can we?

 

 

I think that for the most part you and I agree. However I don't fault trump with his stance on coal. You would probably just have to know whats going on in the US to understand the reasoning behind that. The second church I was a member of had a yearly mission for the youth to participate in. We would go up to kentucky with canned goods etc to take to them. We also helped with clothing and anything else we could while we were up there. The reason the area was poverty stricken was because the main job in the are was coal mining. It was a very big part of our culture at one point in time. When regulations choked coal mining families lost their lively hood. We can argue climate change all day long but in the end even if we do use coal our smoke stacks are outfitted with 1000s of spray jets so that there is no sut produced to pollute the air. I know that probably doesnt stop co2 from leaving the stack but we are still doing better than say china who seem not to give a shit what so ever.

     We have it in an abundance. It is probably the resource we have most of. So IMO we should use it. It will cut down our dependency on other fuels we import from other countries. The coal issue is kind of a catch 22 for Americans. On the one hand we are helping the earth I suppose. But on the other hand we are hurting Americans that depend on the revenue from coal. Here are the areas affected by coal mining. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=coal+mining+states+in+us&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=nimv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP1tPDuPvSAhUKOyYKHRVvBa4Q_AUICCgC&biw=768&bih=1024#imgrc=9FQJ-vVUMOY5HM:

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

DB, I think you have a point regarding the intensity of human activity in the last century. We've doubled our population, intensified farming. Rainforests are being cut down at the rate of a football field every second! This also is having an impact. However Josh had a link on page 1, I think it was, that showed a greening effect.

 

I have a thought, and I'm not sure if its backed up by studies, that plants should do better in a warmer CO2 rich environment. Plants 'breathe' CO2. Give them more, make it warmer, and as long as there is suffcient mosioture they should grow bigger and faster. This is what happened in the age of dinosaurs where Co2 was 400PPM (I think that's the figure)

 

 

I can see where it might make a greening effect but it won't change climate if we keep the green pushed back that said greening effect tryst to produce, and keep building. I will need to look at the link you mentioned on the earlier post and get back with ya on that. Maybe the greening effect is the planets way of countering the CO2 gas effect in the atmosphere but if so we are also stopping the planet from fixing the problem by our growth?

 

But otherwise I think we pretty well agree on what's going on. Maybe BO could shed some light on the subject from his point of view. ?

 

Dark Bishop

[LogicalFallacy]

13 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

But otherwise I think we pretty well agree on what's going on. Maybe BO could shed some light on the subject from his point of view. ?

 

Dark Bishop

 

Yes, reading your answers to the 6 or so question I first posted showed that we are pretty on par, which also means we are fairly on par with Josh's understanding as well. Noting of course that as understanding changes so does opinion.

 

 You know I'm not entirely sure on where BO stands... he posts info showing a decrease in temperature, but his beef seems to be more with some of the points we have listed (Politics, working what is man made and what is natural etc) rather than the actual trend. If his stance is there is no global warming, then we strongly disagree with each other. If its there is warming, but its not man made then we agree somewhat.

 

Certainly he is welcome to shed more light on his thoughts here, and I have invited him here, provided he keeps politics out of it like we have.

 

Re coal - its one of those damned if you do or don't scenarios - if they can get coal to burn clean that would be ok, but research shows even 'green' coal is dirty so no confidence in their ability to be non polluting.

 

Re China, recent news is that they are actually stepping up their game re climate change. I know - surprising, but what has happened is that all their coal plants and factories are choking the air they breathe. I think they figured out that if they can't breathe they die lol. One article i read said they look set to overtake the US in reducing their effects on the environment. (Considering your vice president is a creationist that's not surprising)

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

That's really good news on the China front. Maybe them cutting down will offset us using more. ? 

[florduh]

Coal jobs ain't a-coming back. The buckboard and stagecoach businesses aren't coming back either. Industry is no longer looking to coal power for their future, sustainable success. It's always difficult, but times change and we adapt and move on as we try to advance rather than go backwards.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, florduh said:

Coal jobs ain't a-coming back. The buckboard and stagecoach businesses aren't coming back either. Industry is no longer looking to coal power for their future, sustainable success. It's always difficult, but times change and we adapt and move on as we try to advance rather than go backwards.

 

Ummmm trumps bringing coal jobs back. Least a lil bit. 

[Daffodil]

Have to agree with florduh - Trump can say what he wants, but coal isn't coming back.  Even with his attack on the EPA, there is too much awareness out there that the environment is hurting and we need to change tactics.  And even if coal did come back, technology is moving rapidly toward total roboticization (is that a word?) of previously human-powered jobs.  Coal won't be any different.  The problem with areas like Kentucky is that they had just one industry, as did Detroit with cars, and when that industry died, so did the area.  The only way to rebuild areas like that is to diversify.  I really feel for the people in those areas, but to look fondly at 1950s-era prosperity and expect anyone to be able to turn back the clock and regain that is a pipe dream.

[Daffodil]

I have so many thoughts after watching the video and reading through this thread.  If I get all jumbled, I apologize - it's just such a huge and complicated topic!  One big takeaway I have is that when looking back through millions of years of this earth's history, we are such a small, insignificant part of it!  Yes, we are doing damage to this planet's surface, without doubt, and possibly to it's climate, but all it would take to wipe the slate clean and start over is one good-sized asteroid.  Carlson mentions that in the longer version of the video.  Geologists are finding more and more evidence of that catastrophic "rebooting" effect every day.  Greenland used to be heavily populated, but after what appears to be a catastrophic incident, it no longer is.  Whenever the reboot has happened, nature has reclaimed and started over quite nicely.  So, whatever damage we are/will do, nature can come back and fix it once we are gone.  Carlson was a little cagey in what he wanted to go into and what he wanted to save for a later interview with Rogan, but he indicated that we have the technology and mental capacity to figure out a way to prevent another catastrophic asteroid impact OR to move our species out into space to another planet less likely to be hit by asteroids.  Kind of "woo"-ish talk, but definitely intriguing!

[florduh]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Ummmm trumps bringing coal jobs back. Least a lil bit. 

Perhaps a coal CEO could enlighten you. http://www.salon.com/2017/03/28/coal-ceo-gets-real-on-trumps-coal-jobs-promise-he-cannot-bring-them-back/

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I think at the very least we should use the coal for power. My momma taught me not to waste lol. All that coal is just sitting there. We need to use it for something. Unless we can truly convert to a completely renewable source of electricity. Nuclear has its environmental impact. And solar, wind, and water generated power is selective according to the area. I don't see a complete end to coal just yet. I've worked in plants with coal burning boilers and lived around coal  burning power plants and was quite impress with the stacks. Literally the only thing.... other than co2 that leaves the stacks is steam. They have really come a long way since the fifties. This political cartoons with black smoke boiling out of stacks is just completely false to todays reality.

 

DB

[florduh]

We can't look to 19th Century solutions for 21st Century problems. Acid rain, polluted water and air, rivers catching fire . . . do you really miss that? We need to progress, not hang onto old technologies that are so detrimental in the long haul. If all the money, tax breaks and efforts put into propping up the fossil fuel industry were turned to evolving alternative energy sources we could be there in a very short time. Again, industry is NOT building its future around the use of coal anymore. Miners and coal company execs know this, why doesn't everybody else?

[Travi]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

Miners and coal company execs know this, why doesn't everybody else?

Except every Eastern Kentucky barn raised hillbilly coal miner who voted for Trump because he was bringing coal jobs back, while losing their coverage for black lung.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, Daffodil said:

I have so many thoughts after watching the video and reading through this thread.  If I get all jumbled, I apologize - it's just such a huge and complicated topic!  One big takeaway I have is that when looking back through millions of years of this earth's history, we are such a small, insignificant part of it!  Yes, we are doing damage to this planet's surface, without doubt, and possibly to it's climate, but all it would take to wipe the slate clean and start over is one good-sized asteroid.  Carlson mentions that in the longer version of the video.  Geologists are finding more and more evidence of that catastrophic "rebooting" effect every day.  Greenland used to be heavily populated, but after what appears to be a catastrophic incident, it no longer is.  Whenever the reboot has happened, nature has reclaimed and started over quite nicely.  So, whatever damage we are/will do, nature can come back and fix it once we are gone.  Carlson was a little cagey in what he wanted to go into and what he wanted to save for a later interview with Rogan, but he indicated that we have the technology and mental capacity to figure out a way to prevent another catastrophic asteroid impact OR to move our species out into space to another planet less likely to be hit by asteroids.  Kind of "woo"-ish talk, but definitely intriguing!

 

There was a video someone posted a while back about earths history and it had evidence of super volcanos resetting the planet, asteroids resetting the planet, a total ice age (like the whole earth was under miles of ice in its early days). I think current geology explains earths history using a combination of uniformitarianism and catastrophism.

 

You raise an interesting point: We can't destroy the planet - it will simply reboot and new life will arise. However people miss the point of here and now and in the short foreseeable future (Short in geologic times). If we are harming the environment, if we are contributing to making the environment uninhabitable via pollution, temperature rises etc, then we are harming ourselves. We are driving ourselves to extinction. Here's an interesting thing - population explosions are often followed by an implosion when there is an imbalance. Earths population has exploded in the last 200 years... lets hope we can prevent catastrophic implosion.

 

Re florduh on coal plants - I agree entirely. We need to look at creating jobs using NEW technology, find out new, efficient, and cost efficient ways of generating power. The downside of coal far outweighs the upside. It's not like we have no other energy generating sources. Regarding nuclear power - it has come a long way since 1945, and there is hope of perfecting either fission or fusion. I forget which. But if perfected the downsides of nuclear (radiation and waste material) will be greatly reduced.

[Daffodil]

^^ Perhaps if the focus was placed on how we are hurting ourselves rather than how we are hurting the earth, we might get more people to invest in it?  As it is, it is easier to just wave a hand to it because we don't necessarily see how it affects us directly.  There is no pollution or smog, or poisoned water in my small community, and I sometimes wonder if my commitment to recycling and avoiding plastic really has any impact at all.  I can imagine many people just don't see the point at all because the focus is on "saving the planet" (which we agreed we can't actually destroy anyway) rather than saving ourselves.  Also, a big part of the problem is that it really isn't affecting any of us here in the states anyway!  Our efforts to stop pollution here have succeeded so well it isn't that "real" to many of us.  Now from what I hear about China right now, the smog is so bad they are marketing colorful face masks for kids to wear on their walk to school!  That makes it much more "real" and the danger to them much more imminent.

[Daffodil]

Well that was weird!  I wasn't quoting you, LF, but my post got stuck into yours anyway!

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, florduh said:

We can't look to 19th Century solutions for 21st Century problems. Acid rain, polluted water and air, rivers catching fire . . . do you really miss that? We need to progress, not hang onto old technologies that are so detrimental in the long haul. If all the money, tax breaks and efforts put into propping up the fossil fuel industry were turned to evolving alternative energy sources we could be there in a very short time. Again, industry is NOT building its future around the use of coal anymore. Miners and coal company execs know this, why doesn't everybody 

Can I just give a realistic point of view here? We are far far FAR away from ending our dependency on fossil fuels. Here is an excerpt from this Govt website. 

 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/electricity.cfm

Electricity generation by source

The worldwide mix of primary fuels used to generate electricity has changed a great deal over the past several decades. Coal continues to be the fuel most widely used in electricity generation [169], but there have been significant shifts to other generation fuels. Generation from nuclear power increased rapidly from the 1970s through the 1980s, and natural gas-fired generation increased considerably after the 1980s. The use of oil for generation declined after the late 1970s, when sharp increases in oil prices encouraged power generators to substitute other energy sources for oil [170].

Beginning in the early 2000s, concerns about the environmental consequences of greenhouse gas emissions heightened interest in the development of renewable energy sources, as well as natural gas—a fossil fuel that emits significantly less CO2 than either oil or coal per kilowatthour generated. In the IEO2016 Reference case, long-term global prospects continue to improve for generation from natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy sources. Renewables are the fastest-growing source of energy for electricity generation, with annual increases averaging 2.9% from 2012 to 2040. In particular, in the Reference case, nonhydropower renewable resources are the fastest-growing energy sources for new generation capacity in both the OECD and non-OECD regions. Nonhydropower renewables accounted for 5% of total world electricity generation in 2012; their share in 2040 is 14% in the IEO2016 Reference case, with much of the growth coming from wind power.

After renewable energy sources, natural gas and nuclear power are the next fastest-growing sources of electricity generation. From 2012 to 2040, natural gas-fired electricity generation increases by 2.7%/year and nuclear power generation increases by 2.4%/year. With coal-fired generation growing by only 0.8%/year, renewable generation (including both hydropower and nonhydropower resources) overtakes coal to become the world’s largest source of energy for electricity generation by 2040. The outlook for coal-fired electricity generation could be further altered in the future by additional national policies or international agreements aimed at reducing or limiting its use. It should be noted that the IEO2016 Reference case does not include implementation of the U.S. Clean Power Plan, which would reduce the use of coal in the United States substantially (see "U.S. Clean Power Plan Rule" in the Emissions chapter). Finally, if other nations with shale gas resources (notably, China) are able to replicate the U.S. success in exploiting shale gas production, the outlook for world natural gas-fired electricity generation could be much different from that represented in the IEO2016 Reference case.

Coal

Coal continues to be the largest single fuel used for electricity generation worldwide in the IEO2016 Reference case until the end of the projection period, with renewable generation beginning to surpass coal-fired generation in 2040. Coal-fired generation, which accounted for 40% of total world electricity generation in 2012, declines to 29% of the total in 2040 in the Reference case, despite a continued increase in total coal-fired electricity generation from 8.6 trillion kWh in 2012 to 9.7 trillion kWh in 2020 and 10.6 trillion kWh in 2040. Total electricity generation from coal in 2040 is 23% above the 2012 total.

China and India alone account for 69% of the projected worldwide increase in coal-fired generation, while the OECD nations continue to reduce their reliance on coal-fired electricity generation. With implementation of the Clean Power Plan, projections for U.S. coal-fired generation are reduced in 2030 by about one-third.

Natural gas

Worldwide natural gas consumption for electricity generation grows in the IEO2016 Reference case by an average of 2.7%/year from 2012 to 2040. From 22% of total world electricity generation in 2012, the natural gas share increases to 28% in 2040 in the IEO2016 Reference case. In the United States, natural gas-fired generation is encouraged by low prices and favorable greenhouse gas emission characteristics. Natural gas is the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel; like all fossil fuels, natural gas combustion emits carbon dioxide, but at about half the rate of coal. In addition, natural gas generation technologies are more efficient than coal generation in producing electricity. Thus, natural gas can help in meeting CO2 reduction goals for many countries.

Petroleum and other liquid fuels

The use of petroleum and other liquid fuels for electricity generation continues to decline steadily in the IEO2016 Reference case. The share of total world generation from liquid fuels falls from 5% in 2012 to 2% in 2040, an average decline of 2.2%/year. Despite their recent decline, oil prices are expected to be higher in the long-term projection. As a result, liquids remain a more expensive option compared to other fuels used for generating electricity, and generators replace liquids-fired generation with other fuels where possible. Since June 2014, world oil prices have decreased substantially, falling to less than $40 per barrel in December 2015—a level last observed in late 2008, during the worldwide economic recession. The most notable regional declines in petroleum use for electricity generation are projected for the Middle East, Mexico, and Japan, where policy movements have encouraged the phasing out of oil in the electric power sector.

Renewable resources

Renewables account for a rising share of the world’s total electricity supply, and they are the fastest growing source of electricity generation in the IEO2016 Reference case (Figure 5-4). Total generation from renewable resources increases by 2.9%/year, as the renewable share of world electricity generation grows from 22% in 2012 to 29% in 2040 (Table 5-2). Generation from nonhydropower renewables is the predominant source of the increase, rising by an average of 5.7%/year and outpacing increases in natural gas (2.7%/year), nuclear (2.4%/year), and coal (0.8%/year), even without taking into account the growth in renewable generation anticipated under the Clean Power Plan in the United States. By 2030, the CPP would increase U.S. renewables generation by roughly 396 billion kWh (58%) compared to the IEO2016 Reference case, according to EIA’s analysis of the proposed CPP rule. Solar is the world’s fastest-growing form of renewable energy, with net solar generation increasing by an average of 8.3%/year. Of the 5.9 trillion kWh of new renewable generation added over the projection period, hydroelectric and wind each account for 1.9 trillion kWh (33%), solar energy for 859 billion kWh (15%), and other renewables (mostly biomass and waste) for 856 billion kWh (14%).

figure data

In the IEO2016 Reference case, the pattern of growth in renewable electricity generation differs between the OECD regions and non-OECD regions in two ways: the relative rates of increase in generation from nonhydropower renewables and the potential expansion of hydropower capacity. Non-OECD countries surpass OECD countries in their use of nonhydropower renewables for electricity generation by the end of the projection in 2040. OECD net generation from nonhydropower renewables totals 2.3 trillion kWh (or 2.7 trillion kWh with the U.S. Clean Power Plan), compared with the non-OECD total of 2.8 trillion kWh. The difference is primarily the result of ambitious solar targets adopted principally by India and China, and to some extent by other emerging market countries (see "World production of solar photovoltaic modules,”). In the non-OECD region as a whole, solar generation grows by 15.7%/year on average from 2012 to 2040, nearly twice the growth rates for wind (7.7%/year) and geothermal (8.6%/year). In the OECD region, by comparison, wind, solar, and geothermal generation grow at comparable rates of about 4.5%/year.

 

As you can see it is not until the year 2040 according to a prediction that may or may not happen that renewable energy is expected to start to surpass that of coal energy at 29%. Natural gas use still holds at 28% in 2040 according to this prediction. 

    We are 23 years away from renewable energy becoming basically 1 third of the power supply. Fossil fuels still taking the lead by 57% between coal and natural gas. Add nuclear and oil into the mix and your looking at over 60% dependency on sources that aren't good for the environment. 

    While I do agree that we need to invest our future in renewable energy, it still remains that at the predicted rate we will never see renewable resources as our primary energy provider in our lifetime. It will most likely not happen until our great grandchildren are old. Therefore I have to disagree with you on the statement that we need to stop spending money to prop up the fossil fuel industry. Because for the near future that will be our primary source of energy. This lists only the use of fossil fuels for electricity. This doesn't even include all other uses of fossil fuels.

      Clean fossil fuels are not an impossibility. Here is an article you might find interesting from the new York times.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/01/science/what-is-clean-coal.html?_r=0

 

It goes over the concept of clean fossil fuels. After reading this I will agree with you that in the long run coal is going to die out and overall it is the most expensive fossil fuel to clean. However if the Clean tech was made more affordable it would go a long way in helping our environment and the topic we are speaking on now. Climate change. 

      We don't need to wait 100 years for renewable energy to take the forefront while spilling harmful gasses into our atmosphere during the meantime. We do need to invest in clean fossil fuels which contrary to your assessment isn't a 19th century solution for a 21st century problem. It is a 21st century technology to safely use a nineteenth century energy source. Which in my humble opinion for the short term is a good investment.

 

Dark Bishop

[florduh]

Quote

Can I just give a realistic point of view here? We are far far FAR away from ending our dependency on fossil fuels.

True. Why do you suppose that is? Does it make sense that we are still using a fuel that once ran steam locomotives? That heated houses in the early 1820s?

 

Perhaps it's because we have been conditioned to accept propaganda from the fossil fuel industries to keep them relevant. Yes, we are a long way from actually using the new technologies we already have, but that is not so in many other countries. It looks a bit to me like the same political/business climate that prevents us from having universal healthcare like others do. This is not the time to be expanding our efforts in keeping the fossil fuel industry healthy when we could, like other countries, put our effort into developing the other energy sources we already have available. This is not the time to open up our federal lands to mining operations and expanding fracking. Yeah, we still have some coal but that doesn't mean we have to rely on it until every inch of America has been dug up.

 

"This December, almost 200 countries from every corner of the world signed the Paris Agreement, committing to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and – dare we say – save the world!

The question on everyone's mind: How?

The truth is, we don't have to wait on scientists to invent some newfangled contraption. The solutions are already here! We simply need to ramp up renewable energy generation, and fast.

Here's how: follow the leader. There are many countries already forging ahead towards a low-carbon future. Whether solar is starting to shine or the answer is blowing in the wind, the solutions are growing every day. But don't take our word for it. Read on to learn how places around the globe are going renewable."

 

WE should be the leader here, but our government's obligation to big business is preventing it.

 https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/follow-leader-how-11-countries-are-shifting-renewable-energy

 

[REBOOT]

On 3/29/2017 at 7:56 AM, florduh said:

Coal jobs ain't a-coming back. The buckboard and stagecoach businesses aren't coming back either. Industry is no longer looking to coal power for their future, sustainable success. It's always difficult, but times change and we adapt and move on as we try to advance rather than go backwards.

 

Try telling this to a nostalgic 70 year old coal lover.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, REBOOT said:

 

Try telling this to a nostalgic 70 year old coal lover.

 

Lets keep this on topic and keep politics out of it please. I agree with the sentiment but that post is decidedly political.

[florduh]

 

Quote

Lets keep this on topic and keep politics out of it please. I agree with the sentiment but that post is decidedly political.

 

Sadly, the topic of climate change, and damn near everything else, is political in nature these days. The only reason climate change (or women's health, science, evolution, gay rights or education) is even being discussed so heatedly is pure politics and agenda at work. Political hay was made by promising the dying coal industry workers an impossible return to the glory days of the first half of the last century. I emphasized workers because coal CEOs see the writing on the wall.