All Things Environment

[Farfromgeneva]

For the folks that watch Jon Oliver here, I was disappointed that he did a really poor job on his main topic in carbon offsets.

Rules based systems always have arbitrage opportunities and probably those need to be tightened up (perhaps by less explicit language rathe than incremental new language) but the point of carbon offsets is to start to create a marketplace to put ideally a “equilibrium” market price on polluting. That requires scale of participation. Early entrants in a new market collect monopoly profits, it’s like a law in physics. This nascent market needs improvement but it has the potential to profoundly change decision making universally once a price for pollution can be established. The answer isn’t to shut this down, it’s to encourage broader participation and volume to reduce the “bid-ask” spread (room for intermediaries to take a slice) and get to the right price for pollution.

Lot of other issues with this one, the largest being not addressing the role ESG investment mandates and new capital in that industry has had in all of this. There’s more dollars allocated to that now than available investments.

[Brooklyn]

weather ain't so nice in Texass:


https://www.google.com/search?q=floodin ... e&ie=UTF-8


Interesting that recently part of that pathetic state was afire, now it's under water. I wonder if those lame brain Repukeblicons there still don't believe there is some truth to the story of climate change.

[PizzaSnake]

weather ain't so nice in Texass:


https://www.google.com/search?q=floodin ... e&ie=UTF-8


Interesting that recently part of that pathetic state was afire, now it's under water. I wonder if those lame brain Repukeblicons there still don't believe there is some truth to the story of climate change.

Clearly Jeebus is punishing them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

For the folks that watch Jon Oliver here, I was disappointed that he did a really poor job on his main topic in carbon offsets.

Rules based systems always have arbitrage opportunities and probably those need to be tightened up (perhaps by less explicit language rathe than incremental new language) but the point of carbon offsets is to start to create a marketplace to put ideally a “equilibrium” market price on polluting. That requires scale of participation. Early entrants in a new market collect monopoly profits, it’s like a law in physics. This nascent market needs improvement but it has the potential to profoundly change decision making universally once a price for pollution can be established. The answer isn’t to shut this down, it’s to encourage broader participation and volume to reduce the “bid-ask” spread (room for intermediaries to take a slice) and get to the right price for pollution.

Lot of other issues with this one, the largest being not addressing the role ESG investment mandates and new capital in that industry has had in all of this. There’s more dollars allocated to that now than available investments.

Waste companies have been involved in this space:

https://www.biobased-diesel.com/amp/eia ... gh-in-2022

[PizzaSnake]

For the folks that watch Jon Oliver here, I was disappointed that he did a really poor job on his main topic in carbon offsets.

Rules based systems always have arbitrage opportunities and probably those need to be tightened up (perhaps by less explicit language rathe than incremental new language) but the point of carbon offsets is to start to create a marketplace to put ideally a “equilibrium” market price on polluting. That requires scale of participation. Early entrants in a new market collect monopoly profits, it’s like a law in physics. This nascent market needs improvement but it has the potential to profoundly change decision making universally once a price for pollution can be established. The answer isn’t to shut this down, it’s to encourage broader participation and volume to reduce the “bid-ask” spread (room for intermediaries to take a slice) and get to the right price for pollution.

Lot of other issues with this one, the largest being not addressing the role ESG investment mandates and new capital in that industry has had in all of this. There’s more dollars allocated to that now than available investments.

Time is up for the “market solution”.

How about this imperative: want your children and grand-children to live?

So when will the first mass casualty event occur(>1000 deaths) occur? My money is on Summer 2023 in Phoenix when the grid fails due to no hydro from Colorado River based facilities.

[Farfromgeneva]

For the folks that watch Jon Oliver here, I was disappointed that he did a really poor job on his main topic in carbon offsets.

Rules based systems always have arbitrage opportunities and probably those need to be tightened up (perhaps by less explicit language rathe than incremental new language) but the point of carbon offsets is to start to create a marketplace to put ideally a “equilibrium” market price on polluting. That requires scale of participation. Early entrants in a new market collect monopoly profits, it’s like a law in physics. This nascent market needs improvement but it has the potential to profoundly change decision making universally once a price for pollution can be established. The answer isn’t to shut this down, it’s to encourage broader participation and volume to reduce the “bid-ask” spread (room for intermediaries to take a slice) and get to the right price for pollution.

Lot of other issues with this one, the largest being not addressing the role ESG investment mandates and new capital in that industry has had in all of this. There’s more dollars allocated to that now than available investments.

Time is up for the “market solution”.

How about this imperative: want your children and grand-children to live?

So when will the first mass casualty event occur(>1000 deaths) occur? My money is on Summer 2023 in Phoenix when the grid fails due to no hydro from Colorado River based facilities.

When did we ever really try to put a price on pollution before? Or even now? If time is up so be it but no one can claim that approach didn’t work. It wasn’t given any real chance and did nothing else better to solve it from a govt or social standpoint at all.

[jhu72]

Human controlled fusion ignition achieved for first time. Good news!

[DocBarrister]

Human controlled fusion ignition achieved for first time. Good news!

In other great news from the TRULY GREAT State of California, the sale of new fossil fuel cars will be banned by 2035.

California is set to move closer to banning the sale of new cars running only on gasoline by 2035, a major step in the car-loving state’s fight against climate change.

The Post’s Dino Grandoni and Evan Halper report that the expected embrace of the policy by the state’s Air Resources Board during a meeting scheduled for Thursday comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) set a target in 2020 for cleaning up California’s auto fleet. Per our colleagues:

The proposed regulation would set strict deadlines for meeting that goal, forcing automakers to step up production of cleaner vehicles considerably, starting in 2026. The requirements would only speed forward from there, until only zero-emission passenger cars, pickup trucks and SUVs as well as a limited number of plug-in hybrids are allowed to be sold in the state by 2035. …

California’s aggressive timeline comes soon after Biden signed a climate package that spends tens of billions of dollars to speed up the transition to electric vehicles through generous tax credits for buyers of the vehicles and incentives for carmakers to move their production lines to the U.S. and expand operations.

But the state’s regulations could prove even more impactful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... PD34S2UA6Q

This will likely force automakers to speed up their timelines. Although many have pledged to sell only zero-emission vehicles by 2035, that was a “soft pledge” that each company could have broken or delayed on a whim. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

[HooDat]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Don't confuse him with reality. The church of climate change says that you must worship at the altar or wind and solar only. There can be no false idols here....

[DocBarrister]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Why should California build nuclear power plants when solar and wind are cheaper?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -bnef-says

It has not been legal to build new nuclear power plants in California for decades.

And if Japan cannot operate nuclear power plants safely, who can?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56252695.amp

Your suggestion is a stupid idea, out of date by at least five decades.

Emission-free cars, solar, and wind are the way to go.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Don't confuse him with reality. The church of climate change says that you must worship at the altar or wind and solar only. There can be no false idols here....

Human-caused climate change is an established fact. You are not entitled to an opinion on that. It is a matter of established fact, not opinion or “faith”.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Why should California build nuclear power plants when solar and wind are cheaper?

Because you're burning natural gas to power your cars, Doc. And solar and wind is just a fraction of your energy supply.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of nonsense.

It has not been legal to build new nuclear power plants in California for decades.

Yeah. Great job on that.

And if Japan cannot operate nuclear power plants safely, who can?

Anyone who knows where to locate a nuclear plant correctly, Doc. And the answer, obviously, is Germany, France, Canada, China, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Taiwan (remember them?), Belgium, and on and on.....

All of these plants have been operating just fine, Doc. But hey, why get in the way of half-wit ideas on energy, Doc?

I like that you think it makes more sense to burn natural gas 24/7, slowly poisoning everything that breathes that stuff in...than put in a plant that doesn't have those emissions, all based on the idea that a nuclear plant MIGHT emit something in a catastrophic situation.

Your suggestion is a stupid idea, out of date by at least five decades.

Great. Keep burning fossil fuels, Doc. Knock yourself out.

My ideas are years in front of yours. Designed, built and have been running a sustainable factory for longer than "sustainable" was a word. You know: actually doing something about these problems.

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

[old salt]

For the folks that watch Jon Oliver here, I was disappointed that he did a really poor job on his main topic in carbon offsets.

Rules based systems always have arbitrage opportunities and probably those need to be tightened up (perhaps by less explicit language rathe than incremental new language) but the point of carbon offsets is to start to create a marketplace to put ideally a “equilibrium” market price on polluting. That requires scale of participation. Early entrants in a new market collect monopoly profits, it’s like a law in physics. This nascent market needs improvement but it has the potential to profoundly change decision making universally once a price for pollution can be established. The answer isn’t to shut this down, it’s to encourage broader participation and volume to reduce the “bid-ask” spread (room for intermediaries to take a slice) and get to the right price for pollution.

Lot of other issues with this one, the largest being not addressing the role ESG investment mandates and new capital in that industry has had in all of this. There’s more dollars allocated to that now than available investments.

Time is up for the “market solution”.

How about this imperative: want your children and grand-children to live?

So when will the first mass casualty event occur(>1000 deaths) occur? My money is on Summer 2023 in Phoenix when the grid fails due to no hydro from Colorado River based facilities.

FEMA will have to bring in diesel generators to power emergency cooling centers.

[HooDat]

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

depending on where Doc lives - there's a pretty good chance he's driving a coal powered car

Human-caused climate change is an established fact. You are not entitled to an opinion on that. It is a matter of established fact, not opinion or “faith”.

Well it is and it isn't an "established fact". But don't go thinking you know what I am thinking. I believe we should be doing everything we can to reduce our impact on the environment. I am a REAL environmentalist - that's why I KNOW nuclear is the only real solution. Unlike the folks that have been baptized in the church of wind&solar, I actually want to fix our environment and not just make a buck off the idiots in DC and Brussels.

If you want to learn something - the EU commissioned a 450 page study on wind and solar vs nuclear. In order to establish the outer limits of the viability of wind and solar vs nuke, they looked at the Czech Republic and The Netherlands power requirements.

The findings were quite interesting:

• In order to meet the power needs in The Netherlands by wind and solar it would require up to 1.8 times the land mass of the Netherlands! If you don't want to worry about meeting peak demand you only need to use a little over 64% of the total land mass of the country. Nuclear would need to use about 0.3% of the land in The Netherlands to meet 100% of their power needs.
  
  In the Czech Republic, wind and solar fare much better: the lucky Czech's y would only have to give up 55% of their entire country to the needs of wind & solar power generation. Or, they could again dedicate a little over 0.3% of their land to nuclear power generation in order to meet all of their power needs.
  
  Don't even get me started on silica mining, etc... wind and solar (wind and utility scale solar in particular) are a complete boondoggle.

[youthathletics]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Why should California build nuclear power plants when solar and wind are cheaper?

Because you're burning natural gas to power your cars, Doc. And solar and wind is just a fraction of your energy supply.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of nonsense.

It has not been legal to build new nuclear power plants in California for decades.

Yeah. Great job on that.

And if Japan cannot operate nuclear power plants safely, who can?

Anyone who knows where to locate a nuclear plant correctly, Doc. And the answer, obviously, is Germany, France, Canada, China, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Taiwan (remember them?), Belgium, and on and on.....

All of these plants have been operating just fine, Doc. But hey, why get in the way of half-wit ideas on energy, Doc?

I like that you think it makes more sense to burn natural gas 24/7, slowly poisoning everything that breathes that stuff in...than put in a plant that doesn't have those emissions, all based on the idea that a nuclear plant MIGHT emit something in a catastrophic situation.

Your suggestion is a stupid idea, out of date by at least five decades.

Great. Keep burning fossil fuels, Doc. Knock yourself out.

My ideas are years in front of yours. Designed, built and have been running a sustainable factory for longer than "sustainable" was a word. You know: actually doing something about these problems.

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

+1
Astonished that some people still drink the equivalent of Jim Jones Kook-Aid, in believing that wind and solar is our saving grace. Sometimes, I wish that I could be so obtuse that I just accepted what others told me....would certainly solve a lot or disagreements with the wife as well.

[a fan]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Why should California build nuclear power plants when solar and wind are cheaper?

Because you're burning natural gas to power your cars, Doc. And solar and wind is just a fraction of your energy supply.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of nonsense.

It has not been legal to build new nuclear power plants in California for decades.

Yeah. Great job on that.

And if Japan cannot operate nuclear power plants safely, who can?

Anyone who knows where to locate a nuclear plant correctly, Doc. And the answer, obviously, is Germany, France, Canada, China, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Taiwan (remember them?), Belgium, and on and on.....

All of these plants have been operating just fine, Doc. But hey, why get in the way of half-wit ideas on energy, Doc?

I like that you think it makes more sense to burn natural gas 24/7, slowly poisoning everything that breathes that stuff in...than put in a plant that doesn't have those emissions, all based on the idea that a nuclear plant MIGHT emit something in a catastrophic situation.

Your suggestion is a stupid idea, out of date by at least five decades.

Great. Keep burning fossil fuels, Doc. Knock yourself out.

My ideas are years in front of yours. Designed, built and have been running a sustainable factory for longer than "sustainable" was a word. You know: actually doing something about these problems.

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

+1
Astonished that some people still drink the equivalent of Jim Jones Kook-Aid, in believing that wind and solar is our saving grace. Sometimes, I wish that I could be so obtuse that I just accepted what others told me....would certainly solve a lot or disagreements with the wife as well.

And I say this a a guy that owns a factory that uses wind power for much of its electricity (the percentage changes, obviously, due to weather), and a guy who's dropping solar panels on a new expansion.

We need a mix of power. And it drives me nuts that people who think they're green won't use nuclear. It's just stupid.

[DocBarrister]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Why should California build nuclear power plants when solar and wind are cheaper?

Because you're burning natural gas to power your cars, Doc. And solar and wind is just a fraction of your energy supply.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of nonsense.

It has not been legal to build new nuclear power plants in California for decades.

Yeah. Great job on that.

And if Japan cannot operate nuclear power plants safely, who can?

Anyone who knows where to locate a nuclear plant correctly, Doc. And the answer, obviously, is Germany, France, Canada, China, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Taiwan (remember them?), Belgium, and on and on.....

All of these plants have been operating just fine, Doc. But hey, why get in the way of half-wit ideas on energy, Doc?

I like that you think it makes more sense to burn natural gas 24/7, slowly poisoning everything that breathes that stuff in...than put in a plant that doesn't have those emissions, all based on the idea that a nuclear plant MIGHT emit something in a catastrophic situation.

Your suggestion is a stupid idea, out of date by at least five decades.

Great. Keep burning fossil fuels, Doc. Knock yourself out.

My ideas are years in front of yours. Designed, built and have been running a sustainable factory for longer than "sustainable" was a word. You know: actually doing something about these problems.

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

Just a stupid post.

California is situated in one of the most active tectonic regions in the entire world, and you want us to build a half-dozen new nuclear power plants here?

That’s just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Canada has 6 nuclear power facilities. All are in Ontario, New Brunswick, or Quebec. None are on the West Coast.

https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/reactor ... /index.cfm

And why should California go through the much longer regulatory process and much greater expense of building brand new nuclear power facilities when it is much faster, easier, safer, and cheaper to build solar and wind power facilities?

California has one “legacy” nuclear power plant that remains in operation and will stay in operation for several more years.

But why should we build brand new nuclear power plants when it will be much faster, easier, safer, and cheaper to bring online new solar and wind power facilities?

You didn’t even think about that before posting, correct, a fan? Just wanted to rush in and troll me, correct?

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Just a stupid post.
California is situated in one of the most active tectonic regions in the entire world, and you want us to build a half-dozen new nuclear power plants here?

So earthquakes have, in the last 100 years, leveled dozens city in your huge State....all points North, South, East, and West? Boy, who knew the faultlines were that big?

Neat.

Just a stupid post.
Canada has 6 nuclear power facilities. All are in Ontario, New Brunswick, or Quebec. None are on the West Coast.

And you think that's because of (snicker) earthquakes, Doc?

California has one “legacy” nuclear power plant that remains in operation and will stay in operation for several more years.

Not possible. You just told us that earthquakes preclude nuclear plants in California Doc. Surely it has been destroyed by earthquake in the (checks notes) 37 years since it was commissioned?

BTW, Doc? That one plant almost makes more electricity than all wind power combined. But sure, It's stupid to use nuclear power.

Just a stupid post.
And why should California go through the much longer regulatory process and much greater expense of building brand new nuclear power facilities when it is much faster, easier, safer, and cheaper to build solar and wind power facilities?

Yeah, you're up to a whopping 25% of your power from wind and solar after decades and decades of time to do it, Doc. Wow! Great job!

You didn’t even think about that before posting, correct, a fan? Just wanted to rush in and troll me, correct?

Yeah, that's it. Because it's not possible that anyone knows more about a subject than you do, right, Doc? Your degrees mean you know more than everyone else, regardless of subject.

Keep right on pumping out the natural gas, Doc. I won't stop you. Enjoy your fossil fuel powered Tesla Limousine, I guess. Thinking is bad.

[DocBarrister]

. With the massive economic power of California (5th largest economy in the world, and larger than the economy of India), automakers will now face an actual legal deadline to develop zero-emission cars.

DocBarrister

They're not zero emissions, Doc. And in Cali, 30%+ of your electricity comes from natural gas.

Are you guys going to finally put your money where your mouth is, and build a baker's dozen nuclear plants?

Why should California build nuclear power plants when solar and wind are cheaper?

Because you're burning natural gas to power your cars, Doc. And solar and wind is just a fraction of your energy supply.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of nonsense.

It has not been legal to build new nuclear power plants in California for decades.

Yeah. Great job on that.

And if Japan cannot operate nuclear power plants safely, who can?

Anyone who knows where to locate a nuclear plant correctly, Doc. And the answer, obviously, is Germany, France, Canada, China, South Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Taiwan (remember them?), Belgium, and on and on.....

All of these plants have been operating just fine, Doc. But hey, why get in the way of half-wit ideas on energy, Doc?

I like that you think it makes more sense to burn natural gas 24/7, slowly poisoning everything that breathes that stuff in...than put in a plant that doesn't have those emissions, all based on the idea that a nuclear plant MIGHT emit something in a catastrophic situation.

Your suggestion is a stupid idea, out of date by at least five decades.

Great. Keep burning fossil fuels, Doc. Knock yourself out.

My ideas are years in front of yours. Designed, built and have been running a sustainable factory for longer than "sustainable" was a word. You know: actually doing something about these problems.

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

+1
Astonished that some people still drink the equivalent of Jim Jones Kook-Aid, in believing that wind and solar is our saving grace. Sometimes, I wish that I could be so obtuse that I just accepted what others told me....would certainly solve a lot or disagreements with the wife as well.

And I say this a a guy that owns a factory that uses wind power for much of its electricity (the percentage changes, obviously, due to weather), and a guy who's dropping solar panels on a new expansion.

We need a mix of power. And it drives me nuts that people who think they're green won't use nuclear. It's just stupid.

The proposal to build nuclear power plants in California is stupid.

You fail to say why we shouldn’t build solar and wind power facilities that are easier, safer, and cheaper and would take much less time and effort to get online.

Indeed, choosing to build nuclear power plants would only prolong California’s reliance on fossil fuels. It would take much longer to get those built.

Why would you want that?

Truth is, nuclear power plants simply are not commercially viable in California compared to renewable energy sources.

We had a nuclear power plant just up the freeway until 9 years ago, when safety and reliability issues forced its shutdown. Taking apart the closed facility is going to take decades and won’t be easy.

Woods said SCE is building its own rail yard on the power plant site to make it easier to remove more than a billion pounds of concrete, steel, and other materials that made up the power plant complex.

“Logistically, I can say it’s a pretty difficult task,” said Peattie.

That included the radioactive spent fuel canisters. Peattie said the old nuclear fuel is welded inside a stainless-steel canister. That canister is welded inside another stainless-steel structure, and both are encased inside ten feet of concrete.

However, Peattie said the Federal Government has yet to develop a site for radioactive material like San Onofre’s spent fuel canisters.

“That hasn’t come to fruition,” he said. “So, That’s disappointing.”

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ ... 549/?amp=1

You want to build more nuclear power plants here when we don’t even have federal disposal sites for the decommissioned plants that we already have?!?

Why? That’s just stupid.


DocBarrister