Climate Change

[Danno]

Interesting article in the NYT: Tiny Electric Vehicles Pack a Bigger Climate Punch Than Cars https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/b...-android-share

[TBS]

Here’s another from NY Times

Seeking Higher Ground: Western Resorts Take Skiers Where the Snow Is
New terrain development at ski resorts, primarily in Colorado, aims to chase and preserve snow, an invaluable commodity.

About Aspen, Keystone & Steamboat adding lifts higher up the mountain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/t...smid=url-share

Some of the comments are hilariously ill-informed

[LongShortLong]

Stumbled on this youtuber "The Limiting Factor" yapping about various new tech. Seems green related. This video discusses grid storage technologies and why different tech serves different purposes. Discusses specific power and specific energy. This particular video uses fake numbers to illustrate the concepts, though he does include some graphic with DOE data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nUs_ppctB4

Also watched another video of his about magnesium materials science, and why magnesium is becoming increasingly attractive to the automotive industry. He's more in depth than a lot of the crap I watch, with a little bit less math than an engineering class. Makes my head hurt some, so I'll likely watch more.

[DanoT]

Interesting article in the NYT: Tiny Electric Vehicles Pack a Bigger Climate Punch Than Cars https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/b...-android-share

Surprising (actually not surprising given the NYT has an agenda) that the article made no mention of how electricity is produced and transmitted.

In China they are opening an average of 2 new coal fired electric generating plants per week.

In California the power grid is so outdated that rotating electric power grid blackouts have become a seasonal thing. My guess is that many home owners that can afford it have installed whole house backup generators, powered by diesel, gasoline, or propane.

Now that subsidies are winding down, in the US electric car sales have plummeted. And for millions of folks living in apartments where a recharging set up is not possible, they have never been potential EV customers.

[xyz]

Surprising (actually not surprising given the NYT has an agenda) that the article made no mention of how electricity is produced and transmitted.


.

Yes my thoughts exactly. I was going to respond the same but was tired of the conspiracy theorist abuse in here.

If the power to charge those batteries is fossil fuel based it’s not much of win. But it would at least clean up the air quality in the streets. And I’m sure the coal fired plant is running in other country polluting the less fortunate so the ebike country can claim their green victory.

[k2skier112]

You have to start somewhere, you have to start sometime. The longer we wait, the more painful, i.e. expensive, it will be.

Invest more in geothermal and concentrated solar

Just because it's hard, is no reason to resist the future

Change is always hard, especially for cranky old fucks

[old goat]

Surprising (actually not surprising given the NYT has an agenda) that the article made no mention of how electricity is produced and transmitted.

In China they are opening an average of 2 new coal fired electric generating plants per week.

In California the power grid is so outdated that rotating electric power grid blackouts have become a seasonal thing. My guess is that many home owners that can afford it have installed whole house backup generators, powered by diesel, gasoline, or propane.

Now that subsidies are winding down, in the US electric car sales have plummeted. And for millions of folks living in apartments where a recharging set up is not possible, they have never been potential EV customers.

A lot more CA homeowners have installed solar panels than generators.
Where do you see EV sales plummeting? Sales have doubled in 2 years from 500K to 1M. I agree though that 100% EVs don't seem practical for many city dwellers and country folk (not to mention those of us with 2 houses.) I think the future belongs to hydrogen.
As for the CA grid--it is hard to see how our private electric generators can increase capacity to service an all EV fleet when they can't even stop from burning the state down.
In any case, the future really lies in replacing private cars with mass transit. A future most of us won't like.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
In any case, the future really lies in replacing private cars with mass transit. A future most of us won't like.

And we need to get started on it NOW.

But gas is below $2/gal so we'll just buy a bunch of big trucks instead.

[xyz]

Invest more in geothermal.

Geothermal has a ton of potential. You don’t need to be Iceland either. My home heat and ac is ran on geothermal with just a glycol loop down a 200’ borehole. All you need is an heat exchanger to capture the temperature difference.The pump is even ran on hydro power.

My monthly bill is less than my internet bill. Even in -30 and 40 C temps.

[skaredshtles]

Geothermal has a ton of potential.

As does solar.

And wind.

And pumped hydro.

And nuclear.

See how that works?

[xyz]

As does solar.

And wind.

And pumped hydro.

And nuclear.

See how that works?

Sigh.

Solar doesn’t.
Wind doesn’t.
Pumped hydro doesn’t.
Nuclear does
Geothermal does.

Solar and wind are unreliable and require unscalable battery storage. Pumped hydro lol. We have a dam in. BC that’s been under construction since 1954. You can’t drop them anywhere you want.

Geothermal and nuclear can go anywhere in comparison to wind, solar and dams.

Let go of wind and solar, focus on clean reliable base load power and we have a chance.

[skaredshtles]

Sigh.

Solar doesn’t.
Wind doesn’t.
Pumped hydro doesn’t.
Nuclear does
Geothermal does.

Solar and wind are unreliable and require unscalable battery storage. Pumped hydro lol. We have a dam in. BC that’s been under construction since 1954. You can’t drop them anywhere you want.

Geothermal and nuclear can go anywhere in comparison to wind, solar and dams.

Let go of wind and solar, focus on clean reliable base load power and we have a chance.

[neufox47]

Surprising (actually not surprising given the NYT has an agenda) that the article made no mention of how electricity is produced and transmitted.

In China they are opening an average of 2 new coal fired electric generating plants per week.

In California the power grid is so outdated that rotating electric power grid blackouts have become a seasonal thing. My guess is that many home owners that can afford it have installed whole house backup generators, powered by diesel, gasoline, or propane.

Now that subsidies are winding down, in the US electric car sales have plummeted. And for millions of folks living in apartments where a recharging set up is not possible, they have never been potential EV customers.

What a load of nonsense. Do you have any sources for those claims? Even after considering greenhouse gases produced by electric vehicles ICE almost always produce more. If we are comparing a small electric bike or scooter to an ICE car it isn’t even close. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

Secondly small engines are notoriously inefficient and pollute more. Often generating massive amounts of air pollution given their small size (especially true if 2 stroke like in the 3rd world).

Rolling blackouts were reduced to near 0 in California this year and one of the biggest reasons is the doubling of battery backup capacity. My home battery will be part of a plan next year where the utility can pull electricity from it (paying me a premium rate per kWh and an annual amount for participating).

House generator sales have plummeted, the only people installing them in CA with any frequency are those prone to long outages from winter storms. You’d never install a generator over a battery if your concern is the short excess demand power outages (and you cared about money). I know a bunch of people who installed generators in 2018-2019 and now firmly regret it and wish they had went with a solar + battery. A generator is a money pit, $10-20k to install and hundreds of dollars a day to run it vs a battery that will pay for itself over its useful life.

The cheapest way to create electricity today is solar and it isn’t even close. Saying solar shouldn’t be a major component of the future grid is dumb and a position that is only taken by fossil fuel interests and the morons who parrot their misinformation.

[AirheadD8]

Geothermal has a ton of potential. You don’t need to be Iceland either. My home heat and ac is ran on geothermal with just a glycol loop down a 200’ borehole. All you need is an heat exchanger to capture the temperature difference.The pump is even ran on hydro power.

My monthly bill is less than my internet bill. Even in -30 and 40 C temps.

Great way to go,I’m happy I did 10yrs ago. Unfortunately the up front costs are a deterrent for a lot of people. Although the subsidies help a great deal. In order to see a payback you have to commit to staying in your home for quite a few years.
I installed my own system and it’s paid for itself.

Newer homes have better insulation values but a lot of energy wasted in this country is old masonry homes with drafty windows so any investment in insulation goes a long way. Kind of a catch 22 in order to save money you have to have money.

[LongShortLong]

Rolling blackouts were reduced to near 0 in California this year

This is also nonsense isn't it? I live here and my power has never been off. Though it is true at some point in the last decade there were some rolling blackouts. I was scheduled once, but it didn't happen. Recently, the only rolling blackouts I've heard of were in Texas.

Yes EVs might have some remote pollution in regions with coal power. However, EVs are unlike gas cars. Once purchased, a gas car pollutes where it's used, and only pollutes more as it ages. An EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner.

[WMD]

Sigh.

Solar doesn’t.
Wind doesn’t.
Pumped hydro doesn’t.
Nuclear does
Geothermal does.

Solar and wind are unreliable and require unscalable battery storage. Pumped hydro lol. We have a dam in. BC that’s been under construction since 1954. You can’t drop them anywhere you want.

Geothermal and nuclear can go anywhere in comparison to wind, solar and dams.

Let go of wind and solar, focus on clean reliable base load power and we have a chance.

Wow. Just wow. Sources?

[xyz]

Wow. Just wow. Sources?

Many. Mostly Trump, the KKK and Alex Jones.

[Bunion 2020]

Bozeman’s ‘green tariff’ won’t help the climate crisis
Mike Garrity

December 12, 2023 4:35 am

The City of Bozeman reached an agreement with Northwestern Energy that will allow people to voluntarily pay more for “green” solar and wind energy. Missoula is considering signing a similar agreement. But the question that’s going unanswered is: Why NorthWestern’s customers should pay more for solar and wind generated electricity when they are far cheaper to generate than its antiquated coal-fired plants at Colstrip?

The major increases in the amount of NorthWestern’s solar and wind generated electricity have not come from the corporation’s investments in building solar and wind facilities, but rather from facilities built by others that qualify for contracts and avoided cost rates under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 or PURPA, which was implemented to mandate that, among other things, energy corporations buy electricity from renewable and sustainable sources at rates that match the “avoided costs” of the utilities building new non-renewable generation facilities.

As the technology for wind and solar energy has improved and prices have dropped for solar panels, the cost for renewable sources of electricity that have come online in the last decade are far cheaper, cleaner and more efficient than NWE’s carbon-based electricity generation such as Colstrip or its methane plants.

The Northern Cheyenne are working on a solar project with the Department of Energy. Bozeman’s residents who support green energy would be much better off if NorthWestern simply bought more electricity from projects such as the Northern Cheyenne solar array or the Gallatin Power’s solar battery project near Trident. NWE has an agreement with Gallatin that it could advance. NorthWestern could accept those projects under the standard terms of avoided cost, with 25 year contracts. All NorthWestern ratepayers would all be better off if Bozeman and Missoula supported the Northern Cheyenne solar project, the Gallatin solar project, and convinced NorthWestern to stop fighting PURPA projects.

Bozeman and Missoula could also encourage solar farms of 3 megawatts or less to be built nearby. Small solar farms could get a contract at a price set by the Public Service Commission, which to date has been below the current cost Northwestern pays to generate electricity at Colstrip 3 and 4. If Bozeman was successful, there would be more renewable energy in NorthWestern’s portfolio and ratepayers would pay less not more for green electricity.

Finally there’s the fact that Montana’s Public Service Commission recently granted NorthWestern a massive 28% electricity rate increase, mainly because of the high cost of maintaining its antiquated, massively polluting and very expensive coal-fired generators at Colstrip. Electrical rates will go up even more once Northwestern’s new methane-fired electrical generating facility in Laurel comes online.

The bottom line is the City of Bozeman will make climate change worse by making residents pay more for green electricity when, in fact, it’s an energy source that costs less to produce, is far cleaner, sustainable and will help keep snow on the Bridgers in the winter and water in the Gallatin in the summer.

© Daily Montanan, 2023
ABOUT US

The Daily Montanan is a nonprofit, nonpartisan source for trusted news, commentary and insight into statewide policy and politics beneath the Big Sky.

.

[WMD]

Many. Mostly Trump, the KKK and Alex Jones.

That makes sense. At least you are honest about your sources. Now try being honest about renewables and climate change.

[old goat]

Geothermal has a ton of potential. You don’t need to be Iceland either. My home heat and ac is ran on geothermal with just a glycol loop down a 200’ borehole. All you need is an heat exchanger to capture the temperature difference.The pump is even ran on hydro power.

My monthly bill is less than my internet bill. Even in -30 and 40 C temps.

My heating bill is less than my internet bill too, and I'm heating with NG. Although that says more about the cost of internet in rural America.
I doubt ground source heat pumps will ever be practical for individual homes. For large buildings or perhaps clusters of homes in new developments. They did a ground source heat pump when they added on to Truckee High--although there was a big cost overrun. We live on top of granite.

[xyz]

Great way to go,I’m happy I did 10yrs ago. Unfortunately the up front costs are a deterrent for a lot of people. Although the subsidies help a great deal. In order to see a payback you have to commit to staying in your home for quite a few years.
I installed my own system and it’s paid for itself.

Newer homes have better insulation values but a lot of energy wasted in this country is old masonry homes with drafty windows so any investment in insulation goes a long way. Kind of a catch 22 in order to save money you have to have money.

Sure pay back can be slow depending on your energy cost, capital cost and consumption but it’s adding value, for a better resale.

The strata next to me is less attractive to ours mostly based on our geothermal system. The monthly savings are significant. Everything else is equal, location, sq ft, layout etc.

[xyz]

I doubt ground source heat pumps will ever be practical for individual homes. For large buildings or perhaps clusters of homes in new developments. They did a ground source heat pump when they added on to Truckee High--although there was a big cost overrun. We live on top of granite.

Why not? Each unit in my complex has their own individual system. Borehole, loop, heat exchanger, pump. And granite canprovide a pretty good extraction rate.

[LongShortLong]

Bunion's "Daily Montanan" post shows the political advantage solar and wind have against traditional generation, fueled by surface-level ignorance of electrical grid operation. I don't know the specifics of NorthWestern's power plant economics, but so long as they aren't paying a carbon tax, those old dirty coal plants likely provide the most useful power. Which is another way to say that if your sole concern is cheap power, using an already built dirty fossil plant is a good choice.

That author's key misunderstanding is that a power company must always instantaneously meet the demand for power. So, while wind or solar may be cheaper on a per kilowatt basis, this power is only useful to offset the operation of another power source that provides always available power. E.g. the power company must build (or contract for) enough power generation to meet evening demand and early morning demand every day, when the sun isn't shining and the wind may not blow. It does the power company little good to be able to buy cheap solar kilowatts at noon when the customer wants to run their heater at 6 am.

That said, since power grids are complicated, maybe that author has the best tactic - use misunderstanding to drive outrage against fossil plants and in favor of "cheaper" green plants. Which is probably fine given the fossil plants are only cheap because they freeride by dumping their pollution.

[old goat]

Why not? Each unit in my complex has their own individual system. Borehole, loop, heat exchanger, pump. And granite canprovide a pretty good extraction rate.

Sounds like it was done when the complex was built, which is reasonable. I'm guessing it's a pretty swanky complex, making the cost of drilling, piping etc a relatively percentage of each unit. As an option for affordable housing that's a problem. As a retrofit for existing housing--that's a problem. And it doesn't matter what the payback and increase in property value is if you can't afford the upfront cost. As far as drilling in granite--that's what caused the Truckee HS project to go way over budget. Most people don't live where it's very hard to drill, though, so Truckee's problem doesn't apply to most.

If we knew 100 years ago what we know about the climate and if we had the technology we have today--or better yet the technology we'll have in 5 or 20 or 50 years--we would have done things much differently. We wouldn't be gtrying to figure out how to charge EV's in Boston and NY, how to fit commuter rail and bus lanes into our urban grid, how to afford the land for high speed rail. We would have built houses around transit. But we're stuck with the built environment we have now and that is what makes it so challenging. And what works in Pemberton BC will not necessarily work in NYC. (Which btw is a lot more energy efficient place to live than Pemberton--since small apartments are far more efficient than freestanding houses and a lot of people in NYC rely on mass transit to the extent that they don't own cars.)

[xyz]

And it doesn't matter what the payback and increase in value is if you can't afford the upfront cost.

That pretty much sums up why the transition ain’t coming.