Climate Change

[mcski]

Can I electrify my defensible space against bears?

[jonesy]

With a Protect Our Winters sticker.

I know your right.

[shaft]

About a million dollars in sweat equity, zero in cash. But it doesn't matter a lot what I do on my 50x100 ft lot, with all the neighbors with 5 ft setbacks and lots of untreated lots and land.
We're about to vote on a $179/yr parcel tax to beef up community wide prevention, including defensible space. So if it passes--that's what I'll be spending.
What does electrification have to do with it?

What does electrification have to do with it?

Thanks for the response! All solid comments.

It's for a more tangible point of comparison, rooted locally.

We usually talk in dollar per metric ton of carbon emissions. That can be dollars per metric ton avoided, or dollars we need to spend in the future per metric ton emitted. $0-250 per ton are targets for cost-effective climate change mitigation. The Biden Admin pegs it at $50-150/ton. Then there's the cost of doing nothing. X emissions results in Y property lost, or Z dollars in wildfire mitigation effort - as an example. This gives us a metric by which to compare the cost of doing something versus the cost of doing nothing.

But all that stuff is somewhat intangible. I'm feeling as though it might be more useful in meetings and workshops to do on a household level. For example:

Cost of doing something: There is a cost to trying to prevent climate change. ~$20k per EV, ~$12-24k per fully-electrified building, installing the solar and storage to meet those loads, etc.

Cost of doing "nothing": Because we're failing on climate change, more of us have to invest in defensible space given the higher likelihood of fire. In this case, the cost of defensible space can be directly calculated. I just had a quote for $3,500 to remove a tree near my house. It looks like five were previously removed. I could arguably remove three more. Averaging $2k per tree, at 9 trees, we get $18k. Then there's the air purifiers, the delivery fees on those, the costs to go to hotels every three years for a weeks, etc, etc, etc.

Had we all spent the $12-24k from 2000-2015, we wouldn't have to spend the $18k+ now.

[old goat]

If carbon emissions went to zero tomorrow you still have to do defensible space and pay for controlled burns and thinning projects. It's not just climate change, it's a century of fire suppression and development that ignored the risks of fire. (And it's not just fires in CA. One could make a good argument that NOLA and Miami shouldn't exist--and in a couple of decades they probably won't, if not sooner.

[SumJongGuy]

If carbon emissions went to zero tomorrow you still have to do defensible space and pay for controlled burns and thinning projects. It's not just climate change, it's a century of fire suppression and development that ignored the risks of fire. (And it's not just fires in CA. One could make a good argument that NOLA and Miami shouldn't exist--and in a couple of decades they probably won't, if not sooner.

And it will take eons for the chaotic weather we're causing to settle down as well after going to zero carbon emissions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce or reverse our part in that equation. The whole planet was once one giant land mass surrounded by water. Yes, some of these changes would have happened without us, but instead generations down the road instead of now..

[AirheadD8]

And it will take eons for the chaotic weather we're causing to settle down as well after going to zero carbon emissions. ened without us, but instead generations down the road instead of now..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN22318V

Nope it would clear up pretty quickly ......

Question for the people who live fire prone areas ,if you have a well why not put in a misting system or sprinkler systems around your perimeter . A back up generator would be necessary as well .

Also maybe a stucco exterior /clay roof as well ...

[old goat]

And it will take eons for the chaotic weather we're causing to settle down as well after going to zero carbon emissions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce or reverse our part in that equation. The whole planet was once one giant land mass surrounded by water. Yes, some of these changes would have happened without us, but instead generations down the road instead of now..

I never said we shouldn't do everything we can to at least slow down climate change. My point is that it makes no sense to use the cost of defensible space in some cost benefit analysis for reducing carbon emissions. You would have to do defensible space even if the planet was cooling. Besides, at this point we're way beyond doing a cost-benefit analysis--we reduce carbon emissions as much as we can as fast as we can or we either burn to death, starve to death, or drown. Anyone who is still a skeptic is not going to be convinced by numbers.

[SumJongGuy]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN22318V

Nope it would clear up pretty quickly ......
.

Nuclear winter works quickly too. Hard to believe that poles could refreeze fast enough (volume not just extend) to make huge gains in short spans of time with just carbon reduction though. If that's what the climatologists believe though they do know better than I do.

[shaft]

Let's flip the convo for a bit. I'm of the opinion that the people on this forum love our natural spaces as much as just about anyone, but have done close to nothing since realizing there is a problem. That can be 1990 (first assessment report.) It can be 2003 (An Inconvenient Truth,) it can be 2005 (failure to ratify Kyoto.)

Prove me wrong! Let's celebrate some wins! What have you done in your personal life? What are you going to do?

• Transportation -
• Building Electric Emissions - These are self-correcting in the long-term as the grid cleans, but impt in the near-term.
• Building Gas Emissions -
• Industrial -
• Agricultural -

[rideit]

Good summary, but I'll add that there are not that that many places in the US anymore that are powered primarily by coal. And ain't nobody building new coal plants these days
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-h...es-electricity
I clicked through every state, and here are the states where coal is the largest source of power: Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
In most of them, gas (or some other form) is a very close second and the overall grid is likely clean enough that EVs have the overall advantage over ICE vehicles. If you're in WY or WV though, your electricity sucks.

Battery disposal is IMO the biggest problem right at the moment, but one that I expect will be solved sooner than later as there are a lot of smart people working on it.

Here in Western Wyoming we use Fall River Power CO-OP, which is hydro. And cheap as fuck.

[Bunion 2020]

50 billion in losses from Ida so far.

This is totally normal.

[muted reborn]

Good summary, but I'll add that there are not that that many places in the US anymore that are powered primarily by coal. And ain't nobody building new coal plants these days
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-h...es-electricity
I clicked through every state, and here are the states where coal is the largest source of power: Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
In most of them, gas (or some other form) is a very close second and the overall grid is likely clean enough that EVs have the overall advantage over ICE vehicles. If you're in WY or WV though, your electricity sucks.

Battery disposal is IMO the biggest problem right at the moment, but one that I expect will be solved sooner than later as there are a lot of smart people working on it.

That page is great in many many ways. But how prevalent is electric interstate trade when it comes to electricity? For example, how does it factor coal power from Utah that is sold to California? I've been told here in SLC we are lectured by the power companies to save electricity when we can and the hidden reason is so they can sell the extra power to CA which is more profitable than selling locally (I have no source for this btw).

And how do I know if my EV car in SLC is recharged from coal, gas, or hydro specifically in my location? I'm far from a coal plant but I'm pretty sure my EV is mainly coal powered here in SLC. Showing a bunch of coal plants on a map doesn't tell the whole story.

[muted reborn]

Jesus Christ on a stick, I just googled the biggest coal plant in Utah which is in Delta. It's owned by the City of LA and produces 1/5 of LA's power every year. Unfortunately that website isn't relevant if it shows how UT is mainly coal powered but a large amount of that power never is used in UT. I didn't realize how much CA is leeching from here.

[Bunion 2020]

Want another pisser? Was at a jobsite today where they are putting in a solar array. Curious I asked about the output. 65 KWs, but the guy mentioned that in Montana you are only allowed to produce 50 KW. I asked who came up with that stupid rule? Our Public Service Commission as an aid to Northwest Energy (main power producer in Montana). BTW our PSC is very much Republican and very Pro- NWE.

[SumJongGuy]

As far as I can tell, folks aren't allowed to store any excess energy their solar arrays bring in.. i.e. no off the grid power wall type battery backups allowed with solar arrays. Anything that exceeds your immediate draw goes back on the grid for a meager credit for the array owner and big energy marks that way up selling it to other customers.. In short, you're carrying big energy's water for them. I guess there is some green gain that the solar going back to the grid replaces the coal or nuclear or natty generated grid power.. But, Big energy essentially gets it for free (a credit to someone) then sells it at full price to others. WIN for them. You eat all the costs of maintaining the panels and your rotting roof under them..

[Skrilla Gorilla]

Clean and safe nuclear power is the only way to reduce the electricity sector's GHG emissions profile while maintaining what most of us consider an acceptably normal standard of living.

But what would I know?

[k2skier112]

Clean and safe nuclear power is the only way to reduce the electricity sector's GHG emissions profile while maintaining what most of us consider an acceptably normal standard of living.

But what would I know?

One of those words don't go with the other

THERE IS NO PERMANENT SPENT FUEL STOAGE FACILITY

[PB]

Send spent material into sun, prey for no launch glitches?
A space elevator would help reduce the risk of that first 5 minutes, but Musk would rather build subterranean roller coasters.

[Squirreljam]

for those wondering what their area's generation fuel is, you can search for your ISO (indep. system operator) and fuel mix, should be an easy find that shows you in 5 minute increments what's powering you.

ISO map is here (note, not in the business so I have no idea why much of the intermountain west isn't shown): RTOs and ISOs | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (ferc.gov)

example (midwest iso, i'm in missouri): https://api.misoenergy.org/MISORTWD/...d.html?fuelMix you can see our coal reliance is high so no electric car for me yet. The other one with high coal reliance is the spp (~ SD, Neb, Kan, OK). All the rest are much cleaner, even TX.

Edited to add - for muted, above about California imports, their iso shows the percentage of import electricity but not by where it comes from - but it's a start.

[Skrilla Gorilla]

One of those words don't go with the other

THERE IS NO PERMANENT SPENT FUEL STOAGE FACILITY

That is funny, then what is this?

[k2skier112]

A 2002 proposed plan.
Still empty and doesn't have public or government support now
Most of the waste is stored on site at Nuke plants

[adrenalated]

Here's a link from MIT researchers comparing lifecycle carbon emissions of various cars/trucks to climate targets and cost of ownership:

https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore

I didn't look into every detail in great depth but at a glance and playing with the customize tab it appears to factor in a LOT of data.

[Skrilla Gorilla]

A 2002 proposed plan.
Still empty and doesn't have public or government support now
Most of the waste is stored on site at Nuke plants

Still viable and the public (who are hip [not you]) are behind it.

An issue Donald Trump and Joe Biden both agreed on incorrectly.

And one that has impeached you.

Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk

[LongShortLong]

Jesus Christ on a stick, I just googled the biggest coal plant in Utah which is in Delta. It's owned by the City of LA and produces 1/5 of LA's power every year. Unfortunately that website isn't relevant if it shows how UT is mainly coal powered but a large amount of that power never is used in UT. I didn't realize how much CA is leeching from here.

I don't know exact details, but I think UT gets no power from there. That is 100% owned by and for LADWP. And has a dedicated transmission line to LA. So, "leached" is the wrong word. LA built its power plant in UT. The word you want is "invested" or "created" (good paying jerbs for Utahns). LA plans to shut that down soon and is deciding what to do with the site, and the transmission line. They also have some old dirty gas plants in LA they'd like to shutter and are figuring out how to close both and keep the lights on.

That coal plant is accounted in LA's and CA's energy use. I see it in my energy mix here in northern CA.

[Dantheman]

X-post from the Cool Science thread. MIT's SPARC team is predicting sustained net-energy fusion by 2025.