Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How much damage could 250 million tons of CO2 really do anyway?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:25 AM
Original message
How much damage could 250 million tons of CO2 really do anyway?
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 10:27 AM by FBaggins
What's a couple hundred million tons between friends?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/us-germany-en...

A coal trader supplying German utilities said: "All the German utilities have bought some coal just recently and are now re-assessing what they need through the summer and for the winter.

"The change to the nuclear policy is looking rather positive for coal burn in Germany through the year."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. They aren't just "re-assessing" it, they're doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same corporate coin
They don't give a fig which one they use to poison us with, as long as we don't switch to renewables and cut their large centralized generation out of the picture entirely.

If the rightwing hadn't been obstructing renewables at every turn we wouldn't be in this situation now. Crowing about the situation they set up isn't fooling anyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Except that renewables are just as "centralized" as everything else.
Unless you seriously believe that you can generate all the power we'll ever need by putting solar panels on peoples roofs. Which is wrong.

Despite what you like to push, there is no substantial overlap between coal and nuclear interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Now many times do you need your nose rubbed in the truth?
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 09:12 PM by kristopher
Note the very first myth they bust is the one you just tried to perpetuate.

Dept of Energy Myths about Solar Electricity Jan 2003

Myths about Solar Electricity

The area required for PV systems to supply the United States with its electricity is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1
Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nations electricity needs.

Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with todays commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the
50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of Americas current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nations cities.

Myth #2 ** (see footnote added by K)
Solar electricity can do everythingright now!

Solar electricity will eventually contribute a significant part of our electricity supply, but the industry required to produce these systems must grow more than tenfold over the next 10 years. In 2001, about 400 megawatts of solar electric modules were produced worldwide. According to an industry-planning document, in order to supply just 10% of U.S. generation capacity by 2030, the U.S. solar electricity industry must supply more than 3,200 megawatts per year. Most experts agree that with continued research, solar electric systems will become more efficient, even more reliable, and less expensive.

Myth #3
Producing solar electric systems creates pollution and uses more energy than the system can produce over its lifetime.

Producing solar electric systems uses energy and produces some unwanted byproducts. However, most solar electric systems pay back the energy used to produce them in about one year. Because the systems generally last 30 years, during the 30 years of a system's life, it is producing free and clean electricity for 29 of those years.
Production of solar electric systems is regulated by rigorous safety and pollution control standards. In addition, during the lifetime of a solar electric system, pollution that would have been emitted by conventional generation of electricity is avoided. For each kilowatt of solar electric generating capacity, the pollution avoided by not using fossil fuels to produce electricity amounts to 9 kilograms of sulfuric oxide, 16 kilograms of nitrous oxide, and between 600 and 2,300 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. The annual amount of carbon dioxide offset by a 2.5-kW rooftop residential solar electric system is equal to that emitted by a typical family car during that same year.

Myth #4
Solar electric systems make sense in only a few applications.

Solar electric systems make sense nearly anywhere electricity is needed. Homes and businesses that are already using electricity from the utility, such as homes, businesses, and electric-vehicle charging stations, represent nearly 60% of the market for solar electric systems. The number of these grid-connected applications is growing because they make sense economically, environmentally, and aesthetically. Solar electric systems make economic sense because they use free fuel from the sun and require little upkeep because they have no moving parts. Every bit of electricity produced is used in the home or sold back to the electric utility for use by other customers. Solar electric systems also make sense for the environment and can blend seamlessly into the design of a building.

Myth #5
Solar electric systems are unreliable and produce substandard electricity.
Solar electric systems are some of the most reliable products available today. They are silent, have no moving parts, and have been tested to rigorous standards by public and private organizations. Many solar electric products have been tested and listed by Underwriters Laboratories, just as electrical appliances are. Warranties of 20-25 years are standard for most modules.
Solar electric systems connected to the utility grid generate the same kind of power as that from the power line. Todays systems must meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code, the local utility, and local building codes. Once these systems are installed according to these requirements, the owner of a solar-electric-powered home has electricity of the same quality as any other utility customer.

Myth #6
It is difficult to make solar electric systems aesthetically pleasing and functional for homes and businesses.
The buildings shown here include solar electric systems serving dual functions: building structure and generation of electricity. These photos represent only a small sample of the beautiful, functional, and energy-efficient buildings being designed with solar electric components. (download for photos- link below)
In the future, people will reflect on our current solar electric technology much as we reflect on the technology of the Model T Ford: with admiration for the pioneering visionaries of the day and perhaps amusement at the technology that seems so primitive compared to what we now enjoy. Researchers believe that in the future, new physics and technologies will be developed that will greatly improve solar energy technology. As for the present day, clean, reliable solar electricity is increasingly popular with home and business owners, which helps to dispel the myths surrounding this technology.


Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003

www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf


**At the time this DOE pamphlet was written, the US was the leader in PV - now we are 5th. The global solar manufacturing capacity is now more relevant since the Republicans have successfully obstructed every policy that would have helped the industry grow here. You can see from this discussion, however, that China's manufacturing capacity is expected to hit 35GW/year this year. That compares to the 3GW of manufacturing capacity identified in myth #2.

Before 2007, China wasn't even on the radar. After Fukushima, what do you think they are going to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Also see this report from IEER
"carbon free nuclear free a roadmap to U.S. energy policy"
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. See this report
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

"Carbon Free Nuclear Free A Roadmap to U.S. Energy Policy" it begs to differ....
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Always the same industry-imposed false dichotomy: "nuclear or more coal"
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 10:44 AM by leveymg
As if solar/wind/renewables and conservation don't exist. :eyes: :nuke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

Do you guys work in teams?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. They don't.
There are no solar/wind/renewable power options to fill the generation void today... or next tuesday... or a year from now. It's possible that they can't do it for MANY years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Not nearly as long as it will take to build new nuclear plants, after this.
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 11:00 AM by leveymg
That option is even further on the far side of the time horizon.

Just accept it. The nuclear industry just blew itself up. Time that investment capital started flowing toward real green industries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes, the nuclear industry is pining for the fjords
But the question remains - if nations dump nuclear today, how do they get from here to the halcyon future of wind and sun without major disruptions in their energy supply? The only answer that's on the table at the moment is fossil fuels. Reality sucks, but it is what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I predict there will be nuclear plants operating into the 22nd Century. Just not as many.
If they want to continue building bombs, they'll need reactors. That's been the primary purpose behind "the peaceful atom" all along, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Please read this report....
It says we can go to solar wind and wave today.

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, "Carbon-free Nuclear-free; A Roadmap to U.S. Energy Policy."

http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. We aren't talking about new plants...
...we're talking about closing ones that are already constructed.

Just accept it. The nuclear industry just blew itself up

Wishing doesn't make it so. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Again, not according to this research.
I've yet to see one person say why this paper is wrong.

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research - "Carbon Free Nuclear Free A Roadmap to U.S. Energy Policy".

Preface
A three-fold global energy crisis has emerged since the 1970s; it is now acute on all fronts.
1. Severe climate change, caused mainly by emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and associated emissions of other greenhouse gases; 2. The security of oil supplies, given the political and military turmoil in much of the oil exporting world, centered in the Persian Gulf region; 3. Nuclear weapons proliferation and its potential connections to the spread of
nuclear energy to address climate change.

These issues are intimately connected. Oil is a leading source of global and U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as well as a principal source of local air pollution, and often the main one in cities. Concerns about the insecurity of oil supply are not new they were expressed as long ago as 1952 by the Paley Commission,1 when the United States was just turning from an oil exporter to an oil importer. To complicate matters, many, including some environmentalists, now propose that nuclear power should be one of the sources of energy used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. energy legislation of 2005 provides significant subsidies, not only for renewable energy sources, but also for new nuclear power plants.2 But nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation are quite entangled with one another.
This report is not about the tangle of these difficult problems, but about a cen- tral, indeed indispensable, part of the solution greatly reducing U.S. emissions from fossil fuel burning, which constituted 84 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. Its focus is to assess the feasibility of a zero-CO2 economy in the United States and to lay out a roadmap to achieve that as early as is techni- cally and economically practical, without resort to nuclear power. This preface lays out the reasoning for that framework and discusses the scope of the report.

http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Note to self
Never, ever post in a goddamned argument clinic thread.
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. What might happen in the next nine years. You don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC