Reply #22: Straw man arguments and ignorance are all you offer

[kristopher]

joshcryer wrote:

No, you do *not* address why "future generation would have to wait" if you iavoided NG where....

...possible. You simply do not address it. It's NG or nothing. Period. That's your view. It is stupid, and it will not, I repeat, *not* reduce our emissions before 2030 r 2040 or perhaps until you are long dead. That's the reality we are facing.

It is obvious you have nothing worthwhile to say except "no". You have no data, no rationale, no logic, no plan, no vision, no understanding and lack even the most basic analytic skills.

Will you please stop smoking dope so that your posts are at least comprehensible?

Here study this when you are sober. I've added a couple of points of clarification.
... renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying what you suggested, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity to be put into place *before* they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. Coal used in the electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is. Coal can't do that.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.


(Added)This is a critical point you may not be aware of - a coal plant runs and all other generation conforms to its generating profile. This profile is one where the coal turbine runs virtually 24/7 whether it is generating needed power or not. The move to renewables augmented initially by natural gas creates a totally different machine (it is helpful sometimes to think of the grid as a single machine), one in which the individual elements conform more directly to user needs than to the efficiencies associated with large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is the creation of this machine (much of it from the existing elements of the current grid) that will place the economic emphasis on noncarbon sources for all future decision related to delivering power to users. By sending these strong signals to grid managers, it will act to lower prices for the components and that enables the community level power planning and development that you claim you want.


What I'm describing to you IS the shift in the "dominate (sic) paradigm" you feel jacobson is talking about. It this redesign of the machine and the inevitability of its nature that is most meaningful in the elimination of fossil fuels.

Here is another quote for you from Jacobson that you might not have noticed in your zeal to find something to support your foolishness. I'm sure that if you'd been reading for understanding it would have made a bit more of an impression, " Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants..." p61


When he says "stick with fossil fuels" he is referring to the design of the machine, large scale centralized thermal generation.