A few days before elections Obama signed the Paris Agreement. Did he have democratic legitimation to do so?
I don't care if the US rejoins the Paris Agreement with their 2050/ 2060 commitments. I like politicians that commit for their time in power.

So how serious to take that 2 trillion $ commitment?

That depends on a lot of things - legislative will, political capital, compromise, effective arguments against conventional wisdom on Wall Street. The MBA next-quarter's-results-are-everything mentality must be countered by the actuarial reality that spending money on mitigation now will reduce contingency requirements for massive disruptions like flooding and relocations into the future. Not to mention potential sea changes in agriculture and food production methods.

Forgot the link.
However no further information in it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54858638

Anybody has some more infos?

I don't understand what else it is you wish to know.

Aaron747 wrote:

I don't understand what else it is you wish to know.

What technologies to subsidize with how much.

Ia nuclear energy being included in the plan to slow climate change in the US?

c933103 wrote:

Ia nuclear energy being included in the plan to slow climate change in the US?

The cheapest energy shall win. Today this is not nuclear, oil nor coal.

What is the cheapest?.

olle wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Is nuclear energy being included in the plan to slow climate change in the US?

The cheapest energy shall win. Today this is not nuclear, oil nor coal.

It depends on how you calculate the cost and for what purposes. There are no single answer

c933103 wrote:

olle wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Is nuclear energy being included in the plan to slow climate change in the US?

The cheapest energy shall win. Today this is not nuclear, oil nor coal.

It depends on how you calculate the cost and for what purposes. There are no single answer

One simple example is this;

Power Plant Type Cost (LCOE)$/kW-hr
Coal with CCS $0.12-0.13
CC Natural Gas $0.043
CC with CCS $0.075
Nuclear $0.093
Wind onshore $0.037
Wind offshore $0.106
Solar PV $0.038
Solar Thermal $0.165
Geothermal $0.037
Biomass $0.092
Hydro $0.039

Hyundai IONIQ Elektro Trend Hyundai i30 1.4 T-GDI Trend DCT
Consumption per 100 km 14,7kwh 5,2 liter
Electricity/ fuel pric 0,3 1,5
Energy/ fuel consumption cost 662 € 1170 €
(15.000 km per year)

Nuclear does not include the cost of insurance. How do you insure against Fukushima or Chernobyl? So even that the initial cost for Nuclear is high it has a political risk that more or less makes it impossible in one democratic country.

In general today solar energy together with wind onshore is the most cost effective solution even around Stockholm where I live. Wind offshore is on same level as Nuclear but more expensive the gas. But in countries like Sweden and Germany without local production of oil and gas it is political correct to add tax on oil and gas making it more cheap with even offshore wind compared to gas.

Hydro is in most cases political dead. In Scandinavia it is impossible to destroy more rivers with Hydro.

For me personally when I install solar panels in a close future the calculation will also be a pension plan. I will pay today for future electrical power and replacement of Diesel that I pay today with an income higher then my pension. On an investment of Solar on my house I get a payback per year of 20%. No other investment I know with low risk will do any similar.


http://www.renewable-energysources.com/

https://www.mobilityhouse.com/int_en/kn ... e-annually

olle wrote:

c933103 wrote:

olle wrote:

The cheapest energy shall win. Today this is not nuclear, oil nor coal.

It depends on how you calculate the cost and for what purposes. There are no single answer

One simple example is this;

Power Plant Type Cost (LCOE)$/kW-hr
Coal with CCS $0.12-0.13
CC Natural Gas $0.043
CC with CCS $0.075
Nuclear $0.093
Wind onshore $0.037
Wind offshore $0.106
Solar PV $0.038
Solar Thermal $0.165
Geothermal $0.037
Biomass $0.092
Hydro $0.039

What is the source for this, if I may ask. What the cheapest energy source is - ignoring the environmental cost of course - is quite dependent on local circumstances. Off shore wind parks are the cheapest source of energy at the moment in the Netherlands.

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

c933103 wrote:

It depends on how you calculate the cost and for what purposes. There are no single answer

One simple example is this;

Power Plant Type Cost (LCOE)$/kW-hr
Coal with CCS $0.12-0.13
CC Natural Gas $0.043
CC with CCS $0.075
Nuclear $0.093
Wind onshore $0.037
Wind offshore $0.106
Solar PV $0.038
Solar Thermal $0.165
Geothermal $0.037
Biomass $0.092
Hydro $0.039

What is the source for this, if I may ask. What the cheapest energy source is - ignoring the environmental cost of course - is quite dependent on local circumstances. Off shore wind parks are the cheapest source of energy at the moment in the Netherlands.

In the source it is stated;

This table compares the US average levelized electricity cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour for both non-renewable and alternative fuels in new power plants, based on US EIA statistics and analysis from Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (data for coal and combined-cycle (CC) with CCS are taken from 2018 report).

So of course if you build onshore wind mills in non populated areas or EU like Lappland (northen Scandinavia) the cost will be lower then try to do this in Netherlands

This was estimated as mentioned for USA in 2018 and the cost today not mentioned 2025 will be much lower for Solar and wind including offshore. Gas in this table is calculated with low USA prices not prices in EU and still it cannot compete.

Hydro and until Nuclear of political reasons is phased out will probably be used to balance special the wind production.

I can see that Hydro from Scandinavia will have that role in the future as Gas in USA.

bennett123 wrote:

What is the cheapest?.

using less ( i.e. being more efficient.

WIederling wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

What is the cheapest?.

using less ( i.e. being more efficient.

Gasoline / Diesel has between 50-55% efficiency.

Electric engine has between 80-90% efficiency.

So if for example a truck takes the power directly from grid in theory it will use less energy. Then of course Truck uses more energy vs Rail, but for example a Truck using Electric source like hydro or wind might be overall more efficient as a transport system for JIT etc.

Also from a climate perspective a Truck using wind generated power for example by night might use power that anyway cannot be used if it is autonomous and the driver is asleep.

olle wrote:

In the source it is stated;

This table compares the US average levelized electricity cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour for both non-renewable and alternative fuels in new power plants, based on US EIA statistics and analysis from Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (data for coal and combined-cycle (CC) with CCS are taken from 2018 report).

So of course if you build onshore wind mills in non populated areas or EU like Lappland (northen Scandinavia) the cost will be lower then try to do this in Netherlands

This was estimated as mentioned for USA in 2018 and the cost today not mentioned 2025 will be much lower for Solar and wind including offshore. Gas in this table is calculated with low USA prices not prices in EU and still it cannot compete.

So I take it as it haven't take into account development in nuclear power plant technology in term of both safety and efficiency in the past three decades, as most nuclear plants that have been built and are now delivering electricity in the US are designed before that point?

WIederling wrote:

using less ( i.e. being more efficient.

People will always strive for efficiency, but ultimately efficiency gains get eaten up by the rebound effect, i.e.:

Ten years ago, energy efficiency light bulbs were all the rave, today we use more and more "smart bulbs" which have to be "always on" in the background to use their full functionality.

These days, fridges are way more efficient than they used to be but they've also gotten bigger and bigger on average.

Conventional cars use less and less fuel, but they've on average also become bigger, more complicated and have more PS.


People want bigger, better and more of it. Focussing on efficiency and preaching frugality is not going to work to takle climate change, not even in very wealthy, highly educated societies. A focus on emission free (or almost-) energy generation, mindful of an ever increasing demand, and innovations in recyclability are paramount.

c933103 wrote:

Ia nuclear energy being included in the plan to slow climate change in the US?

It should be, but there is a stigma attached to nuclear due to several well publicized accidents. It's also incredibly expensive to build a nuclear plant which is why no new ones have been built in the US for quite some time. When done right, it's clean and has a virtually inexhaustible fuel supply. Yes, waste is an issue but there are emerging technologies that can help with that.

olle wrote:

One simple example is this;

Power Plant Type Cost (LCOE)$/kW-hr
Coal with CCS $0.12-0.13
CC Natural Gas $0.043
CC with CCS $0.075
Nuclear $0.093
Wind onshore $0.037
...(etc)

I realize you lifted this directly from the article, but the presentation might benefit from
1) explaining "LCOE" for the non-technical here
2) re-arranging the list in order of cost

$/kW-hr / Power Plant Type
$0.037 Geothermal
$0.037 Wind onshore
$0.038 Solar PV
$0.039 Hydro
$0.043 CC Natural Gas
$0.075 CC with CCS
$0.092 Biomass
$0.093 Nuclear
$0.106 Wind offshore
$0.125 Coal with CCS
$0.165 Solar Thermal

Personally, I am amazed that "Solar - Thermal" is at the bottom of the list. Aren't we talking about an array of mirrors, and a steam boiler? It's 200 year old technology. Why such a poor return? Is it being over-engineered? Does it require a lot of maintenance?

This one is from 1901, with a very simple system for tracking the sun across the sky.


Thx as usual to wikipedia

Dutchy wrote:

the cheapest energy source is .... quite dependent on local circumstances.

Absolutely!

olle wrote:

So of course if you build onshore wind mills in non populated areas or EU like Lappland (northen Scandinavia) the cost will be lower then try to do this in Netherlands
Gas in this table is calculated with low USA prices not prices in EU and still it cannot compete.

Interesting!

Can you imagine all the wealth to be made from this money gusher of corruption? We're openly talking about diverting trillions of dollars from the people who have it (or don't have it) into new government-connected initiatives. Families connected to the government will get all that money. And they're openly talking about it. Just thought that's interesting, how brazen this is.

It's become normalized to talk about trillions of dollars being redistributed.

The same goal could be accomplished with a revenue-neutral carbon tax, costing zero money. But that wouldn't serve the goal of giving $2 trillion to families connected to the government.

The cost of renewables are not true.
For each kW of solar or wind one has to install 1kW (or 98% of it) backup. So capital cost is maybe double.
I'm all for renewables. But using these statistics is not sincere.

From the discussion so far I conclude nobody knows what measures are planned. Sounds like the EU bla, bla.

LCDFlight : I'm all for a carbon tax, in fact I'm pretty sure it will be the norm in some years/decades, but it's not that easy to implement, especially if you want to make it "revenue-neutral". You have to figure out how to give money back to people/companies, while keeping the incentive to reduce emissions of course. Let's say you're driving a gas guzzling sports car, surely you can't be giving back the tax revenue to the owner ? Now if it's a gas guzzling old beater owned by a poor family that can't replace it, then surely you should ?

Sokes : I was going to make that point, the cost doesn't take into account the intermittent nature of most renewables (hydro less so, until there is a draught that is). Some of the money should in fact go to large scale storage, which is already developping.

SheikhDjibouti : my guess is economy of scale is poor, and electricity production is low, making the cost/kW high. The power plants use steam turbines so that's expensive, and using solar to make high pressure, high temperature steam is difficult. I found something about it here : https://tlo.mit.edu/technologies/high-e ... at%20night. I'm pretty sure the first modern plant built in France in the 70's or something used mirrors on a hill like suggested. And have heard of using molten salts, allowing to make electricity at night, but I guess this has proven difficult/expensive too. Mass produced PV panels, regularly increasing in efficiency and cheapness, are hard to beat.

Also LCDFlight, about corruption, isn't that US politics in a nutshell ? Didn't Trump put oil barons directly in his cabinet ?

Aesma wrote:

And have heard of using molten salts, allowing to make electricity at night, but I guess this has proven difficult/expensive too. Mass produced PV panels, regularly increasing in efficiency and cheapness, are hard to beat.

How much money was put into solar cells and how much in solar towers?

Ignoring seasonal influences: solar cells deliver lots of electricity from 9:00-15:00.
If 50% solar cells are fixed facing South East, 50% South West one can gain maybe two hours and smoothen production a bit.
If molten salt runs a gas turbine till 22:00, electricity from solar towers is much more valuable than from solar cells.

When the sun goes down temperature drops a few degrees Celsius. With every ten degrees increase in temperature air can store roughly double the water. So if hot air with 70% relative humidity drops a few degrees, cooling the body by evaporation/ sweat becomes difficult.
In Goa by 16:30 I want to start my air conditioning to remove humidity from the air.
Solar cells aren't usefull for this application.

Solar towers are a needed technology and we are at the beginning of the learning curve.
Compared to solar cells I expect financing the learning curve to be rather cheap.
Pitty no politician is throwing money at it.

If Biden is going to take over I'm willing to forget my big love Trump.

ER757 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Ia nuclear energy being included in the plan to slow climate change in the US?

It should be, but there is a stigma attached to nuclear due to several well publicized accidents. It's also incredibly expensive to build a nuclear plant which is why no new ones have been built in the US for quite some time. When done right, it's clean and has a virtually inexhaustible fuel supply. Yes, waste is an issue but there are emerging technologies that can help with that.

The thing is, will Biden let it be?