StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Coal is awful and I really hope it doesn't become competitive price-wise again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 If the clean air act is gutted so EPA can never regulate again, then I have no hope. But if they ignore that, then I think there would still be sluggishness to invest in new coal plants. You would still have threat of uncertainty that future pols could heavily regulate. Solar has made a lot of progress and can be tech/product can be exported. I have glimmering hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I'm sure shack has more insight into this, but my understanding is that cheap natural gas has killed off coal more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) If the clean air act is gutted so EPA can never regulate again, then I have no hope. But if they ignore that, then I think there would still be sluggishness to invest in new coal plants. You would still have threat of uncertainty that future pols could heavily regulate. Solar has made a lot of progress and can be tech/product can be exported. I have glimmering hope. Yeah, the utility industry is not a fan of this result exactly for the reason you mention...they have started down the clear path away from coal and towards renewables, which requires all kinds of long-term planning and investment. Most utilities have plans to retire coal units in the next 5-10 years, and have also greatly reduced their use due to cost factors. The thought of reversing course on this path is a bit alarming, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Thanks shack, interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) I'm sure shack has more insight into this, but my understanding is that cheap natural gas has killed off coal more than anything. It has for now, but these prices won't stay this cheap forever. And when they rise, the pressure to revert to coal will be there, particularly if these resources haven't been retired and/or aren't subject to as much environmental regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) It has for now, but these prices won't stay this cheap forever. And when they rise, the pressure to revert to coal will be there, particularly if these resources haven't been retired and/or aren't subject to as much environmental regulation. With the technological development of the last 8 years, I'd say there is strong reason to suspect that oil and gas will remain impressively cheap for the next 4+ years. The oil and gas industry have clearly been prepping for that - they're focusing on oil fields that can be profitable at about a $50/barrel price or less right now, types of unconventional resources that 3 years ago could have been developed at $100/barrel are now profitable at $50/barrel because they've gotten better at this. Natural gas is in a similar boat - there are huge volumes of now accessible resources that would respond pretty rapidly as a feedback to increasing prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 10, 2016 Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) Won't have to worry about Florida anymore on election day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Director of comms from Exxon mobile https://twitter.com/SuzanneMcCarron/status/...747352816156672 There's a chance the global push has made it more incentivized to appear conscious regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 The largest oil deposit ever found in America was just discovered in Texas RIP Canadian oil fields Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2016 -> 11:31 AM) I'm ok with this. Shorter drive to the beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I bet some of that future beach front land is really cheap now too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 05:42 PM) I bet some of that future beach front land is really cheap now too. Problem is you can't predict where the beach will be. The exact sea level rise in a single location isn't just a function of total volume of the oceans, you also have to worry about ocean current changes and ocean temperature changes in specific spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Starting to get emails for conferences discussing the future of US environmental regulations and policies under the Trump administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Mining in the Grand Canyon, here we come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Well nobody else has mentioned it. There's an ongoing camp in North Dakota on the Standing Rock native American Reservation in protest of a planned pipeline that would go close to their camp and which would tunnel underneath the Missouri River - their main source of drinking water. Pipeline spills aren't uncommon enough that I can clearly say they're wrong to be worried - a spill on that pipeline could end their stable drinking water supply, and permitting such construction without the permission of the tribe would seemingly violate the text of treaties with the Sioux. The company and state have been using progressively more aggressive tactics to try to remove the encampment. Last night, in 25 degree fahrenheit weather, they turned a combination of tear gas, rubber bullets, and fire hoses on the encampment. Spraying hundreds of people with water in sub-freezing temperatures - apparently law enforcement doing it. Something like 20 people were hospitalized. This is pretty far from ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share Posted November 22, 2016 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 05:36 PM) Well nobody else has mentioned it. There's an ongoing camp in North Dakota on the Standing Rock native American Reservation in protest of a planned pipeline that would go close to their camp and which would tunnel underneath the Missouri River - their main source of drinking water. Pipeline spills aren't uncommon enough that I can clearly say they're wrong to be worried - a spill on that pipeline could end their stable drinking water supply, and permitting such construction without the permission of the tribe would seemingly violate the text of treaties with the Sioux. The company and state have been using progressively more aggressive tactics to try to remove the encampment. Last night, in 25 degree fahrenheit weather, they turned a combination of tear gas, rubber bullets, and fire hoses on the encampment. Spraying hundreds of people with water in sub-freezing temperatures - apparently law enforcement doing it. Something like 20 people were hospitalized. This is pretty far from ok. Great to see Obama silent over all of this. SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 09:30 PM) Great to see Obama silent over all of this. SMH Per press reports one of them was hit by one of those flash/bang style concussion grenades and is in surgery having an arm amputated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Meanwhile, something bizarre is happening right now at both of the planet's poles. Normally at this time of year, Antarctic sea ice has begun melting while Arctic Sea ice is reforming. Both Antarctica and the Arctic are simultaneously at the lowest volume of sea ice ever recorded at this time of year. Antarctica is melting far faster than has been observed in any previous year. So far, Antarctica has been somewhat shielded from sea ice collapses as we've seen in the arctic due to a combination of melting on the continent (add fresh water to the ocean and it freezes easier) and the ozone hole (driving increased winds around the continent). The rapid dropoff there this year beyond what was seen even in years preceded by little melting on the continent could be an indication that we've entered a new regime - that melting is no longer being prevented by what is happening on the continent and another effect, like warming of subsurface waters, could be taking over. This has been predicted in some models of the interaction between Antarctica and the ocean. The Arctic might be even more alarming. The Arctic is right now in winter, meaning most of the sea ice is not seeing the sun at all. It's supposed to be refreezing right now - how could it not be freezing if it gets no sun? Well, there is less sea ice today than there was a week ago in the Arctic. A warm system pushed northward and is now hanging out over the arctic keeping temperatures above freezing even without sunlight. There's no record of sea ice melting in the Arctic during November in the historic measurements going back to 1979. Again this suggests the entry to a new regime/new normal in the Arctic. One of the things some groups have been pushing the last few years is that their model results show that as you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, you weaken the jet streams that mark the boundaries between convection cells - heat up the poles and there is less temperature difference from one cell to another. A plausible result of weakening the jet streams is that it becomes easier for high temperature systems to move north and push Arctic air south. We saw things like that with the "Polar Vortex" events in 2014, but one year didn't make a trend. Basically that exact setup is happening again except the cold air this time has been pushed to Russia for now, and the warm air is so intense that the ice cap is melting in November. This type of behavior is now becoming common. Interactive Arctic Sea Ice graphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share Posted November 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/news/washington-state...-085352960.html 8 high school students in Washington state sue over climate change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Unintended consequences... Protected forests in Europe felled to meet EU renewable targets – report Protected forests are being indiscriminately felled across Europe to meet the EU's renewable energy targets, according to an investigation by the conservation group Birdlife. Up to 65% of Europe's renewable output currently comes from bioenergy, involving fuels such as wood pellets and chips, rather than wind and solar power. Bioenergy fuel is supposed to be harvested from residue such as forest waste but, under current legislation, European bioenergy plants do not have to produce evidence that their wood products have been sustainably sourced. Birdlife found logging taking place in conservation zones such as Poloniny national park in eastern Slovakia and in Italian riverside forests around Emilia-Romagna, where it said it had been falsely presented as flood-risk mitigation. ... Jori Sihvonen, the biofuels officer at Transport and Environment, which co-authored the report, said: "It is easy to fall into thinking that all bioenergy is sustainable, but time and again we see some forms of it can be worse for society, the natural environment and, in the case of burning land-based biofuels or whole trees, even the climate. "The European commission should phase out all land-based biofuels by 2030 and devote greater efforts to promoting sustainable renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal and tidal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/...dustry-michigan Is the $3.33 cited from michigan.gov for coal here before or after any regulatory costs? If costs are removed is cost of coal closer in line to natural gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts