Another Troubling Climate Article

[DrTimPerkins]

China opens on average 35 new coal fires power plants every day!

Do you have a source for that number? What I've seen is more like around one new plant every 7.5-10 days, which would be somewhere around 36-48 per YEAR. They had issued permits for 210 new plants, although that spans several years of construction. Even that number is misleading as some of these are replacing older plants and some are reducing operating hours at older plants. In the last few years, Chinese CO2 emissions have actually started to drop a little as the growth rate of their economy slows.

[psparr]

I don't recall where and maybe it was per year. But to emphasize my point even at that rate, someone's Prius isn't making up peanuts.

And also ethanol, again I forget the source, but it supposedly takes more energy and emissions to create it than you benefit from it. Just another well thinking poorly thought out hairbrained scheme.

[SeanD]

When comparing offsets, you have to compare apples to apples. A new coal plant going on line in China can be offset by one going off line in Germany, or (gulp) the USA. For the person driving the Prius, it offsets the higher emission vehicle they would be driving anyway.

As for ethanol, or any other attempt at doing something helpful, I say have at it. Keep trying. Behind every success is a long line of failure. Look how affordable PV panels are now. Those were out of reach for the average electricity user as recently as ten years ago. Look how much improvement there is in fuel efficiency over the last ten years. Where could we be ten years from now?

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

[DrTimPerkins]

I don't recall where and maybe it was per year.

No problem, but earlier in this thread I believe there was a discussion of facts (perhaps it was another thread), so I thought it pertinent to correct the statement given that it was off by two orders of magnitude. Feel free to continue the discussion without me.

You are all to be commended on keeping this conversation rather civil.

[psparr]

No problem, but earlier in this thread I believe there was a discussion of facts (perhaps it was another thread), so I thought it pertinent to correct the statement given that it was off by two orders of magnitude. Feel free to continue the discussion without me.

You are all to be commended on keeping this conversation rather civil.

No offense taken. It's hard to track down sources whilst your supposed to be "working".

[mudr]

The majority of environmental scientists I know do not like or even despise the notion of ethanol as an answer to our climate change problem. As noted above, it takes more energy to produce than it actually provides. At this point, the major players that actually push for and support ethanol are large chemical companies and the Midwest corn lobbyists.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[berkshires]

The majority of environmental scientists I know do not like or even despise the notion ethanol as an answer to our climate change problem. As noted above, it takes more energy to produce than it actually provides. At this point, the major players that actually push for and support ethanol are large chemical companies and the Midwest corn lobbyists.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I wonder if that's still true. If I'm reading it right, according to the USDA (https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/ene...ornEthanol.pdf) "energy input for ethanol production declined to 9,007 BTU/gal." And the actual number of BTU in a gallon of ethanol is 76,100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoli...lon_equivalent)

So if you're just looking at energy in over energy out, it's 9/76 = 12%. This may be higher than some other fuels, but it's a far cry from "more energy to produce than it provides".

Gabe

[berkshires]

I think the bigger objection to ethanol is that you're taking what's essentially surplus food and using it to fuel cars. To many people, this just seems wrong, when there are people who are starving in the world.

[mudr]

I wonder if that's still true. If I'm reading it right, according to the USDA (https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/ene...ornEthanol.pdf) "energy input for ethanol production declined to 9,007 BTU/gal." And the actual number of BTU in a gallon of ethanol is 76,100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoli...lon_equivalent)

So if you're just looking at energy in over energy out, it's 9/76 = 12%. This may be higher than some other fuels, but it's a far cry from "more energy to produce than it provides".

Gabe

Man, last I heard it took something like 1.1 units of energy to make 1.0 unites of ethanol energy. If that 12% is true, that is phenomenal. That said, I am skeptical and need to look into it. It seems too good to be true.

I think the bigger objection to ethanol is that you're taking what's essentially surplus food and using it to fuel cars. To many people, this just seems wrong, when there are people who are starving in the world.

Yes, yes, yes! This is the other half. It is a waste. Thank you for bringing it up.

[eustis22]

>Remember the scientists telling us the BP oil spill would damage the ecosystem for generations?

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/400374744/5-years-after-bp-oil-spill-effects-linger-and-recovery-is-slow

According to NOAA, March 2017 marks "the first time a monthly temperature departure from average surpasses 1.0°C (1.8°F) in the absence of an El Niño episode in the tropical Pacific Ocean."