The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^that works in Quebec where Electricity is proportionately much cheaper than natural gas heating, but in Ontario, it is most certainly the other way around. Electricity costs in Ontario, where I now live, are very steep, compared to my home province of Quebec.

The all-electric bit can be optional. Though, I suspect the balance will be changing substantially with the carbon tax going from 8¢/m3 today to 33¢/m3 in 2030.

What I'm getting at here though is just building better homes to begin with. A fully passive house design is so good that you can heat the home on a glorified hair dryer. I'm not even exaggerating. So even if the home is using a gas furnace, the amount consumed should be down substantially. And of course, if one goes full net zero with solar panels (beyond what I'm suggesting), there's no bills at all.

Here's a video of a home in tropical Alberta to help explain.

• Video Link

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I personally avoid beef where I can - half for health benefits of avoiding red meat, and half because of the insane carbon footprint of it. Probably 80% of my meat consumption is either fish or chicken. A lot of dishes that require beef I subsitute ground Turkey, which generally has similarish flavours (Chili, spaghetti, etc.)

I don't know about where you are located, but here we can fairly easily source meat that is more sustainably grown. True grass fed beef raised in a natural environment. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good, and of course cows and other grass eating animals are important parts of the ecosystem anyway.

It costs more, tastes better, and we eat less in smaller portions.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^that works in Quebec where Electricity is proportionately much cheaper than natural gas heating, but in Ontario, it is most certainly the other way around. Electricity costs in Ontario, where I now live, are very steep, compared to my home province of Quebec.

Electricity is cheap in BC, but electric heating (and hot water) is still significantly more expensive for the same home.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The all-electric bit can be optional. Though, I suspect the balance will be changing substantially with the carbon tax going from 8¢/m3 today to 33¢/m3 in 2030.

What I'm getting at here though is just building better homes to begin with. A fully passive house design is so good that you can heat the home on a glorified hair dryer. I'm not even exaggerating. So even if the home is using a gas furnace, the amount consumed should be down substantially. And of course, if one goes full net zero with solar panels (beyond what I'm suggesting), there's no bills at all.

Here's a video of a home in tropical Alberta to help explain.

• Video Link

I get this, and I totally support new construction that includes the cost of externalities (and by extension, provides rebates for construction that minimizes such externalities). That said, there already is not enough new construction to satisfy demand, and unless we can inexpensively retrofit a substantial portion of existing homes, the electricity cost difference is going to hinder any widespread switching (and in Ontario, the relative scarcity of electricity generating capacity) from natural gas heating.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I get this, and I totally support new construction that includes the cost of externalities (and by extension, provides rebates for construction that minimizes such externalities). That said, there already is not enough new construction to satisfy demand, and unless we can inexpensively retrofit a substantial portion of existing homes, the electricity cost difference is going to hinder any widespread switching (and in Ontario, the relative scarcity of electricity generating capacity) from natural gas heating.

Once again, I'm not arguing that switching from NG to electric heating has to be mandated.

But let's at least start with mandating that homes are built to near passive house standards so that they require a lot less energy (in whatever form it is delivered) to begin with. We shouldn't be building more liabilities when we have the technology and knowledge to cut building emissions substantially today with long term net savings. We're literally building homes today that we know will have $200 gas bills in a decade.

Doing this at the time of construction saves a whole lot of time and money too. Maybe an extra week or two on typical build. About 5% more on construction costs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Milo I don’t spend my day lurking on the forum for your comments. When I do come here it’s not to waste time responding to ad hominem attacks on the authors of the articles I post or attacks against me, or on comments impugning my motives. If you post a thoughtful, intelligent, factual comment about my post I’ll probably respond to it the next time I’m reading the forum, provided I don’t have to read through pages and pages of circle jerk crap to find it. I don’t have the time or inclination to get into online bun fights with you or others that think they can “call me out” with snide remarks and innuendo. I’ll just ignore you.

My post stands on its own and it supports long held positions of mine. I posted the article(s) yesterday as the release of Bright Green Lies film was on Earth Day, anyone can see this if they check the links I provided. The film is not an Alberta film, the producer/director Julia Barnes (Toronto-based environmentalist and documentary filmmaker) is from Ontario, the authors of the book are not from Alberta either, they are Americans, and have nothing to do with Alberta oil and gas or the “war room”. The Bright Green Lies authors support a view that wind and solar are poor power sources that do more harm than good. The only redeeming value of an EV is it has no tailpipe emissions, good for local city air, unfortunately the emissions and environmental depredations of these technologies happen elsewhere and they are substantial and growing. I’ve stated many times the only viable non-GHG power source we have is nuclear power, if we are not embracing nuclear power we will continue to use oil, gas and coal. If you want to dispute I’ve said this, step up with some facts to prove it.

And for the record (again), I don’t believe we have a climate crisis, I’ve never said I don’t believe in climate change. I’ve stated this many times along with posting articles from the CBC and New York Times of IPCC scientists predicting global warming will benefit Canada, Russia, Europe and most of the Northern states by extending the growing season and reducing winter heating bills - that’s a no brainer. Also l’ve posted here many times how the Nobel prize winning economist William Nordstrom calculated the economically optimum temperature increase to limit to is 4 C, trying to limit to 2 C or 1.5 C is economically more costly than the actual warming. Let me know when the world warms 4 C and I might change my opinion. Post some relevant comments and I might reply.

https://www.monkfishpublishing.com/p...ht-green-lies/

You can ignore me, but that's no matter as my criticism of your posts isn't for you, it's for others. I think most regular posters know you are full of shit, but it's important that it gets pointed out such that your spreading of falsehoods is in bad faith.

We can't really comment on this book/movie because no-one, including yourself has read/watched it. But we can see where it is coming from with some of the comments:

His premise is as profound as it is persistent: industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable. It will always require violence to biotic and human communities

Sounds very Malthusian. How does that align with your view that Malthus is wrong?

We cannot continue to wallow in hedonistic consumption and industrial expansion and survive as a species. The environmental debate, Derrick Jensen and his coauthors argue, has been distorted by hubris and the childish desire by those in industrialized nations to sustain the unsustainable

The book appears to be arguing for deindustrialization, which is the total opposite of your position that we should continue unfettered fossil fuel use until we hit 4C of warming.

Max has been part of grassroots political work for nearly 20 years. He has been involved in fighting the Canadian “tar sands” megaproject and combating tar sands mining in Utah,

I suppose you are in agreement with the author on this part too?

[Truenorth00]

I actually do think of passive design with my condo. Now buildings in general are reasonably energy efficient. So my 980 sf condo costs about $450 in natural gas bills per year. That'll be over $1000/yr in 2030.

I would have gladly taken on a mortgage that was $15k higher to have heated floors and triple glazed windows and a $100/yr gas bill (or even no gas bill). Yet, I don't see much difference between new condos today and what I bought 14 yrs ago.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You can ignore me, but that's no matter as my criticism of your posts isn't for you, it's for others. I think most regular posters know you are full of shit, but it's important that it gets pointed out such that your spreading of falsehoods is in bad faith.

I appreciate you calling out his bad faith nonsense, but don't let him get under your skin. They are starting to feel the pressure as their narrative loses traction so The trolling is getting more intense.

We're at the point where even the CPC has agreed to putting a price on carbon. The plan may be boneheaded, but they've acceded the principle.

We're at the point where technologies that could legitimately impact oil demand are starting to mature and go mainstream. And we're starting to understand that cutting emissions and fossil fuel use doesn't have to mean giving up a thing. Plenty that can be done to cut fossil fuel demand while improving our quality of life.

And we're at the point where the finance and insurance sector has decided they aren't going to be passive participants anymore.

And just like they love to bring up the red herring of Canada being 2% of emissions, it's equally relevant that Canada can't change the global narrative either.

I don't know whether we'll cut enough to get to whatever target in 2030 or 2050. But looking at the tech and trends, I'm willing to bet money that we'll see peak oil demand sometime in the next 10-15 years. They can fight it all they want. The war room can put out whataboutism press releases whining about Saudi and Russian oil. But the countdown is on. And when that day comes where secular peak oil demand is confirmed to be behind us, the dollars will go with it and the conversation will be very different.

There's a reason why jawagord will only post about "skeptic" movies and never something like this:

Oil producers could face a potentially catastrophic Brent oil price of US$10 per barrel if countries around the world move to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, according to a new study from Wood Mackenzie.

The study released Thursday represents one of the most aggressive forecasts of falling oil demand published by a major energy consultancy. It predicts that global oil demand will begin to fall as early as 2023 in a scenario where countries adopt accelerated energy transition plans.

Under this scenario, oil demand would drop from 100 million barrels per day currently to about 35 million bpd by 2050, which is roughly 70 per cent below today’s levels. As a result, Wood Mackenzie predicts the global Brent oil benchmark may drop to an average between US$10 per barrel and US$18 per barrel by 2050.

https://financialpost.com/commoditie...4d958be84/amp/

That article was before this week's climate summit and pledges....

[Hackslack]

Hopefully China gets their hands on that new technology, and quick.

Record coal burning in China, post-COVID recovery will feed a rebound in global carbon emissions: IEA

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/re...ea-11618921623

[Coldrsx]

Edmonton/Alberta/ATCO betting big on H.




Slides from the BILD Alberta conference presentation

[ssiguy]

Alberta is a natural for affordable hydrogen production. Of course, the hydrogen will be overwhelmingly blue which hardcore environmentalists will still howl about. Grey hydrogen is the current stuff which is very polluting, blue uses fossil fuels thru carbon capture, and green is 100% renewable. There is, however, a new form of hydrogen being developed that even some environmentalists are beginning to embrace.......turquoise.

Turquoise hydrogen still uses fossil like oil & NG but keeps the emissions in the ground or reuses them. Proton Energy of Calgary is the first example where it uses old oil wells to produce hydrogen but without the need of CC because the GHG never actually reach the surface as they are filtered out.

The second example is when they use NG to produce hydrogen but don't require any hyper-expensive and questionable efficacy of CC. The hydrogen is produced but the remaining carbon that would normally have to be restored is instead reused. The carbons that are produced are put thru another production stage {please God don't ask me how} and they are turned back into usable solids. These pellets can be then sold to different sectors and are ideal for making things like tires or potentially even as asphalt.

Both these methods are sizeable cheaper to produce than the alternative of expensive carbon capture and all the infrastructure it requires. Thankfully the new budget has put aside a lot of money to both developing hydrogen technology and the infrastructure to bring it to market.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Hopefully China gets their hands on that new technology, and quick.

Record coal burning in China, post-COVID recovery will feed a rebound in global carbon emissions: IEA

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/re...ea-11618921623

You must have missed the US hosted summit on Earth Day:

China will start phasing down coal use from 2026 as part of its efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions, President Xi Jinping said at a summit of global leaders on Thursday, a move that disappointed campaigners hoping for more ambitious pledges.

Xi, speaking via video link to the Leaders Summit on Climate convened by U.S. President Joe Biden, said China was committed to green development and upgrading its coal-dependent energy system, a major source of climate-warming emissions.

"We will strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th five-year plan period (2021-2025) and phase it down in the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030)," he said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/...30-2021-04-22/

Yeah, it's not an immediate drawdown. But they are starting to turn the ship. And China actually does have a decent record on meeting their pledged climate targets.

I suspect their renewables sector is getting mature enough that they've decided they can start the transition without jeopardizing economic growth.

And as renewables get cheaper than coal, continuing to burn coal actually starts having adverse economic impacts. Externalities aside.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You must have missed the US hosted summit on Earth Day:



https://www.reuters.com/world/china/...30-2021-04-22/

Yeah, it's not an immediate drawdown. But they are starting to turn the ship. And China actually does have a decent record on meeting their pledged climate targets.

I suspect their renewables sector is getting mature enough that they've decided they can start the transition without jeopardizing economic growth.

And as renewables get cheaper than coal, continuing to burn coal actually starts having adverse economic impacts. Externalities aside.

I read in the write up I posted:

The data hits days ahead of a U.S.-led global climate-change conference and days after U.S. climate envoy John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua agreed to cooperate to curb climate change with urgency.

Anyway, good to know they are at least planning for it.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Edmonton/Alberta/ATCO betting big on H.




Slides from the BILD Alberta conference presentation

Very cool. Nice that we have the infrastructure built already with the Canadian mainline to the east, TM right of way to Van, and current under construction coastal gas link to Kitimat, where those arrows are pointed.

[milomilo]

Has anyone done the math on whether exporting H2 by pipeline then by boat to Asia would be even remotely competitive with producing the H2 from electricity in Asia? I'm all for using H2 for various purposes locally, but exporting it does not seem realistic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Anyway, good to know they are at least planning for it.

The thing to keep in mind is that China doesn't see this as an economic challenge so much as an opportunity to outflank established developed world players. For example, they knew they could never take on Detroit and Munich on internal combustion engines. So they moved to dominate EVs to the point that they now have $4000 EVs they will export all over emerging markets in Asia, Africa and South America. Similarly, they can't beat players like GE on gas turbines. So they moved to dominate solar and battery manufacturing. Now they can offer up solar installations that are cheaper to build than gas plants are to operate. Etc. Biden actually understands this and is pushing the US to catch up. In this case, it's not so much that oil and gas is being targeted, as it is collateral in the contest between these major powers.

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Has anyone done the math on whether exporting H2 by pipeline then by boat to Asia would be even remotely competitive with producing the H2 from electricity in Asia? I'm all for using H2 for various purposes locally, but exporting it does not seem realistic.

It's only to work for geographically constrained and dense countries like the large island countries in the Pacific.

But whatever, we fund the R&D until the economic model says otherwise.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's only to work for geographically constrained and dense countries like the large island countries in the Pacific.

But whatever, we fund the R&D until the economic model says otherwise.

If hydrogen is going to be useful, I don't know why they wouldn't just put in mass scale offshore wind. You can make hydrogen anywhere, unlike oil. And H2 is hard to transport, unlike oil.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If hydrogen is going to be useful, I don't know why they wouldn't just put in mass scale offshore wind. You can make hydrogen anywhere, unlike oil. And H2 is hard to transport, unlike oil.

Let's be honest. We're doing this stuff to give our oil sector a bit of hope. I suspect in the end, we'll be produce a bit of grey or blue hydrogen for our domestic heavy industrial sector. At the end of the day if hydrogen takes off, renewables are coming down in price so fast, green hydrogen is going to get competitive. There's already thinking that parity may come as early as 2025:

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintel...gen%20strategy.

But hey, half these folks still think climate change is a hoax and don't realize the light at the end of the tunnel is a an electric semi....

[goodgrowth]

In a lot of ways electric cars are just going to continue car culture/suburbs.