211–220 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they mostly use carbon energy to offset volatility. That doesn't mean that there aren't other viable ways to do so.
Like what? Energy storage would push the combined price of renewable way beyond nuclear. You would need an alternative source of energy that is 1) on demand, and 2) which does not cost much when it is not activated. Not sure what that would be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is complete nonsense. India is among the world’s five largest economies and is continuing to grow. Part of a growing economy is falling poverty and growing electrical demand. how exactly do you propose India meet the growing electric demands of her residents? The Russian gas and oil story is more pragmatism than evil intent. One part of your comment is accurate - India’s exports are tiny relative to its populati…
Renewables, conservation, and stop growing so many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit” https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carb...
If “all this undeveloped land is a huge carbon sink we want to take credit for,” then we’re going to have to take responsibility for the terrible amount of carbon release as peatlands continue thawing. This is frankly a dumb article. It’s an unhelpful reframing of the issue at hand by trying to take credit for what’s happening across large swaths of undeveloped land that happen to be within our border. It will quickl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We currently transport already energy from big producers to small towns left and right. Solar Energy reduces the load of the grid because the renewable energy will be consumed locally first. This puts less strain on it.
But you will still need to maintain a grid that's sized to handle situations when there's no solar.
The biggest issue in germany regarding grid and renewable is a distance of 800km between north germany which has a lot of wind and south germany which has a lot of solar.
Diverge it a little bit better and no issues
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what? Energy storage would push the combined price of renewable way beyond nuclear. You would need an alternative source of energy that is 1) on demand, and 2) which does not cost much when it is not activated. Not sure what that would be.
California pays 4 cents per kilowatt hour for solar + storage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California pays 4 cents per kilowatt hour for solar + storage.
That's storage for a few hours to smooth the volatility intraday. Nothing like the sort of storage capacity you would need if you don't have an alternative source of energy when there is no wind for a week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're not a big fan of productions - things like food, you can't compare CO2 emissions alone. It all comes down to cost-benefit. The goal is the maximum production per unit of CO2 - for every unit of CO2 you maximize what is produced from it. Yes, the US produces 13.49% of all global CO2, but it also produces 25.22% of all output. China produces 31% of all CO2 emissions, but only 17% of all production.
If these were metrics for your startup I’d call them vanity metrics. You just used data to explain that the US captures higher margins on their products and China does a lot of low margin or commodity production. The data doesn’t help us inform an opinion of whose carbon use is better than others.
Whatever profit you captured can be spent on whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada emits more Co2 per capita than China today, by 1.5x. But Co2 doesn't only count in 'last years'. It counts as a cumulative effect. The Co2 damage of Canada per capita is way beyond that of China, cumulatively. In cumulative terms, China has emitted 'only' 7.5 times as much Canada despite having 35x the population. In other words, Canada's per capita cumulative emissions are about 4.5x those of China. And that'…
Please cite the raw numbers you used to make your claims, and their sources. I don't doubt that on a per capita basis Canadians emit more than Chinese do; furthermore, China is the source of many of the goods that western nations consume, and so they're producing emissions "for" the western nations in a sort of de facto shell game. However, China has no interest in giving its manufacturing base "back" to the west, an…
All your claims in your last sentence I'd like to see sources for as well, because it appears to be the opposite. They're at the forefront of renewable energy production, has ambitious goals for reduction, despite already producing less per capita emissions than much richer countries with cumulatively larger emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada emits more Co2 per capita than China today, by 1.5x. But Co2 doesn't only count in 'last years'. It counts as a cumulative effect. The Co2 damage of Canada per capita is way beyond that of China, cumulatively. In cumulative terms, China has emitted 'only' 7.5 times as much Canada despite having 35x the population. In other words, Canada's per capita cumulative emissions are about 4.5x those of China. And that'…
Ratios matter little to the climate. Total volumes do. When you build your infrastructure from scratch, it makes sense not to go for XIX century technologies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're not a big fan of productions - things like food, you can't compare CO2 emissions alone. It all comes down to cost-benefit. The goal is the maximum production per unit of CO2 - for every unit of CO2 you maximize what is produced from it. Yes, the US produces 13.49% of all global CO2, but it also produces 25.22% of all output. China produces 31% of all CO2 emissions, but only 17% of all production.
Then the US should be able to do without dirty, polluting imports from China. Right?
So the US imports 2% of its GDP from China.
Rounding error.