GRA
Posts: 9087
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:18 pm

GetOffYourGas wrote:
GRA wrote:The sheer number of humans on the planet, along with their high densities, is the underlying cause of all major human-based environmental impacts.

Disagree. It's a contributing factor, combined with our high-consumption way of life. But it is not the cause.[

Then what is? One person dumping their wastes in a river isn't a problem, but millions of them doing so is. A few hundred thousand scattered cooking fires has little effect, but billions of people in an industrial society burning huge amounts of energy is. Scale is crucial.

GetOffYourGas wrote:
GRA wrote:It may be possible to eliminate the deleterious environmental effects of large numbers of humans at high density, but it will always be easier to do so if the numbers and densities are smaller. Since we don't yet have the ability to eliminate those effects, our only other option is to reduce the size of the problems by reducing the number of people contributing to them.

As to eliminating the human race entirely from the earth, there are more than a few scientists who've pointed out that our survival as a species isn't required; it's our egos that make us think our continuation is important. In short, it matters to us, but the earth would get along just fine without us, as it did for the several billion years before we arrived.

Let's just say that you and I have very different views on our purpose here. We don't exist to support the earth. The earth exists to support us.

Yes, we do have different views. To me, our and the earth's existence are independent; it's not aware of us, it doesn't exist to serve us, nor do we exist to support it. We have evolved in a particular period of the earth's existence, and are dependent for our continued survival on things continuing more or less as they have for the past couple of million years or so (i.e. long past the Great Oxygenation event that caused mass species extinction, but was essential to our eventual development), and more specifically for industrial society, as they've existed since the last major Ice age.

GetOffYourGas wrote:Of course the earth could and would go on without us. In fact, I said as much in my post. But that's not the point. We should care about the earth's ability to support us. That's the whole point - to allow the earth to continue to support human life.

Agreed that we should care, but that's only because it's important from our point of view, not because it's likely to be of cosmic importance.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

LeftieBiker
Posts: 9204
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 31 May 2013
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:17 pm

Agreed that we should care, but that's only because it's important from our point of view, not because it's likely to be of cosmic importance.


What, you don't think the rest of the universe deserves spectacular, magnificent humanity???
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6287
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:16 pm

GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:So, while most Californians only get angry over environmental issues when there's a major catastrophe like an oil spill, we are moving away from fossil fuels faster than any other state.
No, you aren't. Between 2007 and 2015, CA reduced emissions by about 9% while the US reduced emissions by over 10%.
Uh huh, and how were our economies doing at the same time, i.e. pollution per $?
You don't seem to get the concept that some economic activities are more energy intensive than others per dollar of revenue spent. You also have ignored the fact that CA lags the rest of the country in both reduction of pollution and reduction of the energy intensity of their activities.
GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Sure, most people are hypocrites to some extent or another, but to what extent does matter.
I couldn't agree more. In CA, virtue signalling reigns supreme.
No argument there, but we also do take actions to fix the problem, after first admitting that there is a problem, something that most other parts of the country were generally more loath to do because it interfered with 'business as usual'.
Many people, including yourself apparently, do not understand that taking no new action is often the best way to approach a given problem. Case in point: CA trying to build a "hydrogen economy" is an excellent example of taking an action that does significantly more damage to the environment than it helps. As a result, it is better to do nothing different than to do more damage through this poorly-considered knee-jerk reaction.

As I said, the great exodus from CA will likely accelerate due to this action of CA's ill-informed governor. His promotion of this bill is likely MUCH worse than his veto of a bill in 2016 designed to prevent the type of fire disaster which ravaged Northern California in 2017. I wonder when Californians intend to call him to account for his dumb decisions.

In any case, it will be interesting to watch this entire scenario play out. What are the issues facing California right now?
- Insufficient water to meet their needs. This has been true for a very long time, but more water is now being drawn from the Colorado River than flows into it.
- California does not have sufficient fossil fuel resources to meet their energy needs. But California does not want to produce any fossil fuels in CA, but is happy to pay others to produce fossil fuels for their needs.
- California is going to attempt to replace fossil-fuel consumption by the consumption of electricity and hydrogen which they do not have. By making this decision by political decree rather than by allowing the market to orchestrate the transition, CA is doomed to create MORE pollution and drive costs to unheard-of levels.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch it play out.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

SageBrush
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:28 pm

I see a different scenario playing out:
California is and remains the undisputed leader of the the clean-energy emerging economy.

Southern states like Virginia drag their feet and engage in self-celebratory masturbation that they were "smart" to wait for lower prices while ignoring the damage that their procrastination engendered.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 9087
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:30 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:
Uh huh, and how were our economies doing at the same time, i.e. pollution per $?
You don't seem to get the concept that some economic activities are more energy intensive than others per dollar of revenue spent.

Oh, I'm well aware of ERoI and EROEI.

RegGuheert wrote:You also have ignored the fact that CA lags the rest of the country in both reduction of pollution and reduction of the energy intensity of their activities.
GRA wrote:No argument there, but we also do take actions to fix the problem, after first admitting that there is a problem, something that most other parts of the country were generally more loath to do because it interfered with 'business as usual'.
Many people, including yourself apparently, do not understand that taking no new action is often the best way to approach a given problem. Case in point: CA trying to build a "hydrogen economy" is an excellent example of taking an action that does significantly more damage to the environment than it helps. As a result, it is better to do nothing different than to do more damage through this poorly-considered knee-jerk reaction.

Reg, your conclusions about H2/FCEvs are well-known, but as many governments and entitites disagree with you, you'll just have to accept that some things which you are against will be done anyway. Time will tell which ones were smart, which ones weren't, like California's support for the development and deployment of BEVs back in the '90s. Here's some more steps California is taking and/or spearheading - how do you feel about these:
GCC: “Drive to Zero” program to fast-track adoption of clean trucks and buses
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26531

GCC: California first state to regulate GHGs of ridesharing companies
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26528

In the latter case I realize you're not concerned by GHGs, but since
The premise that by prioritizing trips made in zero-emission vehicles, ridesharing companies can help popularize clean transportation, and help California meet its goal of putting 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030.
, and most of those will be BEVs, you presumably would consider that a positive step. I've always thought the Bolt's design was heavily influenced by ride-sharing requirements, and GM is obviously intending for it to have a large part of that market.

RegGuheert wrote:As I said, the great exodus from CA will likely accelerate due to this action of CA's ill-informed governor. His promotion of this bill is likely MUCH worse than his veto of a bill in 2016 designed to prevent the type of fire disaster which ravaged Northern California in 2017. I wonder when Californians intend to call him to account for his dumb decisions.

As we consider far more of his decisions smart than dumb, the answer is never. but if it makes you feell better, his likely successor (Gavin Newsom) come January plans to keep those policies in place and implement more of the same, so you can bitch about him.

RegGuheert wrote:In any case, it will be interesting to watch this entire scenario play out. What are the issues facing California right now?

- Insufficient water to meet their needs. This has been true for a very long time, but more water is now being drawn from the Colorado River than flows into it.

You forgot to add warmer winters, which leads to more precip falling as rain instead of snow (the snowpack has acted as much of our storage), and hotter-drier summers (more frequent/severe droughts) causing more fires. Of course, you reject AGCC as a cause of that, but whether you believe it's that or just a natural cycle, it's still happening. But on the off-chance that a lot of people leave, that will ease the pressure considerably, although most water in California is used by Agribusiness, and their political clout and unwillingness to conserve have been one of the drivers of our water woes (there's always three-way tussle here between water for ag, urban use, and environmental needs).

RegGuheert wrote:- California does not have sufficient fossil fuel resources to meet their energy needs. But California does not want to produce any fossil fuels in CA, but is happy to pay others to produce fossil fuels for their needs.

Good thing we're switching to VRE as quickly as possible, then.

RegGuheert wrote:- California is going to attempt to replace fossil-fuel consumption by the consumption of electricity and hydrogen which they do not have. By making this decision by political decree rather than by allowing the market to orchestrate the transition, CA is doomed to create MORE pollution and drive costs to unheard-of levels.[/quyote]
Or not, as the case may be. We banned new or renewed coal-fired electricity contracts some years back, which has been replaced by VRE and NG, and we're down to quite low levels of coal elec. now. I'm more in favor of keeping Diablo Canyon going while we draw down fossil fuels than many, but its unprotected location on the coast (see Fukushima) as well as the cost of necessary upgrades make that a non-starter.

RegGuheert wrote:If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch it play out.

Yes, it will be interesting, especially because our air is so much cleaner than it was before we implemented most of the regulations requiring clean air, that we can see much further on average.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6287
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:53 pm

SageBrush wrote:I see a different scenario playing out:
California is and remains the undisputed leader of the the clean-energy emerging economy.
Based upon what measure do you you make this claim? Let's take a look at the facts instead of continually making unfounded claims:

Does CA produce a higher percentage of its electricity using renewable sources than the other states in the United States? Let's see using 2017 data:
- CA: 47.2% That means CA lags six other states: VT: 99.6%, ID: 81.6%, WA: 80.0%, OR: 76.3%, ME: 75.9%, and SD: 73.1%.

So, I'll dispute your claim based on the data above. What's that you say? Those states have access to more hydroelectric resources than does CA, so they have an advantage. So they do! No problem, we have data without hydroelectric renewable generation. So let's try again:

Does CA produce a higher percentage of its electricity using renewable sources besides hydro than than the other states in the United States? Let's see using 2017 data:
- CA: 26.5% That means CA lags seven other states: ME: 46.1%, VT: 41.3%, IA: 37.2%, KS: 36.1%, OK: 32.3%, SD: 30.2%, and ND: 26.9%.

So, I'll dispute your claim again based on the data above. How about total renewable energy, including hydroelectric, produced in the state? There CA IS the leader in the US:
Does CA produce more electricity using renewable sources than the other states in the United States? Let's see using 2017 data:
- CA: 97,298 GWh

So I won't dispute your claim based on this, at least within the U.S. But doesn't CA have more hydro resources than many other states? Yes..
So let's see how they do without hydropower, again using 2017 data:
- CA: 54,606 GWh That means that CA lags on other state: TX: 70,759 GWh

So I'll again dispute your claim based on the data above.

Looking more globally, CA lags countries like Norway, Portugal, Denmark, and Germany in terms of percent of their electricity generated and lags China in every category of renewable generation *except* percentage.

If you are talking about electric vehicle production, China wins there, too, at least in terms of quantity. CA (Tesla) certainly has the most advanced electric vehicle design in mass production.

But the question remains: Can CA wean itself off fossil fuels in 25 years by mandate of the government? Let's see what history has to say about the topic:

How much has the world weened itself of fossil fuels over the past 40 years? Not much. In fact, fossil fuel production has steadily increased. But even the percent of total energy the world derives from fossil fuels has dropped very little over the past 40 years (from about 84% to about 81%:

Image
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

iPlug
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:47 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Apr 2016
Location: Rocklin, CA

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:18 pm

Reproduced from earlier this year at https://priuschat.com/threads/california-electrical-grid-sources.167955/

Another great year for California, continuing to lead in grid greening (rain helped out last year too)

2017 California Electrical Grid Source data:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html

Highlights comparing 2017 to 2016:
(note units are percent total system power)

-coal mix unchanged at 4.13% (vast majority remains imported)
-natural gas use decreased and is down for 3 consecutive years, now 33.67% of the power mix
-nuclear remains nearly stable, down a tenth of a percent to 9.1%
-large hydro increased from 10.2% to 14.7% of the mix due to drought breaking rainfall
-non-large hydro renewables grew almost as fast and renewables continue to climb rapidly, with another year over year 3.55% power mix gain to the current 29.00%
-wind continues to grow, but at an ever slowing rate, now 9.4%, up from 9.06%
-solar outpaced wind for the first time now at 10.2% (8.11% last year)
-small hydro grew temporarily with large hydro, again with record rainfall that winter/spring
-still, the impact of solar is underestimated as “behind the meter” home solar is not measured as only units generating 1MW or greater are counted
-California total system electric generation was up 0.5 percent from 2016 and the first factor sited was growth in the number of light duty electric vehicles registered in the state
-California’s non CO2 emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewable generation) accounted for more than 56 percent of total in-state generation for 2017, compared to 50 percent in 2016 (and 40% in 2015)
2016 Leaf SV (leased) + 2012 Plug-in Prius (own), 11.43 kW Solar PV (16 MWh/yr actual production), Clipper Creek Level-2 7.7 kW charging stations x2, 20.5 SEER/13.0 HSPF ducted air-source heat pump, 3.70 UEF heat pump water heater

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6287
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:27 pm

iPlug wrote:Another great year for California, continuing to lead in grid greening (rain helped out last year too)
What should we call that, then? Leading from behind?

Yeah, let's go with that.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

iPlug
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:47 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Apr 2016
Location: Rocklin, CA

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:41 pm

We should compare all States total solar, wind, and geothermal mix and how they have been improving each year.

We should also compare all States total coal mix and how they have been improving each year (if coal mix isn’t already near zero).

That will show the leaders.
2016 Leaf SV (leased) + 2012 Plug-in Prius (own), 11.43 kW Solar PV (16 MWh/yr actual production), Clipper Creek Level-2 7.7 kW charging stations x2, 20.5 SEER/13.0 HSPF ducted air-source heat pump, 3.70 UEF heat pump water heater

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6287
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:45 pm

So those states and countries which are already at 100% renewable electricity production don't count as the leaders because they already got there and are unable to increase to a number beyond 100%?

Got it.

ETA: BTW, by that logic (CA logic?), if ALL other states and countries were already at 100% electricity generation and CA was still trying to get there, CA would be the LEADER! :roll:
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Return to “Environmental Issues”