(Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SageBrush

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,959
Location
NM
This article
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costs-especially-for-the-us-and-india

should be required reading by all, and forced reading for all the bozos who think a $10 a month surcharge to the electricity bill to curb global warming is too much.

I have not read the source article yet but I expect to see resource wars not included. Even so, they estimate $50 a ton CO2 in the US and a global impact of $400 a ton.

So e.g.,
a kWh of electricity produced from coal emits ~ 2.2 lbs of CO2
> 900 kWh causes $50 of domestic and $400 of global damage
That works out to 5.5 cents a kWh domestic cost and 44 cents a kWh global cost.

NG is not too far behind those numbers.
 
Yeah good luck selling that to people.
If they aren't willing to pay $10 per month reading that article isn't going to encourage them to pay $400 per month.
This idea is dead on arival.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Yeah good luck selling that to people.
If they aren't willing to pay $10 per month reading that article isn't going to encourage them to pay $400 per month.
This idea is dead on arival.

You completely misunderstood the article.
 
I understand the article and find most of it agreeable.
I was responding to this:
SageBrush said:
(The article I was not taliking about)

should be required reading by all, and forced reading for all the bozos who think a $10 a month surcharge to the electricity bill to curb global warming is too much.
The bozos you refer to are 68% of registered voters. Your post seemed to suggest that if people read that article they would be open to spending more to fix global warming.
Nope, I read, understand and agree with most of it and I like most voters still only open to paying $1 per month to fix global warming.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I understand the article and find most of it agreeable.
Oh ?
What do you disagree with and why ?

How can you possibly "agree" with the article while not having a clue about climate sensitivity ?
 
Afraid I agree with Oilpan4's impression that most Americans are unwilling to pay more than next to nothing. Would be a much easier problem to fix if this was mostly about education.

It's not even predominantly about politics. Most of my liberal friends, family, and colleagues believe in AGW, would say they think it is a serious problem, but their personal choices show they care little about it. :(

Sagebrush, afraid you and some significant numbers on these and similar boards who were the hybrid, plug-in, BEV, and household early adopters of efficiency, conservation, etc. are but rare birds in this country who know AND truly show more than lip service level interest.
 
iPlug said:
Afraid I agree with Oilpan4's impression that most Americans are unwilling to pay more than next to nothing. Would be a much easier problem to fix if this was mostly about education.
It is not just an Oil-y impression, it is a sloppy summary of the latest polls:

About:
80 - 90% of progressive voters will pay today to curb AG
50% of independents
20% of repukes
Close to no trumpers

It adds up to a minority willing to pay today to curb AGW.
HOWEVER, and this is the point of this thread, outside of trumpers it is very unusual to find a person who is against paying today and recognizes the costs involved in business as usual. Trumpers stand out from the rest as the group with an ideology of irrationality.

It would go like this:
Trumper: I'm going to jump off a cliff because Obama says it is a bad idea and I've been promised money after I jump by Trump.
Bystander: You are going to die
Trumper: Can you prove it ?
Bystander: Not until you jump, but the evidence is overwhelming
Trumper: I am going to jump off a cliff

For the others it goes something like this:
AGW denialist: I'm going *that* way
Bystander: bad idea; you will fall off a cliff.
AGW denialist: If there was a cliff, Fox News would have told me. I'll be fine.
 
You'd need some iron-clad proof that the monies collected were being used to ameliorate climate change effects. That's the real nut because the public views these kind of "sin taxes" as pure money grabs and for good reason. They usually are. Tying your share to the "real effects of Carbon pollution" is too far of a stretch for most people outside of ivory towers. How is my share of the taxes possibly getting to all of the people actually harmed, in a proportionate manner?

I'm not a big fan of punitive taxation as a means to influence public behavior. It's too easy for government to become addicted to the cash flow and thus the very behaviors they initially sought to curb.

I'm much more in favor of government spending my tax money on research, especially that research which private enterprise deems unlikely to benefit them in the short term. Research that will often fail but in the end may provide the technology to truly make fossil fuels obsolete. Until then, humanity will consume all of the fossil fuels it can, until it can't and no legislative body is going to stop it.
 
You'd need some iron-clad proof that the monies collected were being used to ameliorate climate change effects. That's the real nut because the public views these kind of "sin taxes" as pure money grabs and for good reason. They usually are. Tying your share to the "real effects of Carbon pollution" is too far of a stretch for most people outside of ivory towers. How is my share of the taxes possibly getting to all of the people actually harmed, in a proportionate manner?

You don't let the government keep it. You put it into a return loop that directly funds zero emission public transportation, including free public transportation for the poor and working poor.
 
LeftieBiker said:
You'd need some iron-clad proof that the monies collected were being used to ameliorate climate change effects. That's the real nut because the public views these kind of "sin taxes" as pure money grabs and for good reason. They usually are. Tying your share to the "real effects of Carbon pollution" is too far of a stretch for most people outside of ivory towers. How is my share of the taxes possibly getting to all of the people actually harmed, in a proportionate manner?

You don't let the government keep it. You put it into a return loop that directly funds zero emission public transportation, including free public transportation for the poor and working poor.
How do you plan to stop the government from keeping it? Taxes on gasoline were supposed to be used to fund road repairs. How did that work out? Legislators will siphon off funding for their pet projects or "pressing public needs" every time. Even funds specifically earmarked will be raided. You can't control how or what the government spends money on. They just take it out of one pot and put it in another. If they provide additional funding for something, someone will figure out how to reduce the initial funding amount.

If you really want to reduce emissions, increase the subsidies for wind, solar, and energy storage. Make grid battery storage mandatory for utilities and encourage retirement of "peaker plants". Change that calculation of utility rates from installed base cost to net operating costs. Force utilities to close marginal facilities that exist to raise base cost.
 
How do you plan to stop the government from keeping it?

Write the law to allocate the same number of dollars to the return side as is collected. Return those funds annually, rather than creating a "fund" that can easily be raided. Nothing is perfect, of course.
 
@Johnlocke and @nubo,
You both make valid points but I find it interesting that no one has yet to comment on the OP other than Oil-y who does not understand it.
 
SageBrush said:
This article
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costs-especially-for-the-us-and-india

should be required reading by all, and forced reading for all the bozos who think a $10 a month surcharge to the electricity bill to curb global warming is too much.

I have not read the source article yet but I expect to see resource wars not included. Even so, they estimate $50 a ton CO2 in the US and a global impact of $400 a ton.

So e.g.,
a kWh of electricity produced from coal emits ~ 2.2 lbs of CO2
> 900 kWh causes $50 of domestic and $400 of global damage
That works out to 5.5 cents a kWh domestic cost and 44 cents a kWh global cost.

Lots of unknowns in computing the future cost of warming. The source article is a middle of the road sort of number:

Central specifications show high global SCC values (median, US$417 per tonne of CO2 (tCO2); 66% confidence intervals, US$177–805 per tCO2)

Also see:

https://lolow.github.io/publication/country-level_scc/

Not much to discuss, the discount rate used is probably too high which makes the damage estimate less than it should be.

Russia wins under climate change. Wonder if this has anything to do with why Russians are interfering in USA elections?

SageBrush said:
NG is not too far behind those numbers.

NG is less than half of those numbers.

First, carbon content per BTU:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

Then consider efficiency, coal plants are less than 40% efficient. NG combined cycle plants can be almost 70% efficient.
 
WetEV said:
NG is less than half of those numbers.
First, carbon content per BTU:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11
Then consider efficiency, coal plants are less than 40% efficient. NG combined cycle plants can be almost 70% efficient.
Methane is ~ CH4 while hydrocarbons are ~ CH2. The higher btu per gram and higher efficiency mostly stems from the same higher HC ratio so you should not double count.

Read the latest on methane escape at the drilling sites. It has been way under-estimated for years.

You are correct that I took the middle estimates. I don't want to scare the bozos into inaction.
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
Then consider efficiency, coal plants are less than 40% efficient. NG combined cycle plants can be almost 70% efficient.
Methane is ~ CH4 while hydrocarbons are ~ CH2. The higher btu per gram and higher efficiency mostly stems from the same higher HC ratio so you should not double count.

The higher btu per carbon is due to the HC ratio.

The higher efficiency is due to combined cycle plants. Start with a BTU. Coal is abrasive, so only a steam plant is usable. Natural gas isn't, so a turbine (much like a jet engine) can be used, which is more efficient at turning BTUs into KWh. Then the hot exhaust can be used to boil water, and even more KWh can be generated from the heat that would otherwise be wasted.

https://youtu.be/qG7SlVfAuPA1

SageBrush said:
Read the latest on methane escape at the drilling sites. It has been way under-estimated for years.

A good point, NG would be close to 4X better than 2X better if this was not so.
 
WetEV said:
Start with a BTU. Coal is abrasive, so only a steam plant is usable. Natural gas isn't, so a turbine (much like a jet engine) can be used, which is more efficient at turning BTUs into KWh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant

You can start from coal, but it is first turned into a 'syngas' at 70 - 80% efficiency
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/kallman1/docs/estap.pdf

----
Accounting:
The higher specific energy of NG compared to coal is ~ offset by the mining methane emissions (maybe!)
Coal is converted to syngas at a ~ 25% cost
The CC power plant is then equal efficiency for either syngas or NG.

As I said, NG is not far behind in AGW costs.
 
SageBrush said:
As I said, NG is not far behind in AGW costs.

Thanks, I was unaware of IGCC plants. Most existing coal plants are not IGCC, so phasing out existing coal plants and replacing with combined cycle plants still reduces CO2 per kWh. And that's been mostly with NGCC plants.
 
SageBrush said:
Oilpan4 said:
I understand the article and find most of it agreeable.
Oh ?
What do you disagree with and why ?

How can you possibly "agree" with the article while not having a clue about climate sensitivity ?
You can't even articulate a coherent argument for why we should care.
 
Oilpan4 said:
You can't even articulate a coherent argument for why we should care.
The most coherent is the article referenced in the OP; or if you are feeling ambitious, the science article that is the source.

You sound like a spoiled 6 year old brat
"No one told me. Waaaaaaah"
"No one helped me. Waaaaaah"
"No one taught me. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!!!!!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

Post your address and I'll send you a pacifier.
 
That article is the biggest load of horse crap I have ever read.... Worse than the AOC "New Green Deal"...

Isn't it amazing how they cleverly turn a "world humanitarian crisis" into a precise, definitive Dollars and Cents "cost" of some future catastrophe?

Also, they are asking for (and getting) $150K in today dollars from so many suckers that buy into this ECO-RELIGIOUS CULT they are pushing?

Why should any American buy into this sacred religion when their neighbor is driving huge Raptor pickup trucks and Suburban SUVs? Darn, there is even a cult that WILL NOT HAVE CHILDREN to save carbon credits!!!!!

You want to slow down emissions, get everyone in the country to change their oil-glut behavior and stop asking for MUCHO DOLLARES from us, and allowing the government to control our lives just to give some guy in India better quality air..
 
Back
Top