Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum US CO2 emissions declining

Phys.org has an article about the latest reports on CO2 emissions in the US. It seems they are down. The best explanation that most people have is that coal burning power plants are being replaced/remodeled with natural gas. Natural gas burns much cleaner and produces much less CO2. So things are looking up a little bit. The problem is a long way from being solved, but we have made a small step in the right direction.

By the way. The reason for replacement of coal with natural gas is because natural gas now costs much less than coal. The improvement is based on the market, not regulation.

Bill Gill

yes, a small step.

but every step counts.



yes, thats exactly why we need regulation.
if coal were cheaper than NG then there would not be any improvement

this does not show that deregulation is a good thing in any way.

look at the lack of regulated use of coal in china.

What are the economic alternatives in China?

Some people who operate coal burning power plants are converting to natural gas. Others are fighting madly to keep from having to clean up their exhaust. Here in Oklahoma the EPA is trying to force a number of coal burning power plants to reduce the pollutants they are emitting. They are upwind from places like Oklahoma City, which is having pollution problems. And not just the operators, the state government is also fighting it. That's because Oklahoma is an energy rich state and the energy lobby is very strong here.

Bill Gill

How strong are the people of Oklahoma?

it seems to me that in every situation there is a clear soultion.
but the people who have the power to provide the solution dont take action.

if the energy companies want to go against the peoples will , then the people
should hit them in the only place that they will notice it.

the dollar, bill.

by reducing their consumption of a calculated amount of energy that would represent the amount of cost that the energy companies are avoiding to pay.

this is the only thing that they will notice , the people using less energy because
they, the energy companies, dont care about the will of the people of Oklahoma.



but what value does the energy have if it is not used?

even a portion of energy reduction could cause the energy companies to begin to sweat.
because the plants cost too much to shut down and restart.

and it takes several days.

people buying solar on a large scale is out of the question because solar has
been overpriced so much that by the time you begin to experience any profit
from solar 20-30 years later its time to replace your system.

however by buying solar , the energy companies would lose that amount of income.

so its a toss up, either the people just throw their hands up in the air and say
it's useless to try and fight , or the people can learn to fight using weapons that
actually hurt the energy companies.

and the only weapon that would hurt the energy companies
is the people choosing to not use their energy or reducing
their energy consumption.

how much do you think they spend on the lobyist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby




I would add that amount into the calculation.
because they could just stop paying the lobbyist
the million's each year in order to
compensate for some of their losses.

what is a lobbyist?

an elected official , who accepts bribes from industry.
so that he can get elected , so that he can accept more
bribes to get elected again so that he can advance
his carrier further.

but its legal.

you can call it something other than a bribe but that would
not change the fact that it is bribery.

which deeply and drastically reduces or even completely
removes any effect that your vote represents.

------------

the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's ‘active involvement’ in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

------------

thank you exxon for helping us determine climate change policy.
that was so nice of you.
your company is so cooperative , its such a pleasure doing business with you.
and remember to let us know if we can change your climate change policies further
to better match any changes that your company might desire in the future.

this is sick

I just got the September 2012 Wired Magazine. In it there is an article about the lower cost and increasing use of natural gas. According to the article it is a mixed blessing. Natural gas doesn't pollute as bad as coal and oil. But the low prices are going to reduce the drive for alternative forms of energy, such as wind, solar and nuclear. So while using natural gas slows the increase in CO2 production, it may also slow the spread of cleaner forms of energy.

As usual, one good thing can knock out some other good things.

Bill Gill

I agree!

people arent buying the alternate energy systems as much as are needed to really make a difference.

so , natural gas is a cleaner move from coal.

but the problem is that it must be the energy industry that makes
that decision because they own the politicians votes in congress.

or maybe it would be more realistic to say that they have paid
for the right amount of the votes that make the policy changes and the decisions in congress.

that is the way it is , no sugar coating needed.

one more point I have is that the alternate energy industry did this to themselves.

look at a very small wind turbine as an example.

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/p...ci_kw={keyword}

theres probably $10.00 worth of material and labor in the above wind turbine if I had to make a guess.

yes $10.00 or not much more , its mass produced.

but it sells for $800.00 apx

yea , they ruined their own industry because of greed.