Jump to content

The Climate thread


Laxtonto

Recommended Posts

On 4/28/2024 at 1:42 PM, Neonmoon said:

Reducing meat consumption is a good goal. I agree with you. Your plan to reduce meat consumption is dumb. Here’s an olive branch. Don’t you think requiring dog food to be plant based is a better solution than charge high fees for new pets?

My dog would just eat me if I dared feed her some vegan nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.

Agree and this will also be our downfall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Agree and this will also be our downfall

Or.............we can have states step up like California has done (and NY could be next), etc.

President 47 ain't gonna do federal climate change regulation any favors.

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this graphic and it hit home:

We have two factors to work with (of the 4 that are generally understand to contribute to our CO2).

1) the amount of energy used to create a unit of economic development (dollars)

2) the amount of CO2 generated per unit of energy produced

AD_4nXcNQf0HPYCFd-F-HIqri5WXfF0e2LR1QbkgXuNarKoQY_S3dBYzq-bmYOK-YMn3updxJIcZYTvuUt4A3HQJV9RRVaApRsSvu1A7O2aslC2_ZhOSjz_9pr4GwqAsLI29h9gZojJ5uQ?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Or.............we can have states step up like California has done (and NY could be next), etc.

President 47 ain't gonna do federal climate change regulation any favors.

CA will fight like hell for their own climate regulation autonomy - if CA can win and hold it's own, their economy alone will dictate some positive policies that extend beyond CA.  we can hope, but Trump Admin is coming for that autonomy.

In the end, we are going to have to see most of the world convert to (i) nuclear, wind, and solar (with batteries), (ii) EVs, and (iii) we are going to have to bring costs down and turbo charge carbon atmospheric vacuums. There's a lot more but if we don't start sucking this shit out of the air with a massive filtration system we are just doomed.

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, troph said:

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

It's because today, doing anything beyond the most rudimentary and lip-service of net zero is wealth and value destruction and we live in a world where value creation in the short-and-medium-term is all that necessarily matters (e.g. shareholder capitalism). Thus, regulation is necessary.

Edit to add, I know you get it, but for the granola types who don't have a business background, the theory undergirding all this is in our system:

A company merely exists to create value for shareholders by investing in projects that generate cash flow growth and/or return on invested capital (ROIC).

If the ROIC is less than the cost of capital, the growth destroys the value.

Climate Change implementation to processes (did you know that it is widely understood that 7 industries make up 85% of the direct greenhouse gas emissions) is costly and hard and distracts from or actively destroys value creation.

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, troph said:

(iii) we are going to have to bring costs down and turbo charge carbon atmospheric vacuums. There's a lot more but if we don't start sucking this shit out of the air with a massive filtration system we are just doomed.

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

You have mentioned this several times and I’ve been keeping well abreast of climate solutions and sustainable practices since I was a kid, but have never seen anything about any sort of carbon atmospheric vacuums. All I envision is Mega Maid. Can you expand on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You have mentioned this several times and I’ve been keeping well abreast of climate solutions and sustainable practices since I was a kid, but have never seen anything about any sort of carbon atmospheric vacuums. All I envision is Mega Maid. Can you expand on this?

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 

ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental

 

image.thumb.png.b04cabaa3195973333eba59974851496.png

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 

ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental

Interesting but

Quote

Once it's up and running, the billion-dollar facility will be 100 times bigger than any direct air capture plant ever built — and yet, even if it works perfectly, it will take a year to remove less than 10 minutes' worth of global emissions.

That doesn’t seem promising 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Interesting but

That doesn’t seem promising 

there are others out there, the technology is going to have to be turbo charged, like I said. but understand there are hardly any DAC facilities out there. so 100 times bigger doesn't mean big.  we went from horse drawn carriages to rocket ships taking us to the moon. we can do this. we just don't want to do this.

here's another article on it.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/energy-transition/050824-worlds-largest-direct-air-capture-plant-enters-operation-in-iceland

2023 we released 37 billion MT of CO2 from fossil fuels. yay us!

again though if we convert to nuclear as the primary energy source, augment with solar/wind and batteries, continue the shift to EVs then a serious dent in emissions could be achieved. add rapid development and deployment of DAC and a few other initiatives and we could hold the line I think. but nah, increased profit now is better than sustainable profit later!

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Saw this graphic and it hit home:

We have two factors to work with (of the 4 that are generally understand to contribute to our CO2).

1) the amount of energy used to create a unit of economic development (dollars)

2) the amount of CO2 generated per unit of energy produced

AD_4nXcNQf0HPYCFd-F-HIqri5WXfF0e2LR1QbkgXuNarKoQY_S3dBYzq-bmYOK-YMn3updxJIcZYTvuUt4A3HQJV9RRVaApRsSvu1A7O2aslC2_ZhOSjz_9pr4GwqAsLI29h9gZojJ5uQ?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

 

IMG_7044.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 


For the U.S. based companies involved in DAC, I wonder how the Trump presidency will affect funding for those projects.

Will Oxy and similar oil companies continue to put new money into it, or will they wrap up existing projects and then leave it at that? I understand their biggest DAC plant is a major project and not something they are likely to shut down due to a 4-year presidential term, but I am curious to see if those companies make additional DAC investments during Trump’s term.

To the extent that these things could be labeled greenwashing, it seems like that is less necessary for the immediate future.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

How?

I mean...that is the million dollar question.

From what I can gather, the idea is to use lower carbon footprinting and going to market with a premium offering (e.g. pay $.01 more per gallon for the fuel that is less carbon intensive) so that the producer can capture that value, but the basis has to be the customer/market asking for it. To give an energy example.

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 

ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental

 

image.thumb.png.b04cabaa3195973333eba59974851496.png

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

I agree, but I bet there is at least a forecasted or modeled hypothesis that shows a net negative CO2 at some point. All projects have a build/implementation phase that put you into a negative initially (e.g. power plants, solar farms, etc. etc. etc.). It's basic EIOERI stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

On top of that, buy futures in companies producing caustic. 
 

And those that can dispose of sodium carbonate. 
 

I assume they are going to find a way to clean up the waste water because this will use a metric ultra shit ton of water 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

this is why we need a carbon tax.

 

(i remember when a carbon tax was the cato institute's "libertarian solution" to global warming. probably knowing it would never get passed so it was like elmo's hyperloop, just a cover to make it look like they're thinking about some golden future to prevent investments today which would compete with or otherwise negatively impact the product they currently make)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

 

If it wasn't net negative on CO2 then they wouldn't build it, since the only point to building it is being net negative on CO2. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fascinating topic (Climate) to revisit and keep top of mind, considering a new regime who is likely going to be unfriendly to the ESG space compared to the rest of the Western developed civilization. I think I saw today we've already dropped out of the Paris Agreement (again), or are about to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

It's a fascinating topic (Climate) to revisit and keep top of mind, considering a new regime who is likely going to be unfriendly to the ESG space compared to the rest of the Western developed civilization. I think I saw today we've already dropped out of the Paris Agreement (again), or are about to?

Yup. And not only are they stopping everything, they are reversing course. The US could be leading in climate science, sustainability, and the new energy frontier. Instead, we will be the laggards of the first world.  Bang up job you morons. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...