Deaths from climate change

[crazydoc]

I was going to ask you about them, as they resemble the taro plant that I ate a lot of in equatorial Africa. Apparently they are the same (according to Wiki) as far as I can tell. Takes a lot of preparation to make the corms edible, but they form a large part of some tropical diets.

Colocasia esculenta is a tropical plant grown primarily for its edible corms, a root vegetable most commonly known as taro (/ˈtɑːroʊ, ˈtæroʊ/), among many other names (see § Names and etymology below). It is the most widely cultivated species of several plants in the family Araceae that are used as vegetables for their corms, leaves, and petioles. Taro corms are a food staple in African, Oceanic, and South Asian cultures (similar to yams), and taro is believed to have been one of the earliest cultivated plants.

The names elephant-ear and cocoyam are also used for some other large-leaved genera in the Araceae, notably Xanthosoma and Caladium. The generic name is derived from the ancient Greek word kolokasion, which in Greek, botanist Dioscorides (1st century AD) may have inferred the edible roots of both Colocasia esculenta and Nelumbo nucifera.

The species Colocasia esculenta is invasive in wetlands along the American Gulf coast, where it threatens to displace native wetland plants.

 

[JohnRoberts]

These are indeed invasive wetland plants.... Left alone they will block water run-off and create a huge swamp as water backs up....

I don't expect any edible dividends...

JR

 

[Lee_M]

we must reduce/eliminate all use of cost effective fossil fuels.

Is the "cost effective fossil fuels" situation still applicable? Fossil fuels seem a lot less cost effective for most things nowadays.

Utility-scale solar and wind are a fraction of the price (per MWh) of coal and combined-cycle gas power, when comparing unsubsidised levelised prices. They're the cheapest energy sources around nowadays, by a significant margin.

https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf
It's only rooftop/residential solar which is less cost effective (when compared to full scale fossil fuel power plants), but that's mainly to do with the scale and higher installation costs per kW (compared to utility scale solar), rather than the technology itself.

Even the residential solar pays for itself within a few years, my grandparents installed a 2.5kW system on their roof about 8 years ago which is on track to finish paying for itself next year, and still has a warranty until 2039. It would have paid for itself even sooner if they'd installed storage at the time (they sell their excess energy to the national grid, but they only receive 1/5th of what they pay per kWh when buying electricity back *from* their supplier), but there were less options for solar batteries back then.

Looking beyond grid power, it seems to be the case with vehicles too nowadays.

Even when looking at the most fuel efficient modern cars available (like the Peugeot 208, which does over 70mpg), you're looking at about £75 for a full tank (44L, filled with unleaded petrol at £1.698 per L) and you'll maybe get 700 miles out of that (10.7p per mile), if you're lucky.

Meanwhile, assuming you're paying 28p/kWh for mains electricity, it costs £15.10 to fully charge an EV with a 200 mile battery range, which works out at around 7.5p per mile. On top of that, many utility companies offer discounted rates at night (I've seen some as low as 7.5p per kWh) for charging EVs when grid demand is lowest. If you've got one of those deals, you're gonna be spending as little as £4.05 to fully charge the battery, which works out at around 2p per mile.

https://pod-point.com/guides/driver/cost-of-charging-electric-car
These numbers will likely be slightly different on your side of the Atlantic, but I don't think they'll be different enough to make fossil fuels the more economically viable choice.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Is the "cost effective fossil fuels" situation still applicable?

yes

Fossil fuels seem a lot less cost effective for most things nowadays.

I haven't seen that evidence

Utility-scale solar and wind are a fraction of the price (per MWh) of coal and combined-cycle gas power, when comparing unsubsidised levelised prices. They're the cheapest energy sources around nowadays, by a significant margin.

https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf
It's only rooftop/residential solar which is less cost effective (when compared to full scale fossil fuel power plants), but that's mainly to do with the scale and higher installation costs per kW (compared to utility scale solar), rather than the technology itself.

Even the residential solar pays for itself within a few years, my grandparents installed a 2.5kW system on their roof about 8 years ago which is on track to finish paying for itself next year, and still has a warranty until 2039. It would have paid for itself even sooner if they'd installed storage at the time (they sell their excess energy to the national grid, but they only receive 1/5th of what they pay per kWh when buying electricity back *from* their supplier), but there were less options for solar batteries back then.

Looking beyond grid power, it seems to be the case with vehicles too nowadays.

Even when looking at the most fuel efficient modern cars available (like the Peugeot 208, which does over 70mpg), you're looking at about £75 for a full tank (44L, filled with unleaded petrol at £1.698 per L) and you'll maybe get 700 miles out of that (10.7p per mile), if you're lucky.

Meanwhile, assuming you're paying 28p/kWh for mains electricity, it costs £15.10 to fully charge an EV with a 200 mile battery range, which works out at around 7.5p per mile. On top of that, many utility companies offer discounted rates at night (I've seen some as low as 7.5p per kWh) for charging EVs when grid demand is lowest.

do the solar panels work at night?

If you've got one of those deals, you're gonna be spending as little as £4.05 to fully charge the battery, which works out at around 2p per mile.

https://pod-point.com/guides/driver/cost-of-charging-electric-car
These numbers will likely be slightly different on your side of the Atlantic, but I don't think they'll be different enough to make fossil fuels the more economically viable choice.

Ironically CA is outlawing gasoline power cars by 2035 and asking citizens to not charge their EVs between 4pm and 9pm.

JR

 

[Lee_M]

I haven't seen that evidence

It's on page 2 of the PDF I linked.

Here's another report from the UK government, which says very similar things.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...7/electricity-generation-cost-report-2020.pdf

do the solar panels work at night?

Nope, but the wind turbines do, and energy use tends to fall dramatically at night. Even so, there are grid-scale solutions for storing excess energy, which would be ideal for storing excess solar during the day, and feeding it back into the grid at night.

This one is probably my personal favourite

Ironically CA is outlawing gasoline power cars by 2035 and asking citizens to not charge their EVs between 4pm and 9pm.

4-9pm tends to be around the time that domestic electricity usage is at it's peak, as you have children finishing school and going home, shortly followed by adults getting home from work, cooking dinner, doing laundry, etc.

The particular "EV-oriented" tariff I was referring to is charged at 7.5p/kWh from 11:30pm to 5:30am, so that usage would fall well outside of the usual peak demand times.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I hope your wind keeps blowing and doesn't repeat the weather event of last Sept when the wind wasn't blowing in the North Sea.

I have no problem with green energy if/when it is mature and reliable. Some appear to propose shutting down the old energy systems before the new ones are up to speed.

The elephant (bear) in the room is Putin shutting down his gas pipeline for another maintenance (cough) check.

Good luck.

JR

 

[Lee_M]

I hope your wind keeps blowing and doesn't repeat the weather event of last Sept when the wind wasn't blowing in the North Sea.

No power source operates continuously, even coal and nuclear power plants regularly go offline, both for routine maintenance and unexpected outages. That's why you need a good mix of different low carbon sources (wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, etc.) and a bit of overcapacity (ideally accompanied with storage to absorb any excess) to balance out any fluctuations.

The elephant (bear) in the room is Putin shutting down his gas pipeline for another maintenance (cough) check.

Absolutely, but many of these comparisons are pre-2022, so would likely be even more heavily in favour of renewables now. Gas, coal, and oil prices have skyrocketed over the past year, while the price for renewable energy has fallen even further.

The situation with Ukraine (and the high prices for fossil fuels that have happened because of it) only reinforces the need for the energy independence that renewables offer. That alone is worth the price of admission imho.

Good luck.

JR

Likewise

 

[JohnRoberts]

No power source operates continuously, even coal and nuclear power plants regularly go offline, both for routine maintenance and unexpected outages. That's why you need a good mix of different low carbon sources (wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, etc.) and a bit of overcapacity (ideally accompanied with storage to absorb any excess) to balance out any fluctuations.

I advocate for all of the above energy policy, not everything but fossil fuels. The US is ahead of plan for reducing CO2 emissions thanks to conversion from burning coal to burning cheap NG that is cleaner. My local "clean" coal (cough) power plant switched to burning NG years ago, but us local ratepayers will be saddled with paying for that white elephant clean coal plant for many years to come.

Absolutely, but many of these comparisons are pre-2022, so would likely be even more heavily in favour of renewables now. Gas, coal, and oil prices have skyrocketed over the past year, while the price for renewable energy has fallen even further.

I suspect government policy has more than a little to do with that. Under the current administration the US has transitioned from net energy exporter to importer, not to mention pissing away our strategic oil reserve to secure slightly lower gas pump prices ahead of the mid term election. The anti-fossil fuel government policy is working to reduce supply and make energy prices higher.

The situation with Ukraine (and the high prices for fossil fuels that have happened because of it) only reinforces the need for the energy independence that renewables offer. That alone is worth the price of admission imho.

We were energy independent before President Biden declared war on fossil fuels.

Likewise

Nothing wrong with renewable energy in its time... we are not there yet IMO. In fact we need to expand nuclear energy in the short term as a bridge energy source until renewables are ready for prime time (later this century). Japan, the poster boy for shunning nuclear energy (after Fukashima) is considering building new technology nuke plants. CA, long opposed to nuclear energy, is wrestling over shutting down the Diablo Canyon plant (supplying carbon free electricity to 3M people) because they clearly need the electricity.

JR

[edit- apparently Japanese leadership is walking back the news that they were considering new nuclear energy plants. Apparently there was a study to evaluate, but the public reaction to that study was negative, and needed to be walked back. Them's politics. /edit]

 

[JohnRoberts]

If solar and wind power are cheaper than fossil fuel, why are China building both technologies and selling them to us in the west, while building coal power plants for their own power needs?

[edit- I saw an article saying that China was installing record numbers of rooftop solar panel in China. I stand corrected. Looks like they are pursuing an all of the above energy policy. /edit]

If a government study claims that solar and wind power is cheaper perhaps question their methodology.

JR

 

[scott2000]

Working on my gas truck I was thinking, what's going to happen with all the Autozones, Napa and such.....
Have to admit, just downloading an update would be pretty sweet if that's how it ends up.
Being at the mercy of some dealership that has to pay for it's overhead doesn't excite me atm though... But most of those reman parts I can use now come from other places so who knows....

 

[JohnRoberts]

Working on my gas truck I was thinking, what's going to happen with all the Autozones, Napa and such.....
Have to admit, just downloading an update would be pretty sweet if that's how it ends up.
Being at the mercy of some dealership that has to pay for it's overhead doesn't excite me atm though... But most of those reman parts I can use now come from other places so who knows....

They will start selling repair parts for EVs, they break too.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

They will start selling repair parts for EVs, they break too.

JR

Right to repair will have to be fought in the courts. Manufacturers will make it hard to DIY.

 

[scott2000]

They will start selling repair parts for EVs, they break too.

Of course. I think they already have some parts but, outside of pretty minor repairs, it'll be a while for that to transition to more. Just looking, it's a fairly small % of all vehicles that are electric atm but it's hard to tell from the different sites tbh. Idk, just thinking out loud...

 

[JohnRoberts]

My brother is on his second Tesla and not impressed with the robustness, reliability.

Don't expect this to change overnight because Gov Newson waved his magic wand.... It would take decades if ever for EVs to displace IC automobiles. No to mention building the infrastructure to make them practical for more than local use. Unclear why poor working people are willing to subsidize wealthy EV buyers with their tax dollars.

JR

PS; I still think EVs need to perfect a way to get energy directly from roads so we can eliminate the heavy batteries. This could work in cities and densely populated areas.

 

[fazer]

Hydrogen fuel cells are the future not lithium based EV,s IMO. Fuel cell cars could be 10 to twenty years out. The easiest way to create hydrogen is from CH4, (natural gas). In maybe 20 to 50 years, hydrogen could be made from water h2O. Petroleum products are how you bridge the gap to the future. Until then EVs, Are folly and at 60K with waiting list we’ll over a year not ready for prime time. Plus with the exception of what, one battery plant in the US, they are manufactured in China. This is not a strategic wise choice IMO.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I recall my older brother (the smart one) making a hydrogen fuel cell for his HS science fair project back in the 50s.

Hydrogen is funny to handle, but so is gasoline so we could learn if needed.

Green hydrogen from water takes energy.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Looks like the Antagonist in Chief was right again.

https://m.dw.com/en/nord-stream-1-r...es-indefinite-shutdown-of-pipeline/a-63006660

 

[JohnRoberts]

I expect Putin is negotiating to erode EU military support for Zellensky in Ukraine. I doubt they are shutting Nord Stream down already. This is just a few days to make a point. Wait until the weather gets colder.

In hindsight it does not look very smart, to trust Russia as a reliable energy source.

Several nations (US included) are pedaling as fast as they can to ramp up LNG shipments, but these new LNG export terminals and LNG shipping vessels will take some time to be effective. Good luck to our EU friends.

JR

PS: Sanctions to slow Russian oil sales have just shifted those sales to Asian customers, so Putin still has money to wage war with.

 

[Lee_M]

Until then EVs, Are folly and at 60K with waiting list we’ll over a year not ready for prime time.

If your point of reference on the entire EV market is a $60k Tesla, you should only really be comparing it to other "luxury" cars.

There's a wide selection of good quality EVs on the US market for around $30k, without factoring in any price reductions through possible subsidies or tax breaks.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/advice/affordable-evs/

 

[AnalogPackrat]

If your point of reference on the entire EV market is a $60k Tesla, you should only really be comparing it to other "luxury" cars.

There's a wide selection of good quality EVs on the US market for around $30k, without factoring in any price reductions through possible subsidies or tax breaks.

If you only need an econobox for a short commute. Not everyone can live with the tradeoffs. A pickup truck is not optional where I live. Go research actual range of EV trucks when hauling or towing typical loads. And let's not forget to add the cost of permits, parts, and labor to install a fast charging unit (or two). Of course if you rent, that might not be possible at all.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/advice/affordable-evs/

How about we let the market work itself out. If and when EVs offer clear advantages for all current use cases, they will be adopted. Until then they are only sufficient for a minority of buyers.