[Newfie]

Baha,
How does that work in NYC?

[KaiserJeep]

On the other hand, a simple powerdown is a simpler, more cost effective mitigation strategy for the reduction of excess energy consumption.
-snip-

That was the gist of my two messages above in this thread, if that was not clear in context. The requirement that a new house meet a stringent standard for energy consumption when built was only the beginning. Not too many suburban residences last 100+ years, and requiring that they meet the current energy consumption standard every 50 years - or get torn down - is not a heavy burden.

Same comments for transportation - dammit, if you want to ban FF vehicle fuels, do so. Announce that FF's will no longer be sold in 20 years, and that vehicles that burn FF's will no longer be sold in 10 years. Then do it in spite of the outraged screams. Biofuels and CNG and LPG could be used and existing vehicles converted, just no gasoline and diesel allowed.

No wishy-washy words about infrastructure renewal or energy efficiency, mandate that it happen. Require that it be so. Then allow a reasonable time before we nuke Canada or Mexico or China because they are still burning FF's. GET SERIOUS.

[ROCKMAN]

I consider any scheme to eventually run 100% of the grid on renewables at best a pointless distraction and at worst an excuse to not make viable incremental improvements.

Take the excuse some use for not utilizing renewable on a commercial scale: lack of economic commercial storage to overcome the intermittency problem. Had Texas followed that logic we would not have developed a word class wind power resource. And now that prices have come down beginning what may became a world class solar power resource in the next 10 years.

And did so by using our huge (and essentially already paid for) fossil fuel powered generation systems. So no: wind power did not greatly reduce our typical fossil fuel consumption for power generation. Electricity consumption that is far greater then even the #2 state. But what was the big benefit: we did not significantly EXPAND our fossil fuel generation base. Which we would have done to meet our surging electricity demand. We had the NG and, more important, a sh*t load of relatively cheap coal to do so.

We would have built more combination NG/coal burning power plants to meet that demand. Just like the one outside of Houston that is the second largest source of GHG in the country. As I've pointed out many times the incentive to build out wind power (and now solar) has no environmental basis. It is based solely on long term economics. Which is also why the public accepted spending $7 BILLION in tax payer funds to improve our stand alone grid to accommodate wind power expansion. Which is the obvious problem with getting hundreds of various entities in the east and west grids to willingly coordinate to improve those grids to accommodate renewables. Texas was lucky in that regards: we have ERCOT, the 800# gorilla in the room that has absolute control over 85% of electricity generation and distribution in the state.

And what happens if/when commercial electricity storage becomes economic? Texas will already have a large renewable electricity generation base in place to take advantage it. Which means at that time Texas may be closer then any other state (or "country") to being 100% dependent on renewable electricity.

And all because Texas didn't wait for "Running the US Power Grid on 100% Renewables".

[Newfie]

I'm behind on my reading so I apologize for not having yet read the article.

That said, my default position to stuff like this is to label it green washing. It conveys to the public the sense that our predicament is manageable and is being handled. Nothing to see here. Closer to the core problem we have is the public not grasping the magnitude of the problem in any of its manifestations.

And it's not just the general public, even engineers who should know better fall into this asleep at the wheel mentality.

[Newfie]

Pete,

That works only if the USA is the only country and if CO2 emissions are the only problem.

How does it work in Africa? How does it help limit population growth? And even if it is a positive effort, does it change things fast enough? Or are we resigned to just looking at lifeboat USA?

[KaiserJeep]

Rockman, you oversimplified what we are trying to accomplish here. It is actually a multi-step process requiring decades:

1) Establish a national goal for Zero Carbon Emissions. Announce end dates when the burning of coal and oil must end, and when the pumping and mining of these resources must cease entirely. Call whatever is left in the ground a "strategic energy reserve" and mothball a few facilities - and the skills to use them - for time of war.

2) Announce the end of petroleum fuels in 20 years. Cease selling petroleum fuelled vehicles in 10 years. Optionally allow low-emissions fuels like CNG, LPG, and biofuels not produced by petroleum powered agriculture.

3) Transition heavy frieght transport (trains and trucks) to non-petroleum fuels such as hydrogen or electricity.

4) Transition the grid to renewables. Leave newish large FF plants in place as emergency supplies after a disaster. Tax the bejesus out of every ton of carbon emitted, making FF energy much more painfully expensive than renewables, nuclear, or anything else.

5) Renew/retrofit the residential, commercial, and industrial buildings in cities/towns/rural areas to current energy efficiency standards. Mandate the tear down and replacement of all such buildings that fail to meet such standards every 50 years. No exceptions outside of museums, and no residents allowed in museum structures.

6) Nuke the bejesus out of every country that continues to burn FF's.

That is what "Get Serious" means.

[Newfie]

Yes Newfie, I will come down to reality now

We have lots of big problems. This is the one I chose to attack personally. If you need help with population I can build an electric chair

I don't like to be morbid but let's hope that the energy remaining is enough for the survivors...

Thanks for that acknowledgement.

One small adjustment, the number of survivors may well be determined by energy available.

I applaud these efforts to use renewables, up to a limit. It's just the perception that they are effective fixes, I prefer my truth straight.

And, if it must be a lifeboat USA, then so be it. Better than the options.

[ROCKMAN]

baha - The roots of ERCOT go back to WWII believe it or not. Back when the United States were much more united then they are now. LOL. And for Dog's sake don't buy into the fairly universal misbelief that our politicians get reelected thanks to support from the petroleum industry: they get to stay in office by keeping the voters content. If anything the Texas petroleum industry is held "captive" by the state's politicians. Proof of that is the $10+ BILLION in our state's "rainy day" sovereign fund thanks to the severance taxes and other fees collected from our industry. Just the oil/NG taxes collected by the state in the last 10 years exceeded $35 BILLION. Which is why the state didn't have to take a penny out of our "rainy day" sovereign fund to pay for the $7 BILLION grid upgrade. Also why Texas has no state income tax for individuals.

And as I mentioned solar, thanks to lower costs, is about to bust loose. And ERCOT, which controls the electricity generation of the largest fossil fuel producing state, is all behind it: Grid-scale Solar Emerges: Installed capacity of grid-scale solar nearly doubled in 2016, from 288 MW to 554 MW, and ERCOT put a new solar forecast in place to support reliable integration of this emerging generation resource.

Back to the origins of ERCOT:

1941 - At the beginning of World War II, several electric utilities in Texas banded together as the Texas Interconnected System (TIS) to support the war effort. They sent excess power supplies to industrial manufacturing companies on the Gulf Coast to provide reliable electricity supplies for energy-intensive aluminum smelting. Recognizing the reliability advantages of remaining interconnected, the TIS members continued to use and develop the interconnected grid. TIS members adopted official operating guides for their interconnected power system and established two monitoring centers within the control centers of two utilities, one in North Texas and one in South Texas.

And as Paul Harvey would say: "Here's the rest of the story".

http://www.ercot.com/about/profile/history

[Newfie]

How are you going to convience the public to back your proposals?

How are we going to finance tearing down all our housing and replacing it, even on your suggested 50 year cycle? Do we even have enough natural resources left to do it? Where will the wood come from?