User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: A Decarbonized U.S. by 2050 Is Probably Impossible, But Here's What It Might Look Lik

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 863,691, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    497531
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    242,846
    Points
    863,691
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,691
    Thanked 148,541x in 94,964 Posts
    Mentioned
    2554 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    A Decarbonized U.S. by 2050 Is Probably Impossible, But Here's What It Might Look Lik

    And this idea is popularly supported, proving that people, in general, are indeed stupid.

    But not all is lost. If the stupid are forced to face the costs of the insanity they support, they would nix it whether the climate crazies were right or not.

    A Decarbonized U.S. by 2050 Is Probably Impossible, But Here's What It Might Look Like

    Decarbonizing the United States by the year 2050, as many policymakers advocate and a strong majority of Americans support, would likely be the most challenging infrastructure overhaul in the history of our country. Frankly, the odds are heavily stacked against it happening.


    Though many support the idea in abstract, they may not necessarily grasp what such an energy transition would entail in practice. The International Energy Agency (IEA) and researchers from Arizona State University recently spelled it out in detail. Here is a summary of what a carbon-free United States might look like in 2050:

    • The grid will be producing and delivering four times the electricity we use today, 70% through wind and solar, with the rest coming from other carbon-free sources like nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower. "One-third of output will go to traditional residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Another third will go to charging vehicle batteries, while the remainder will power immense fuel synthesis industries that do not exist today."
    • We will need 150 billion gallons per year of biofuels for agriculture, mining, construction, aviation, marine transport, and the military – about ten times what is produced today. Biofuels will completely displace oil. Some biofuels could be replaced with clean hydrogen if the technology matures and scales.
    • Railways and buses must all be electrified.
    • Long-haul trucking will have to be conducted on electrified roads that charge trucks' batteries while driving. If not, then another ~30 billion gallons of biofuels will be needed each year.
    • 90 - 100% of personal vehicles must be electric. Chargers must be installed at every residence.
    • At least 50% of heating demand must be supplied by heat pumps.
    How much will all of this cost?
    "The annual cost of decarbonization is at most on the order of 1% of GDP. This cost is the equivalent of having suffered a mild recession with one year of slow economic growth," the ASU researchers estimate.


    The IEA offers a more rosy assessment.


    "Total annual energy investment surges to USD 5 trillion by 2030 in the net zero pathway, adding an extra 0.4 percentage points a year to global GDP growth, based on a joint analysis with the International Monetary Fund. The jump in private and government spending creates millions of jobs in clean energy, including energy efficiency, as well as in the engineering, manufacturing and construction industries. All of this puts global GDP 4% higher in 2030 than it would reach based on current trends."
    The simple fact is that nobody knows how much the energy transition will cost. We just know that making it happen will take unprecedented buy-in from policymakers, citizens, and stakeholders.


    "Tripling U.S. electricity production, developing one, possibly two new fuel industries, and deploying the equipment that uses that energy in only 30 years will require an integrated and predictable regulatory and policy regime—including land use, environmental impacts, rights-of-way, and environmental justice—that reassures investors and consumers. We cannot predict technological progress and innovation, nor changes in energy usage, thirty years in advance. Therefore, policy must focus on the quantitative outcome, zero net fossil carbon emissions, while maximizing flexibility in achieving that outcome," the ASU researchers conclude.







    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (09-26-2022),Just AnotherPerson (09-26-2022),Red Lily (09-26-2022)

  3. #2
    Points: 85,040, Level: 71
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 2,210
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Just AnotherPerson's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    27586
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    11,128
    Points
    85,040
    Level
    71
    Thanks Given
    14,094
    Thanked 9,555x in 5,668 Posts
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think replacing oil with biofuels is ridiculous. One of the greatest threats to humanity is a lack of clean water sources. We are going to use our water reserves to grow food for fuel when that food could have been used to feed people. As we speak people are starving to death in third world nations, while we are cutting back aid, as we increase our use of biofuels. We really need fusion stat!! I'm not so sure about electrified roads either.
    We are all brothers and sisters in humanity. We are all made from the same dust of stars. We cannot be separated because all life is interconnected.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Just AnotherPerson For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-26-2022)

  5. #3
    Points: 145,070, Level: 91
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 1,580
    Overall activity: 71.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    44132
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    58,036
    Points
    145,070
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,502
    Thanked 44,137x in 28,529 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sounds easy. Wait until they find that many of the products they need to make products stronger, lighter, last longer and other characteristics come from long chain polymers that are only available as byproducts from fossil fuel production. What are they going to do? Throw away 70% of a barrel of oil that is not used to make these product? Do we bring back Rockefellar who threw 80 to 90% of a barrel of oil in the river to get kerosene, since the rest had no use?
    Let's go Brandon !!!

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts