boy is this girl in for a surprise..

[monsoon]

This is an interesting concept but it *might* end up as a regressive tax that unduly burdens the poor more than the middle or wealthy classes.

Low income people are often forced to use forms of energy and transportation that are the least efficient and in the worst operating condition. (think worn out appliances, air conditioning, worn out used automobiles, etc).  Low income people do not have the $26k that I just dropped on residential solar panel installations.  Many low income people do not have access to decent mass transportation and so drive low cost, but inefficient vehicles to work each day just to survive. Many low income people rent from landlords who are NOT interested in upgrading their rental properties to be energy efficient.

It's odd, but as my income has risen over the years, it has become easier for me to be environmentally responsible.

- I can afford to pay the higher food prices at local farmer's markets

- I was able to purchase a solar array that has totally negated my energy consumption from the power grid

- I can afford an electric vehicle and power it from my solar array

- I was able to afford to upgrade all of my appliances to newer, energy and water efficient versions.

Presumably, the easiest methods of taxing carbon would be to tie it to an individual's utility bills and adding a carbon tax at the fuel pump.  God help 'em if the individual draws their electricity from a coal fired power plant, and is low income, drawing large amounts of electricity. Then, they pay more in tax at the fuel pump because their car is in bad tune and guzzles fuel.

Part of the answer to a carbon tax being regressive is to increase the tax with amount of use. Your first gigaton is taxed at one rate, the second at another. Can also use the tax $$ to provide better access to and better public transportation. 

 

[Crump's Brother]

beat me to it. he might have conveniently forgotton about that.

How is the 80% efficient electric motor powered?

More than likely by a combined cycle power plant with an efficiency of 38% to 42%.  Throw in transmission line and transformer losses at another 3% brings you to 45% efficient electric power grid powering your 80% efficient electric motor.

Apples to apples, I'll chuck 100,000 BTU's of gas into my 30 mpg car and 100,000 BTU's of gas (or coal, nat gas, etc) in that power plant that generates power, then dump the power into the grid, then charge your electric car, it ain't 80% efficient.

KB

 

[spankoka]

I get it that the environment is a big deal, however as a Cold War baby who grew up with shelter drill and all that-apocalyptic rhetoric just turns me off.  I've heard it all before, but yet here I am.

 

[Marty6]

Nobody is suggesting that mass suicide or pogroms are a part of this solution. But if there is to be any real progress made towards reducing the amount of pollution in the world the population of the world will need to be reduced. Hopefully voluntarily, but economic incentives, such as a sales tax based on the number of children one has, might play a role.

Obviously not the solution since the countries with the lowest population growth (e.g. western Europe) or already controlled population growth (e.g. China) produce the most greenhouse gasses.

The anit-nuke campaign was the biggest own-goal ever by the environmental movement.

Nope or have the USA finally found a solution to store the spent fuel rods? Yes you have a lot of desert already being used as garbage dump but when i read stories e.g. about  Hanford site (WA) i'm real happy not to life anywhere near that location.

 

[spankoka]

That's kind of muddying the water between spent fuel rods and the production of nuclear weapons, no?

 

[Marty6]

That's kind of muddying the water between spent fuel rods and the production of nuclear weapons, no?

What do you think is stored there as a left over or waste of the nuclear weapons production? Candy bars?

 

[kent_island_sailor]

Obviously not the solution since the countries with the lowest population growth (e.g. western Europe) or already controlled population growth (e.g. China) produce the most greenhouse gasses.

Nope or have the USA finally found a solution to store the spent fuel rods? Yes you have a lot of desert already being used as garbage dump but when i read stories e.g. about  Hanford site (WA) i'm real happy not to life anywhere near that location.

There are two solutions for spent fuel rods:

1. The repository we built for them kept closed by NIMBYs.

2. Using them as fuel in modern sub-critical reactor designs that can burn all the high level waste.

 

[kent_island_sailor]

What do you think is stored there as a left over or waste of the nuclear weapons production? Candy bars?

Hanford became a big mess due to very primitve tech and waste disposal ideas no one would ever think of trying now.

* well no one around here. I think the exploding reactor design the Soviets used was a rip-off of one of our very early plutonium making graphite reactors.

 

[kent_island_sailor]

How is the 80% efficient electric motor powered?

More than likely by a combined cycle power plant with an efficiency of 38% to 42%.  Throw in transmission line and transformer losses at another 3% brings you to 45% efficient electric power grid powering your 80% efficient electric motor.

Apples to apples, I'll chuck 100,000 BTU's of gas into my 30 mpg car and 100,000 BTU's of gas (or coal, nat gas, etc) in that power plant that generates power, then dump the power into the grid, then charge your electric car, it ain't 80% efficient.

KB

The idea is if you close the town's coal plant and replace it with sun/wind/hydro/nuke, you upgrade every electric car in town to zero CO2 driving at once

 

[Marty6]

There are two solutions for spent fuel:

1. The repository we built for them kept closed by NIMBYs.

2. Using them as fuel in modern sub-critical reactor designs that can burn all the high level waste.

Regarding 1: There exists a very interesting documentary, called "Into Eternity" about the final storage location of radioactive waste in Finland. Apart from the technical difficulties still not 100% solved there is also the almost philosophical question "Do we tell where this is and how do we make sure the documentation is kept up to date for 1000s of years or do we learn to forget that such a site exists?"

Regarding 2: Does an working installation already exist? And as far as i quickly read there is still intermediate-level long-lived radioactive waste (ILW) for which you need a storage site, granted a smaller one.

 

[spankoka]

What do you think is stored there as a left over or waste of the nuclear weapons production? Candy bars?

I'm just saying that to be fair- Hanford is a mess because of nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.  A MOX fuel cycle is what they were working at in Japan, but obviously it went pear shaped. That would be Kent Island Sailors' Option #2.

 

[batkinmok]

I would simply say developed nations, not lay the blame solely at North America's feet but on the whole, i agree with you.

All I can do, is try to live my life responsibly, which I am doing. I don't feel "entitled" and I'm not pointing fingers.

Sorry, maybe that came across wrong, i didnt mean you personally, just wanted to explain why i used the per capita data.

How is the 80% efficient electric motor powered?

More than likely by a combined cycle power plant with an efficiency of 38% to 42%.  Throw in transmission line and transformer losses at another 3% brings you to 45% efficient electric power grid powering your 80% efficient electric motor.

Apples to apples, I'll chuck 100,000 BTU's of gas into my 30 mpg car and 100,000 BTU's of gas (or coal, nat gas, etc) in that power plant that generates power, then dump the power into the grid, then charge your electric car, it ain't 80% efficient.

KB

Thats totally beside the point of "how much bang for your buck". Which is evidently way better with EVs than combustion powered cars.

And you can make the same point for gas, it had to be extracted, refined, transported etc., all of which took energy, bringing down its awful efficiency even more.

 

[Rain Man]

Sorry, maybe that came across wrong, i didnt mean you personally, just wanted to explain why i used the per capita data.

Thats totally beside the point of "how much bang for your buck". Which is evidently way better with EVs than combustion powered cars.

And you can make the same point for gas, it had to be extracted, refined, transported etc., all of which took energy, bringing down its awful efficiency even more.

From what I remember of my machines course in electrical engineering only a really crappy electric engine would be 80% efficient.  I recall a lab where we showed a standard AC engine to be about 95% efficient.  That's one of the reasons ships use diesel electric.

 

[Miffy]

From what I remember of my machines course in electrical engineering only a really crappy electric engine would be 80% efficient.  I recall a lab where we showed a standard AC engine to be about 95% efficient.  That's one of the reasons ships use diesel electric.

A lot of modern ships also have redundancy in how the power plants are designed. One small regenerator to provide electrical system. A compressed air tank to start the main propulsion engines. Two engine generators load sized to match efficient cruising speed for the hull and intended loaded displacement. 

One goes down and the ship can still function. Small generator and reserve compressed air for total loss restart capability. 

Emissions aside, modern working ships are beautifully well considered engineering marvels. 

 

[teamvmg]

That is really low

I hope she has fun and inspires some junior sailors.

You've totally missed the object of what she is trying to do!

 

[KC375]

You've totally missed the object of what she is trying to do!

I don't think he has. I think he is wishing her well and hoping she helps raise the profile of sailing. He can do that without endorsing or disrespecting her particular cause.

 

[clucas]

Let’s not confuse “making a statement” with any facts ok? B)

We choose truth over facts.

 

[Israel Hands]

As if 2017, China isn't even in the top 20 for per capita CO2 emissions (the more reasonable metric), nor are most of the countries of Europe.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

So?  If you've spent any time in China in the past decade, you know that air quality in cities is usually terrible. They still have not even made the stack investments that the US and Europe made 50 years ago to start cleaning air emissions. (This is of course one of the low-cost reasons Walmart built its portal to China)

If you are claiming that China somehow isn't affecting world climate as much as "people think," then you are simply arguing for the sake of trolling. Ask the Japanese. They sit there often in the fog spinning off the continent, and study the stuff.

 

[KC375]

We choose truth over facts.

A Biden supporter

 

[Parma]

In case nobody else sees it, there are apparently a few posters who are making stupid, baseless and annoying comments in order to drive the number of clicks/hits for SA.