On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
Everything has issues no doubt. And from a purely carbon perspective this is a win. I just think China's obsession with the "biggest" is the issue. From what I have read the impact would have been a lot small if they did 10 smaller projects for example.
The biggest solar field also creates a lot of issues that solar panels on each house wouldn't (production issues not withstanding). There is also a lot of rules for producing solar panels, and solar panel recycling. In Europe with EPR the future recycling cost of the panel is built into the sale price so when the time comes you have the money to recycle/properly dispose of them.
They also built the biggest road bridge to Hong Kong, and I'm sure a bunch of other "biggest's" which do not have the environment in mind.
I think the biggest thing right now is having regulations to properly deal with the waste and the bad effects of all the options you described. For example there are Solar panels produced and recycled pretty darn well, and then there are the opposite. To see if something is good for the environment it needs full cost to the environment life-cycle accounting.
Based on our different values you would probably like to use a method such as EPS for Life Cycle Assessments while I would favour something like GWP that focuses more on the current problems. The overall point I agree with, if you don't know the impacts you can't compare different solutions to the problem.
China is doing a lot of the biggest projects, same as the US used to do during the cold war and the middle east is doing now as well. I guess in 50 years it will be Africa or India doing them instead.
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
Agreed. I didn't really see an argument for why the dam was an example of something terrible relative to the other options. So damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Obviously dams aren't without consequences and no one would argue as much. More, smaller dams, would take more concrete and money to create and maintain for example.
On September 14 2019 02:56 JimmiC wrote: That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
With 16 giant generators, it could generate 62.4 billion kilowatt‐hours of electricity annually, which could provide for the consumption of 5.8 million U.S. households. Although the dam would prevent the burning of 28 million tons of coal, equivalent to 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, over 80,000 people and countless animals and plants would lose their homes forever.
This seems like a much better dam overall to build. Though the risk with earthquakes seems to be increased a bit. Do I understand it correctly that it is the ground setting and you get through that in the first decades?
Reading the article the primary motivation of the three gorges is flood control and electricity is how they managed to finance it.
Don't see what is so controversial about a targetted tax to finance the project. They could instead have raised taxes 0.1% to achieve the same result? Or to borrow massive amounts of money with interest rates that would have made it more expensive. That one part of a country finances a mega project they don't directly benefit from isn't something strange. Their projects come if needed, it is one of the advantages of a large state if you can afford projects. The richer regions benefited a lot from the resources in the region that now gets some economy pushed back in projects, seems mostly fair.
Also interesting from that article that the three gorges dam has almost paid for its construction and relocation of people already in electricity sold. Though much further away if it directly caused the big earthquake. Once a big flood comes and the dam stops it, it has paid for itself many times over.
The table comparing renewable sources feels so lack-lustre after the work on the rest of it. No mention of the life cycle. A dam lasts a bit longer than most solar cells or wind plants. I assume most of the negatives are negated when you rebuild it at the same spot as well, making it more sustainable the longer you use it.
This case is designed for both graduate and undergraduate students taking the Energy Justice class taught by professor Tony Reames. However, due to the nature and contents of the case, it can also be used in courses related to environmental justice, social evaluations, and the Chinese policy.
Would be interesting if there was one more targetted on the purely environmental side than the law angle. Though it does cover it as well.
On September 14 2019 02:56 JimmiC wrote: That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
With 16 giant generators, it could generate 62.4 billion kilowatt‐hours of electricity annually, which could provide for the consumption of 5.8 million U.S. households. Although the dam would prevent the burning of 28 million tons of coal, equivalent to 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, over 80,000 people and countless animals and plants would lose their homes forever.
This seems like a much better dam overall to build. Though the risk with earthquakes seems to be increased a bit. Do I understand it correctly that it is the ground setting and you get through that in the first decades?
Reading the article the primary motivation of the three gorges is flood control and electricity is how they managed to finance it.
Don't see what is so controversial about a targetted tax to finance the project. They could instead have raised taxes 0.1% to achieve the same result? Or to borrow massive amounts of money with interest rates that would have made it more expensive. That one part of a country finances a mega project they don't directly benefit from isn't something strange. Their projects come if needed, it is one of the advantages of a large state if you can afford projects. The richer regions benefited a lot from the resources in the region that now gets some economy pushed back in projects, seems mostly fair.
Also interesting from that article that the three gorges dam has almost paid for its construction and relocation of people already in electricity sold. Though much further away if it directly caused the big earthquake. Once a big flood comes and the dam stops it, it has paid for itself many times over.
The table comparing renewable sources feels so lack-lustre after the work on the rest of it. No mention of the life cycle. A dam lasts a bit longer than most solar cells or wind plants. I assume most of the negatives are negated when you rebuild it at the same spot as well, making it more sustainable the longer you use it.
This case is designed for both graduate and undergraduate students taking the Energy Justice class taught by professor Tony Reames. However, due to the nature and contents of the case, it can also be used in courses related to environmental justice, social evaluations, and the Chinese policy.
Would be interesting if there was one more targetted on the purely environmental side than the law angle. Though it does cover it as well.
Yes I enjoyed it as well. That was my impression on the earth quakes as well, but that is not my area of expertise so I can't be sure.
I would be very interested in reading a purely environmental report that included full life cycle analysis.
As you mention this will have a longer time period, but I'm not sure on the maintenance costs and how that would cost compared to replacing solar panels or what is needed for wind and so on.
I'm also very interested in what various people think on human side. I think you and GH might have different opinions.
But if this was proposed in the US and lets say the best spot was on the Missouri and would cause the forced relocation of the St Louis greater area and towns around there. Everyone would have forced relocation to Montana where they would all get a 2 bedroom apartment and a job at the new factories they would build their. Montana gets picked because of its low population density and lets say it is close to the raw materials needed at the new factories.
ow would you feel about the government making this decision and forcing this on well over a million people? Also all the history and so on lost and now under water. It is obviously more complicated, and there were things like members of the government getting better jobs and better spots to move too, so I'm guessing in the states it would be the wealthy that would have move options.
But overall would you support such a program?
I don't care where I live. So I would support it even if I lived in the area. The details would matter regarding if I was happy with it or not short term. Long term I can move on if I don't like it.
The history I do care about, in the US there is minimal history compared to China so it has that going for it as well. Though I am willing to lose historic sites if there is a reason for it. ISIS just blowing things up just to remove history annoys me a lot. A dam that will power a large region for generations is something I can accept though.
On September 15 2019 00:38 JimmiC wrote: I'm aware, and did you think it was a good thing?
It's a "thing", with good and bad attributes. Reducing dependence on carbon based energy is a good thing, harming marginalized people to do it is bad, for example.
The US continues to go backwards environmentally with more roll backs of regulations intended to keep drinking water safe (it's not safe in over 3000 jurisdictions in the US anyway).
The Trump administration on Thursday announced repeal of an Obama-era regulation that had expanded pollution protections for waterways such as wetlands and shallow streams, but that farmers, miners and manufacturers decried as overreach.
Environmental groups have said the Obama rule was necessary to protect drinking water sources at risk from agri-business and industry.
Earthjustice and other environmental groups on Thursday warned that the Trump administration repeal will threaten drinking water and weaken safeguards that help reduce flooding and filter out pollution from streams and wetlands.
On September 09 2019 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yes, China's emissions per capita have skyrocketed the past 20 years, and their emissions per capita are at european levels now. That's obviously a problem. But Americans who still pollute twice as much per capita telling the chinese 'you guys need to pollute less' because china overtook them on the overall rankings really haven't established much useful understanding.
And I'm sorry but the conclusion is not make everyone very poor. The conclusion is the realization that Indias overall consumption is bound to increase as their wealth increases, because it's still very, very low compared to their population. And this puts further pressure on western countries to decrease emissions. Essentially, any measurement that doesn't look at per capita, as I see it, is nothing more than a way for western populations to not feel as responsible as they should feel. This isn't a crisis that's just happening on a country / executive level, it's one where the average western human either has a wholly wrong impression of how much they can sustainably consume, or one where the average western human doesn't actually care all that much.
Well looking at the numbers in Wikipedia, China reduced their Fossil CO2 emissions pair capita (8.49) from 2013 to 7.7 in 2017. While US reduced theirs (19.9 in 2013) to 15.7 in 2017. Both Countries are on the right track, but I would like to see US, Canada and Australia reduce more of their emmisions per capita if possible, also oil rich and high GDP per capita countries are the biggest polluters. Actually I think the biggest problem for rising C02 emmisions right now is the trade war. As both US and China hurt their economy (and the rest of the world with them), they will encourage the people to spend and consume increasing C02 emmisions. China was on the right track spending a lot of money on renewable energy, also was going to dramatically reduce it's reliance on coal, but I don't think that is the case anymore from what i've read. Because to reduce the impact on the economy from the trade war they will encourage their people to consume more, also delay their reduction on coal reliance.
Found and interesting video today, sorry if this is out of place compared to what argument is taking place in the last 5-6 posts, and it's in or should I say a bit about Australia.
But the fact that they managed to simulate in 1973 with their piss-poor computers what's happening now kinda amazed me. Thought it would be interesting to share.
EPT
