Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
4. Does it?
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:59 PM
Jan 2013

Let's assume energy consumption grows at a steady rate of 2% a year for the foreseeable future. This means that each year, our fossil fuel consumption grows at 1% - (the rate of retirement of FF infrastructure). So, this means we are still burning more and more fossil fuels every single year, as long as the existing fossil fuel furnaces & generators go offline slower than new generation is coming online.

China and India are building 4 new coal plants every week. Are 4 or more coal plants across the globe going offline each week? If not, we are making no ground.

Its great if we can lower the carbon intensity of our energy, but its not going to help our current trajectory if we do not lower aggregate emissions. Frankly, we could have 99% of new power generation being "green", but if that 1% of new "dirty" generation more than offsets retirement of old infrastructure, we are still headed for a very, very warm world.

We need to reduce emissions. Yesterday.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K&R jpak Jan 2013 #1
K&R daleanime Jan 2013 #2
“Renewable power generation now accounts for around 50% of all new power generation capacity…” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #3
Does it? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #4
Even if we manage to reduce the carbon intensity of our energy supply GliderGuider Jan 2013 #5
Or, quite simply, we get off of our butts and do something about it OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #8
Do your best! GliderGuider Jan 2013 #17
EROEI below 5:1 Terry in Austin Jan 2013 #25
Try this: GliderGuider Jan 2013 #27
Yes, it does say something… OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #7
I don't care. Its irrelevant NoOneMan Jan 2013 #9
No, you choose to claim it is irrelevant OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author NoOneMan Jan 2013 #11
If aggregate emissions continue to increase, nothing else matters. Nothing. Nada. Zilch NoOneMan Jan 2013 #12
“We start when aggregate emissions begin to drop.” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #13
No, we are kicking the can down the road and further screwing our situation NoOneMan Jan 2013 #14
I agree, we delayed acting for too long OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #15
Actually 0% *could* work. You are looking at this incorrectly NoOneMan Jan 2013 #16
That may be the wrong question. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #18
Its a rhetorical question NoOneMan Jan 2013 #23
It's the only sensible conclusion one could come to. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #24
In truth, a 0 carbon emissions level is not enough OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #19
"We both know that is not going to happen" NoOneMan Jan 2013 #22
What's the assumed capacity factor? GliderGuider Jan 2013 #6
There has to be an energy-efficiency factor too. Ghost Dog Jan 2013 #20
Oh, it's all good GliderGuider Jan 2013 #21
This message was deleted by the cat on the keyboard. n/t 2on2u Jan 2013 #26
Keyboard Cats, huh? Ghost Dog Jan 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Renewable Energy Revoluti...»Reply #4