Google has fully offset its lifetime carbon emissions today

Polycount

Posts: 2,516   +549
Staff member
In brief: Google became carbon neutral over a decade ago, but today, the tech giant pushed the envelope even further. According to a new announcement, Google has officially eliminated its 'entire carbon legacy,' including emissions generated before it went carbon neutral in 2007.

It achieved this milestone using the purchase of "high-quality carbon offsets" to reduce its "lifetime net carbon footprint" to zero. Google says it's the first major company to accomplish this feat, putting it ahead of firms with similar sustainability goals, such as Amazon or Apple.

As CEO Sundar Pichai writes in a blog post, sustainability has been a part of Google's values for many years -- since the company was first founded, in fact, or so he claims.

Since Google was established in 1998, the corporation has hit multiple climate-related targets, such as full carbon neutrality in '07, or offsetting 100 percent of its energy use with renewable alternatives in 2017.

Google won't leave well-enough alone, though. The company intends to operate on nothing but "carbon-free" energy sources across all of its global data centers and campuses by 2030.

Google calls its 2030 goal of eliminating its use of carbon-based energy sources a "moonshot," and one with tremendous "practical and technical complexity." Regardless, Google hopes to tackle this project by combining wind and solar power sources together, using AI to boost energy efficiency, and increasing battery storage capacity.

It remains to be seen whether or not those measures will be enough to help Google reach such an ambitious goal, but we'll keep you updated on its progress.

Permalink to story.

 

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
"Carbon-free" sources are of course anything but. Germany's mass subsidization of renewables not only increased overall emissions, but gave them the highest electricity rates in all Europe, several times what most in the US pay ... and raised the spectre of electricity shortages and potential blackouts.

In any case, given the hype surrounding the negatives of CO2 emissions, and the (almost entirely ignored) benefits of higher CO2 levels, I'd be willing to bet that within three decades, Google's action will be widely acknowledged as somewhere between amusing and downright harmful.
 

treetops

Posts: 3,008   +758
"Carbon-free" sources are of course anything but. Germany's mass subsidization of renewables not only increased overall emissions, but gave them the highest electricity rates in all Europe, several times what most in the US pay ... and raised the spectre of electricity shortages and potential blackouts.

In any case, given the hype surrounding the negatives of CO2 emissions, and the (almost entirely ignored) benefits of higher CO2 levels, I'd be willing to bet that within three decades, Google's action will be widely acknowledged as somewhere between amusing and downright harmful.
What are the benefits of higher co2 levels?
 
What are the benefits of higher co2 levels?
All fossil fuels that are currently under the ground in this planet such as oil, coal, natural gas were completely above the ground as carbon dioxide gas. This planet has had CO2 levels as high as 4000 parts per million (ppm) while current CO2 levels are at 414 ppm according to NOAA. I seen current levels as low as 377 ppm of CO2 and that is a worrying number by biological standards. Plants need around 300 ppm and above of CO2 to conduct carbon fixing. The required level of CO2 by plants varies from species to species but as more organic matter filters underground though time that number does not get any better. This planet has gone through ice ages so severe which covered the planet in ice as far south as the equator while CO2 levels were much higher than today's level. We have also had periods that were ice free in the poles and full of life that have left oil in the arctic. The planet has been hotter before so don't let the globalist fool you. Climate change is a way for them to tell you how to behave and what you can and cannot do.
 

treetops

Posts: 3,008   +758
Also, sea life requires dissolved carbon dioxide in the water allowing algae to grow and feed the higher food chain.
You should inform the press, we are killing all the plants and sea life. What fools we are reducing carbon. All the millions of scientists with PHDs never thought to think what it would do! Hurry go tell the world. Quickly there is no time! Click on the links below.



 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

Tom Yum

Posts: 25   +43
All fossil fuels that are currently under the ground in this planet such as oil, coal, natural gas were completely above the ground as carbon dioxide gas. This planet has had CO2 levels as high as 4000 parts per million (ppm) while current CO2 levels are at 414 ppm according to NOAA. I seen current levels as low as 377 ppm of CO2 and that is a worrying number by biological standards. Plants need around 300 ppm and above of CO2 to conduct carbon fixing. The required level of CO2 by plants varies from species to species but as more organic matter filters underground though time that number does not get any better. This planet has gone through ice ages so severe which covered the planet in ice as far south as the equator while CO2 levels were much higher than today's level. We have also had periods that were ice free in the poles and full of life that have left oil in the arctic. The planet has been hotter before so don't let the globalist fool you. Climate change is a way for them to tell you how to behave and what you can and cannot do.
All of what you say is true but also irrelevant. Current life on this planet evolved to handle a CO2 PPM of around 300-500ppm, and did so over millions of years. That life existed when CO2 was 4000 ppm and global temps were ~10C higher doesn't mean current life can, especially if we get there over the space of a few centuries (a timespan evolution can't keep up with). The risk is never we'll make wipe out life on earth, but that we'll wipe out current life (ie mass extinction) if we don't slow the rate of change to something evolution can keep up with, which in humanities timespan effectively means us achieving a CO2 neutral existence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Markoni35

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
All fossil fuels that are currently under the ground in this planet such as oil, coal, natural gas were completely above the ground as carbon dioxide gas. This planet has had CO2 levels as high as 4000 parts per million (ppm) while current CO2 levels are at 414 ppm according to NOAA. I seen current levels as low as 377 ppm of CO2 and that is a worrying number by biological standards. Plants need around 300 ppm and above of CO2 to conduct carbon fixing. The required level of CO2 by plants varies from species to species but as more organic matter filters underground though time that number does not get any better. This planet has gone through ice ages so severe which covered the planet in ice as far south as the equator while CO2 levels were much higher than today's level. We have also had periods that were ice free in the poles and full of life that have left oil in the arctic. The planet has been hotter before so don't let the globalist fool you. Climate change is a way for them to tell you how to behave and what you can and cannot do.
" As Alex Schwartz writes for Popular Science, the world’s average carbon dioxide levels stood at 280 ppm for the majority of the last one million years, never topping 300 ppm or falling below 160 ppm despite multiple periods of planetary warming and cooling."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-reach-highest-point-human-history-180972181/

Clearly plants have been fine at less than 300 ppm as it's been that way for one million years. I'd like to see your source for minimum carbon fixing.

Your comment spends time talking about past conditions of earth but neglects to mention that many of those changes occurred over 3.7 BILLION years. Globalists have nothing to do with it, every scientific body in the world agrees with the statement that carbon is increasing at a worry rate in relation to time.

Also from the article, the last time the CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 10 to 20m higher. Even if you take a safe estimate of only 10m rise and apply that to modern earth you are looking at 1 BILLION people affected.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z

This is nothing new. That's a metric ton of evidence supporting man-made climate change. The words of brand new accounts posting anti-science comments without any supporting evidence are par for the course when it comes to spreading misinformation.

 

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
What are the benefits of higher co2 levels?
-- Faster plant growth, equating to more food, along with a negative-feedback mechanism increasing CO2 uptake and thus reducing further CO2 increases. As the prior poster alluded to, CO2 is airborne fertilizer.
-- A warmer planet. The current average global temperature is more than ten degrees cooler than the temperature that man, and most of the plants and animals he depends upon, is most comfortable with. Warmer temperatures have drawbacks, but the benefits are very real, and may likely outweigh the negatives.
-- A more stable weather system. The factoid that "global warming causes more storms" is exactly backwards and defies basic physics. Weather systems are massive heat engines. Heat engines are not driven by heat, but by differences in temperature. CO2 warms the poles more than the tropics, decreasing the temperature differential that drives extreme weather. Contrast Venus, hottest planet in the solar system, but with no weather whatsoever, with the outer gas giants, which are extremely cold but have the most violent storms imaginable (Jupiter's Red Spot is essentially a 500-year old hurricane larger than the Earth.)
 

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
All of what you say is true but also irrelevant. Current life on this planet evolved to handle a CO2 PPM of around 300-500ppm, and did so over millions of years.
Whoa, there. The earliest life on earth evolved in an atmosphere that was essentially all nitrogen and carbon dioxide-- no oxygen at all. To that early anaerobic life, their byproduct of oxygen was toxic, and, over time, they produced enough oxygen to kill themselves all off. Had man not come along, that same pattern would repeat itself in a few hundred million years, when CO2 levels dropped below the minimum necessary to support plant life.

Current life on Earth evolved in that high-CO2, low-oxygen environment. In fact, the entire reason we have CO2 locked in coal, oil, and gas today is because that life took it from the atmosphere and placed it there. That life is much more comfortable with a CO2 level much higher than present, which is why commercial greenhouses today usually operate at about a 1200 ppm level, artificially adding CO2 to maximize growth and plant health -- some greenhouses even run at 2,000 ppm.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 750   +263
I'm glad more and more people can see through the CO2 scam. One of the first warning signs was when "greenies" started to attack hydropower and geothermal power plants. In fact, they attack all reliable and constant sources except nuclear. Because they are actually slaves of nuclear industry.

Wind and solar are unreliable. So nuclear industry is advertising them through their "green" activists, because they aren't competition. With wind and solar you have to plan your electrical network as if they don't exist (because in a night, without wind, they really don't exist). The plan is to make nuclear power plants that cover entire consumption, and then add wind and solar as extra sources, when available.

Except there's one problem. Nuclear don't mix well with wind and solar. Since wind and solar aren't reliable, you need a reliable power plant for their backup that can QUICKLY change its power output. But nuclear power plants cannot quickly change their regime. They constantly output the same power in their most economical regime of production. It takes hours for them to cool down to change the production of steam, and it's not very economical for them to do that.

Only two types of stable and reliable power plants can quickly adapt to the production and consumption peaks: hydro power and gas power. Gas turbines of course emit lots of CO2. Hydro power is ideal, because then you have 100% ecological sources. Hydro serves as the reliable source, while wind+solar are auxiliary. Geothermal can also relatively quickly change its power output.

Isn't it then weird that greenies constantly attack hydro power and geothermal power? Using really stupid excuses. It's pretty clear they work for the nuclear industry. And nuclear industry supports wind+solar because it's not their competition, while still making them look "green".
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
Even if you take a safe estimate of only 10m [sea level] rise and apply that to modern earth you are looking at 1 BILLION people affected.
You do realize that sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. And that the current rate of rise is far lower than it was even 5,000 years ago:

Early Holocene Sea Level Rise

Climate change or no, the oceans are going to keep rising ... but luckily the rate, even if it doubles or triples, is slow enough to be easily manageable. A few centimeters per decade can be handled in most areas simply by adjusting building codes -- require new construction to be set back from the shore a bit further. For those few areas where this doesn't work, they simply raise their existing sea walls another meter. Fully one quarter of the Netherlands is below sea level -- if they can handle that with 18th-century technology, I feel confident that 21st-century technology can handle a far smaller problem.
 

EClyde

Posts: 2,309   +906
The carbon hoax. More coal, more oil, more natural gas. Yes Thank you President Trump for making this country NOT dependent on foreign energy.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
QUOTE="Milton Sanchez, post: 1839929, member: 433938"]
All fossil fuels that are currently under the ground in this planet such as oil, coal, natural gas were completely above the ground as carbon dioxide gas. This planet has had CO2 levels as high as 4000 parts per million (ppm) while current CO2 levels are at 414 ppm according to NOAA. I seen current levels as low as 377 ppm of CO2 and that is a worrying number by biological standards. Plants need around 300 ppm and above of CO2 to conduct carbon fixing. The required level of CO2 by plants varies from species to species but as more organic matter filters underground though time that number does not get any better. This planet has gone through ice ages so severe which covered the planet in ice as far south as the equator while CO2 levels were much higher than today's level. We have also had periods that were ice free in the poles and full of life that have left oil in the arctic. The planet has been hotter before so don't let the globalist fool you. Climate change is a way for them to tell you how to behave and what you can and cannot do.
[/QUOTE]
IMO, your argument is missing a few salient points. 1. All that CO2 that is stored in fossil fuels was stored over very long periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. It sounds like you are advocating that we should just continue releasing all that CO2 to the atmosphere as if releasing millions of years of stored CO2 is a good idea. It sounds like an argument based in ignorance and you are advocating yet another conspiracy theory. Here's an excellent video that goes to great lengths to simplify the science behind climate change. Perhaps you should view it https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/decoding-the-weather-machine/
Further, your post lacks any reference to "what plants need" Give a reference for that if you want to be taken even somewhat seriously.

The carbon hoax. More coal, more oil, more natural gas. Yes Thank you President Trump for making this country NOT dependent on foreign energy.
Seriously? You are praising a man who shows all the symptoms of the Dunning Kruger effect. You forgot to add thanks for eschewing science in favor of ignorance, and making it easier for dolts to pollute the air and the water once again. After all, Who needs clean air to breathe and clean water to drink when both are linked to serious health issues, right? :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
You do realize that sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. And that the current rate of rise is far lower than it was even 5,000 years ago:

Early Holocene Sea Level Rise

Climate change or no, the oceans are going to keep rising ... but luckily the rate, even if it doubles or triples, is slow enough to be easily manageable. A few centimeters per decade can be handled in most areas simply by adjusting building codes -- require new construction to be set back from the shore a bit further. For those few areas where this doesn't work, they simply raise their existing sea walls another meter. Fully one quarter of the Netherlands is below sea level -- if they can handle that with 18th-century technology, I feel confident that 21st-century technology can handle a far smaller problem.
The rate of sea level rise is not guaranteed to remain the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
The rate of sea level rise is not guaranteed to remain the same.
Do you feel this is some sort of rebuttal?

your post lacks any reference to "what plants need" Give a reference for that
Do you need a reference to the fact that plants require CO2?

Here's an excellent video that goes to great lengths to simplify the science
When you get your "science" from the media, rather than scientists, you will always be misinformed. The PBS link you cite begins with the quote: "Disastrous hurricanes ... it's not hard to conclude that something's up with the weather, and many scientists agree". Unfortunately, most scientists studying hurricanes agree on the exact opposite: that global warming leads to less total hurricane activity. In modeling, the storms that do form tend to be very slightly larger and longer-lived, but this is more than compensated for by a much larger decrease in the total number of storms. And, unlike many of the predictions made by numerical climate models, this one is borne out by real-world data: there has been no detectable trend in global ACE (accumulated cyclone energy over the last 160 years of data:

Journal Cite: Hurricane Trend Detection

Furthermore, in the year 1931, the world saw 3.7 million people die from natural disasters. 2018 saw just 11,000 die -- a year when world population was four times higher than it was in 1931.

Is man having an effect on the climate? Undoubtedly. But no reputable scientific body has ever stated that climate change threatens the future of mankind or the collapse of civilization, or anything remotely close to such apocalyptic threats.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
You do realize that sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. And that the current rate of rise is far lower than it was even 5,000 years ago:

Early Holocene Sea Level Rise

Climate change or no, the oceans are going to keep rising ... but luckily the rate, even if it doubles or triples, is slow enough to be easily manageable. A few centimeters per decade can be handled in most areas simply by adjusting building codes -- require new construction to be set back from the shore a bit further. For those few areas where this doesn't work, they simply raise their existing sea walls another meter. Fully one quarter of the Netherlands is below sea level -- if they can handle that with 18th-century technology, I feel confident that 21st-century technology can handle a far smaller problem.
Once again, you are taking data from a large period of time and using that to insinuate that's how conditions have been recently, which is false.

" for the previous 2,000 years, sea level hadn't changed much at all. The rate of sea level rise has also increased over time. Between 1900 and 1990 studies show that sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average. By 2000, that rate had increased to about 3.2 millimeters per year and the rate in 2016 is estimated at 3.4 millimeters per year. Sea level is expected to rise even more quickly by the end of the century. "


What the chart you linked shows is the earth's natural warming and cooler over 10s of thousands of years. Think about human progress over just 2,000 years, we went from stone age to computers. Now consider that sea level rise has tripled in what is an extremely short period of time. Mind that's considering we should be shifting towards another glacial period right, as in sea levels should be dropping. If you look at the chart you provided, earth's natural warming and cooling cycles dictate that an inter-glacial period is followed by a glacial period. Of course as with the natural warming cycle, we are talking about a very slow processes. That's why regardless of what natural cycle we are in, the sea level rise increase is extremely alarming with it's relatively speaking recent jumps.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
Now consider that sea level rise has tripled in what is an extremely short period of time.
Instead of quoting the New York Times and the Washington Post, why not use a little science instead? The IPCC is perhaps the most alarmist of scientific bodies publishing climate reports, so you shouldn't be concerned they are underplaying the data. From the IPCC FAR Working Group report on Climate Change, Chapter 9. Pg 266:

"From examinations of both composite regional and global curves and individual tide gauge records, there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century For longer periods, however, there is weak evidence for an acceleration over the last 2-3 centuries..."

IPCC: WG Report: Sea Level Rise

In any case, you missed the point of that graph I cited. Even should the current rate of increase double, triple, or even quintuple again -- it's a rate far slower than what it was several thousand years ago. And it's a rate easily manageable with current technology, not an apocalyptic disaster.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
The carbon hoax. More coal, more oil, more natural gas. Yes Thank you President Trump for making this country NOT dependent on foreign energy.
The problem is America imports carbon based fuels


So using more of those is increasing the US's reliance on foreign countries.

Plus the side affect is this: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-us-cities-looked-like-before-epa-regulated-pollution-2019-8

I'm glad more and more people can see through the CO2 scam. One of the first warning signs was when "greenies" started to attack hydropower and geothermal power plants. In fact, they attack all reliable and constant sources except nuclear. Because they are actually slaves of nuclear industry.

Wind and solar are unreliable. So nuclear industry is advertising them through their "green" activists, because they aren't competition. With wind and solar you have to plan your electrical network as if they don't exist (because in a night, without wind, they really don't exist). The plan is to make nuclear power plants that cover entire consumption, and then add wind and solar as extra sources, when available.
1) No people who believe in clean energy don't attack hydro and geothermal (although geo is very hard to pull off right now)

2) Renewable energy's reliability will depend on the location it's installed. For example, Solar plants in the Nevada dessert are likely to provide a lot of power a majority of the year. In addition, any inconsistencies can be completely mitigated by storing power in battery banks, stations, ect. On top of that, it was proposed that the US modernize it's grid so that different regions of the united states could provide power to larger areas. This essentially allows areas that are prime spots for green energy to sell to markets where green energy isn't as viable. This allows you to incentivize green energy without spending a dime.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
"From examinations of both composite regional and global curves and individual tide gauge records, there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century For longer periods, however, there is weak evidence for an acceleration over the last 2-3 centuries..."
This part is important:

"during the twentieth century "

That's the 1900s buddy, which aligns exactly with the data I presented earlier. We are currently in the 21st century.

My previous link was from the Smithsonian:


which is the world's largest education and research complex.

I would be disappointment but this is par for the course when it comes to climate deniers.
 

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
The problem is America imports carbon based fuels (url clipped)
You cited US exports, not imports. In 2019, the US became a net petroleum exporter:

Wiki Article: US Oil Independence

Plus the side affect is this: (url clipped)
You're conflating real air pollution with CO2, which is not a pollutant. What is interesting is that the focus on CO2 emissions has actually increased actual air pollution in places: in parts of Europe, for instance, where "green" laws have increased diesel car usage: cars which emit less carbon per mile travelled, but have significantly higher particulate and VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions.

1) No people who believe in clean energy don't attack hydro
You better alert Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and every other major environmental body then. They have opposed every new large-scale hydro proposal in the US since 1975.

it was proposed that the US modernize it's [sic] grid...This allows you to incentivize green energy without spending a dime.
You mean, except for the hundreds of billions of dollars it takes to run new high-power lines across the nation. And the even larger sums it takes to account for the higher loss rates in those lines. There is a reason that most electricity is generated less than 100 miles from where it is consumed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EClyde

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
You cited US exports, not imports. In 2019, the US became a net petroleum exporter:

Wiki Article: US Oil Independence
Fixed, although it doesn't change the conclusion in the slightest. The US still imports carbon fuels while it does not import renewables


You better alert Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and every other major environmental body then. They have opposed every new large-scale hydro proposal in the US since 1975.

You mean, except for the hundreds of billions of dollars it takes to run new high-power lines across the nation. And the even larger sums it takes to account for the higher loss rates in those lines. There is a reason that most electricity is generated less than 100 miles from where it is consumed.
Words without a source and context. I would not be surprised if you cited an example of a body opposing hydro at a location where a survey was taken stating the location was unsuitable for it.


You're conflating real air pollution with CO2, which is not a pollutant. What is interesting is that the focus on CO2 emissions has actually increased actual air pollution in places: in parts of Europe, for instance, where "green" laws have increased diesel car usage: cars which emit less carbon per mile travelled, but have significantly higher particulate and VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions.
Nothing was being conflated, I was merely pointing out the side effect of carbon emissions in that instance. If you want to debate one of my other points you are free to do so. Read the comment I was replying to, context is important.

You mean, except for the hundreds of billions of dollars it takes to run new high-power lines across the nation. And the even larger sums it takes to account for the higher loss rates in those lines. There is a reason that most electricity is generated less than 100 miles from where it is consumed.
You mean the money that needs to be spent anyways due to crumbling infrastructure?

Oh silly me thinking America can invest in it's future like it did with public works programs in the 50s that upped the standard of living and gave the country an economic platform to spring off of for decades.

All you are doing here is providing negatives, you aren't looking for solutions.

EDIT**

Here's an example of plans to upgrade the power system that were shot down by the Trump administration: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...odernization/615433/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 346   +229
Fixed, although it doesn't change the conclusion in the slightest. The US still imports carbon fuels
You are misreading your own source. From it:

"In 2019, total U.S. energy exports were greater than total energy imports, and the United States became a net total energy exporter for the first time since 1952. "

Further, you have confused crude oil with petroleum products in general, which includes refined gasoline, jet fuel, etc. The US is a net exporter of coal and petroleum products. It is a net importer of crude oil -- though even this is expected to change in 2022.

Words without a source and context. I would not be surprised if you cited an example of a body opposing hydro at a location where a survey was taken stating the location was unsuitable for it.
Really? You honestly don't realize that every major environmental group not only opposes hydroelectric power, but has done so vehemently for decades?

From the Sierra Club Mission Statement:

"Sierra Club Opposes Large Scale Hydro
...The well-known drawbacks of large hydro include inundation of large natural areas, substantial damage to fish and wildlife, interference with fish migration and reproduction, and displacement of human and natural communities. Some reservoirs fill up prematurely and are rendered useless for power generation. There is also evidence that large dam impoundments [emit] methane and CO2. The Sierra Club strongly opposes the construction of new large hydroelectric dams...."

Here's the EU World Wildlife Fund's stance on hydropower there:

"Hydropower is destroying Europe's rivers and biodiversity.... Whilst hydropower is often regarded as “green”, the dams or weirs needed to operate the plants have devastating consequences for rivers and biodiversity – "

World Wildlife Fund EU

There are even environmental organizations solely devoted to blocking hydroelectric power at all costs: "American Rivers" is one that advocated tearing down all existing dams in the US. "International River Network", based in Berkeley, has a similar goal worldwide. And Earth First got its start by advocating the sabotage and destruction of existing dams by anonymous agents.

You mean the money that needs to be spent anyways due to crumbling infrastructure?
No. Replacing an existing 50-km AC high-tension line is relatively cheap, especially over existing right-of-way. Running an entirely new 1100 kV HVDC line over 1000 kilometers and spanning several states is a horse of an entirely different color.

All you are doing here is providing negatives, you aren't looking for solutions.
Better than a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
Not going to address your misreading of that scientific paper eh?

You are misreading your own source. From it:

"In 2019, total U.S. energy exports were greater than total energy imports, and the United States became a net total energy exporter for the first time since 1952. "

Further, you have confused crude oil with petroleum products in general, which includes refined gasoline, jet fuel, etc. The US is a net exporter of coal and petroleum products. It is a net importer of crude oil -- though even this is expected to change in 2022.
How does the US being a net exporter change the fact that the US does indeed import carbon fuels? It doesn't. You are just going off on a tangent here.

I have no idea what you are going on about in regards to crude and petro but it's completely off topic. I specifically mentioned that the US imports carbon fuels, nothing about the composition or anything more specific then that.

Really? You honestly don't realize that every major environmental group not only opposes hydroelectric power, but has done so vehemently for decades?

From the Sierra Club Mission Statement:

"Sierra Club Opposes Large Scale Hydro
...The well-known drawbacks of large hydro include inundation of large natural areas, substantial damage to fish and wildlife, interference with fish migration and reproduction, and displacement of human and natural communities. Some reservoirs fill up prematurely and are rendered useless for power generation. There is also evidence that large dam impoundments [emit] methane and CO2. The Sierra Club strongly opposes the construction of new large hydroelectric dams...."

Here's the EU World Wildlife Fund's stance on hydropower there:

"Hydropower is destroying Europe's rivers and biodiversity.... Whilst hydropower is often regarded as “green”, the dams or weirs needed to operate the plants have devastating consequences for rivers and biodiversity – "

World Wildlife Fund EU

There are even environmental organizations solely devoted to blocking hydroelectric power at all costs: "American Rivers" is one that advocated tearing down all existing dams in the US. "International River Network", based in Berkeley, has a similar goal worldwide. And Earth First got its start by advocating the sabotage and destruction of existing dams by anonymous agents.
Well for starters, those are two organizations. You state "every" environmental group has the same stance but two cherry picked examples are far from proving that and honestly that's a pretty ridiculous statement to make. "Every" is just announcing you are wrong, things are rarely absolute.

Digging into the actual mission statements from the 2 cherry picked examples, you can see they mostly oppose large scale hydro where it would have a large impact on biodiversity, local wildlife, and nearby residents. If you read on instead of just looking for catchy statements, you see that small hydro projects are acceptable. It is indeed possible to collect hydro power and there are a variety of solutions from single home systems to tributaries to larger systems designed to work without harming the ecosystem. Nothing nearly as hyperbolic as you make it seem and I definitely don't see the problem with researching advances in hydro tech that improve on all aspects.

FYI I get power from hydro for dirt cheap. It wasn't hard for them to do ecological surveys and ensure the river's bio-diversity was preserve. Anyone saying you can't have cheap power and be environmentally responsible doesn't have 1st hand experience.

Better than a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist.
BS


The civil corps of engineers rates America a D+

Solutions have been provided by engineers on multiple occasions. Solutions that would not only fix crumbling infrastructure but help bring America into a new era. There is NO reason to not be doing nothing and there is no doubt it IS an issue.