Blueprint for solving global climate change?

Question

The 2030 Blueprint proposed in 2006 puts forth its recommendations of page 8 of this document. It begins with the recommendation to "Implement an immediate moratorium on the construction of any new conventional coal plants, and the gradual phasing out of all existing conventional coal plants by 2030."

What are your thoughts on their challenge, and what do you think about their general approach to the situation?

http://www.architecture2030.org/pdfs/2030Blueprint.pdf

http://www.architecture2030.org/

Answer 1

It would make more sense to me, to use our available resources wisely. We have the technology to reduce our emissions considerably. We should convert to clean coal technology. One problem though is that China is building coal fired power plants at an alarming rate, so what ever we do to reduce our emissions could be negated by the developing countries unless we can convince them to do the same.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/po...

http://www.economist.com/business/displa...

Answer 2

Playing with building codes to increase efficiency thereby reducing the cost of using energy which may increase energy usage is not the way to solve the problem.  If you want to fix it you have to stop burning fossil fuels (clean coal might be workable but it doesn't look good).  Energy efficiency is not the way to save the environment (though it is a good way to improve the economy).

An immediate moratorium on construction of new fossil fuelled power plants is a d**n good idea and if we start building nuclear power plants it might actually be possible to meet the 2030 deadline for shutting all of them down (France managed it in about the time we'd have).

They don't provide much data but I suspect that they haven't taken account of the rebound effect (and they could have assumed that the easy things we are already doing aren't any cheaper than the hard things we aren't).

Answer 3

They are attempting to cash in on the 'man-did-it' global warming scare....... I can't blame them..... there are $$Billions to be made.

The blueprint folks could at least print the facts regarding 'peak oil and gas'.  They say:

"We are now reaching the peak in global oil production (US oil production peaked in 1970, natural gas in 1973). The global static lifetime of conventional oil is approx. 40 years, natural gas 60 years."

That statement is true as long as it is qualified by the fact that 'Tree-lickers' have been successful at closing off vast areas of oil properties....ie. Alaska and Eastern Gulf....etc.  The notion that the U.S. has only 40/60 years of oil/gas is totally untrue.

Modern coal generation is relatively clean when using the latest in combustion technology, but 'blueprint' fails to acknowledge that.

More importantly, 'blueprint' fails to acknowledge that 'man-did-it' global warming has yet to be proven..... there is only speculation based on flawed data and methodology.

To answer your question..... their so-called 'challenge' is self-serving and their tactics deceptive.

Answer 4

Coal plants are safe and pretty ecologically-friendly when built properly with scrubbers and filters.  There is no reason to ban them, other than the socialists want eveyone to stop using fossil fuels.

Answer 5

It's more about energy efficiency.

"...we must replace or eliminate the need for these plants..."

Most energy goes to operate buildings.  Most of that is for heating.

Buildings have a lifespan of 50-150 years.  Single digit improvements in efficiency have an enormous impact.

The best way to spend our money, the biggest bang for the buck, is to improve the efficiency of buildings.  This includes lighting, the next largest use of energy after space heating.

It the first case, we could eliminate the need for new plants.  We could cut energy use in the US in -half- in 10 years with a national plan.

Cutting energy use (implementing demand management) is the first step (or a concurrent step) in the conversion to renewables.

This is old news.

The big question is why, after 45 years, we are still debating the obvious.

Of course, there should be a moratorium on a lot of things.

The list is very long, but nobody wants to hear it.

Answer 6

I oppose phaseout of any existing plants powered by domestic coal that aren't replaced by nuke plants.

Answer 7

I am reading through this and I believe I found an error.

The single investment is not 21 billion dollars.  It should be 7.1 QBtu*17.6 $Billion/Qbtu+4.0 QBtu*$26 Billion/ Qbtu=~ 230 Billion.  The article messed up on unit cancelation.  They  used 21 billion/Qbtu devided by 8.46 billion you get 2.48 1/Qbtu, or .40 Qbtu saved.  This is not the correct buy back will be.  230/8.46=27 years or 2.6%.

When it is that quick of a by back residence and industries will invest in their own building.  

7 According to the February, 2008 McKinsey study cited above, there are 7.1 QBtu of residential Building Sector primary energy

reduction opportunities at $17.6 billion/QBtu, and 4.0 QBtu of commercial Building Sector reduction opportunities at $26.0

billion/QBtu, or the average for residential and commercial building sector reduction opportunities is $20.6 billion/QBtu. To be

conservative, we used a figure of $21.6 billion/QBtu for this study. The 11.1 QBtu total energy reduction opportunity is assumed

to take place over a 12 year period.

Answer 8

Ixnay.   The coal is there, readily available, and cheap relative to other fuels.    It's domestic, there's plenty of it - the US competes with our right arm tied behind our back on too many other fronts.

Answer 9

The Environmentalist Movement: Not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth - commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer

Answer 10

Sounds great, if you like living in a cold cave eating cold food walking to the welfare line.

but of course, you do, so go for it.