scroll_lock's recent activity
-
Comment on US awards $1.5 billion in grants to improve passenger rail along Northeast Corridor in ~transport
-
US awards $1.5 billion in grants to improve passenger rail along Northeast Corridor
13 votes -
Comment on I think I've failed the United States in ~society
scroll_lock (edited )LinkComment box Scope: personal reaction Tone: empathetic Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Thanks for sharing your perspective and being vulnerable in this post. The world has many problems. It will...Comment box
- Scope: personal reaction
- Tone: empathetic
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Thanks for sharing your perspective and being vulnerable in this post.
The world has many problems. It will continue to create more problems. There isn't a single fix to the anxious bleugh that is "everything negative happening right now." Empathetic listening is probably the most important foundation for the many solutions we need to identify.
I haven't taken any genuine opportunities to consider what people who are watching their loved ones and their communities die from substance abuse while struggling to feed their families and failing to ensure that their children do at least as well as they did might actually care about or how these crises might impact their attitudes and actions.
The fact that you're making an effort to listen rather than judge is really meaningful. I think most people never quite have that realization. Personally, the election took me down a notch. I am still a sanctimonious asshole, but it made be realize some of my perceptions of the country were totally wrong. I despaired for a day, but at this point I guess I am trying to be open-minded. There is a lot I don't know. I can probably learn a thing or two from the people I have dismissed for years/decades as being uninformed, narrow-minded, self-serving etc.
I don't think it's morally wrong to care about issues that affect you directly. I care more about urban planning than most people because, right now, I live in a city. I think there is room for everyone to have issues that speak to them, or pet projects, and also be empathetic and mindful of everyone else's issues/pet projects. I think it is a lot harder than just yelling about your own problem, but I don't see a conundrum here.
It also isn't possible to actively fix every issue in the world. If there are 100 issues that you care about theoretically, you can personally care deeply about like... 20-30 of them. Of those 20-30 issues you care about deeply, there is only enough time in the day to "actively" contribute to solving (put in regular activism effort) like 3-5 max. And for a lot of people it's only realistic to actively solve 1 or 2 at a time. For the rest, I think you have to be okay with supporting other people's work (financially, emotionally). That includes the empathetic listening you're talking about. I think as long as you are listening, you are still helping to solve a problem.
-
Comment on Danish lawmakers have agreed to plant one billion trees and convert 10% of farmland into natural habitats over the next two decades in ~enviro
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Denmark is apparently a net agricultural exporter. The way a forest is planted for lumber differs...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: none
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Denmark is apparently a net agricultural exporter.
The way a forest is planted for lumber differs from the way a forest is planted for natural rehabilitation and ecosystem growth. Lumber woodlands tend to be monocultural or otherwise not very diverse and are not allowed to become old growth. Shrubs and other plants are generally not co-grown with lumber.
Lumber forests are still a carbon sink, but it would be environmentally preferable to replicate a proper forest. Any replanting will have to be actively managed in some way to minimize the impact of invasive species and pollution, and mitigate wildfire risk.
-
Comment on Caltrain's electrification project is paying off in ~transport
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, question, personal take Tone: surprised Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none 800 feet??? Surely you mean 80? It is an absurd objection either way. You can’t feel...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, question, personal take
- Tone: surprised
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
They claim it's because tunnels that will run nearby (and, to be clear, nearly 800ft or more below the houses) present an environmental or quality of life hazard.
800 feet??? Surely you mean 80?
It is an absurd objection either way. You can’t feel vibrations from a subway more than a few meters underground unless you are standing directly over a ventilation grate; even then it is less noticeable than an automobile.
-
Comment on Caltrain's electrification project is paying off in ~transport
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none There were “debates” for the Central Valley too, especially canal relocations and cutting up land...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
There will be debate in the future about easements, rights of way, tunneling, and so forth.
There were “debates” for the Central Valley too, especially canal relocations and cutting up land parcels. CAHSR has handled these effectively, either winning or settling all lawsuits.
The entire section has passed environmental review except a tiny portion which will be approved next year. That is basically an ironclad defense as long as the review is conducted appropriately, which it has been. We may see litigation, but it is frivolous.
For most lots, which are dirt or sand (not structures), cases are easily won. The more pressing issue is that CAHSR has not yet acquired the land of future station sites. As the land value increases over time, in some cases rapidly, that will escalate costs. Cost escalations may prompt planners to redesign some stations. This may require alterations to the alignment and therefore more environmental reviews—which is where NIMBYs strike. Enviro review is time-consuming and expensive, and the easiest place to delay a project.
This could be avoided with better planning: pre-purchasing important lots years in advance, similar to the Hudson Yards acquisition in New York City ahead of the new rail tunnels—something like 20 years of lead time.
If funding is there, they will find a solution to any NIMBY problem. It might just be a little expensive.
-
Comment on Caltrain's electrification project is paying off in ~transport
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: where marked Sarcasm/humor: none State lawmakers have made the decision every budget session not to allocate the funding...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: where marked
- Sarcasm/humor: none
State lawmakers have made the decision every budget session not to allocate the funding necessary to complete CAHSR. They have also not voted to create a ballot measure to do so. There are many ways to acquire funding on the state level, such as:
- Bond measures going to CAHSR
- Allocating a greater portion of “Cap and Trade” funds to CAHSR
- Raising carbon taxes and allocating that to CAHSR
- Sales tax increases going to CAHSR
- Allocating toll, gas, aviation, or congestion taxes to CAHSR
- Simply allocating a greater portion of the general fund to CAHSR, either by reducing funding from other transportation projects or by increasing the income tax slightly
Federal lawmakers have also chosen not to allocate enough funding to complete the project. They have provided some grants (including a recent grant of about $3 billion), but only enough to complete the Central Valley portion.
The project’s environmental review is complete in all sections except a small portion in the south which will be approved next year. If they had funding right now, they could start building the missing links tomorrow.
Skepticism of the project is what informs lawmakers’ decisions not to fund it immediately—unlike routine funding toward highway capital projects, which are approved without question. The skepticism is not entirely unwarranted, but I agree with the poster that the benefits of the project outweigh the capital cost of construction greatly.
-
Comment on Caltrain's electrification project is paying off in ~transport
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, elaboration Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none For a given person, the train doesn’t necessarily have to be faster than driving, it just has to be...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, elaboration
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
For a given person, the train doesn’t necessarily have to be faster than driving, it just has to be fast enough to outweigh the frustrations associated with driving. The 25% speed increase from electrification puts some people over that threshold. For a lot of people, Caltrain is the longest duration leg of a multi-leg journey, so a speed increase there is particularly valuable.
Everyone has their own thresholds informing modal shifts. Personally, in an urban area, I would rather take transit than drive if the transit duration for a single-seat trip plus walking (end to end) is less than ~2x as long as driving and parking. But frustrations also affect the equation for transit. If I need to transfer, that reduces my willingness to use transit—I would rather walk, and if that takes too long, I’d sometimes rather not go at all. Some people don’t mind. I don’t mind transfers if I’m in France or Switzerland, but I find them irritating in the US. The location of the transfer also matters: people nearly universally prefer transferring near the beginning of their journey rather than the end, though this isn’t always feasible in both directions. Cost of parking, and whether I am driving my own vehicle, getting a taxi, or being driven also affects my decision.
You can understand that set of decisions being made collectively to estimate ridership alterations.
You’re right that not everyone will want to take the train, and for some people no amount of transit speediness will change that. There are lots of qualitative factors at play. But the goal isn’t necessarily 100% train use, it’s just minimizing car use.
I wonder how many journeys go into San Francisco versus other stops, and what people use for the other legs?
BART is probably the #1 transfer in SF. I doubt anything else comes close; various combinations of bus systems maybe. I don’t know where one would find this information in a dataset. It might not exist.
Caltrain Ridership Statistics are available on their website. The 2024 Annual Ridership Report section 7.6.1 has “Ridership by Origin Station” statistics in average mid-week riders from their “fare media model.” I don’t think these are exact ridership numbers, but they’re part of how Caltrain figures out which stations are relatively more trafficked than others.
- San Francisco: 4803
- Palo Alto: 2889
- Mountain View: 1703
- Redwood City: 1624
- San Jose Diridon: 1547
- Millbrae: 1222
- Hillsdale: 1212
- Sunnyvale: 1140
- San Mateo: 914
- 22nd St: 854
- Menlo Park: 646
- Santa Clara: 595
- Lawrence: 513
- Burlingame: 474
- San Carlos: 471
- California Ave: 458
- Belmont: 454
- South San Francisco: 418
- San Antonio: 414
- San Bruno: 233
- Hayward Park: 225
- Tamien: 211
- Morgan Hill: 100
- Gilroy: 95
- Bayshore: 95
- Blossom Hill: 57
- College Park: 43
- Capitol: 38
- San Martin: 29
Drops off quickly after SF, predictably. A few of those stations have very low ridership and could benefit from more transit-oritented development.
-
Comment on Caltrain's electrification project is paying off in ~transport
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, speculation Tone: neutral Opinion: sure Sarcasm/humor: none It is probably a modal shift from cars to trains. In absolute terms, the travel demand is there,...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, speculation
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: sure
- Sarcasm/humor: none
It is probably a modal shift from cars to trains. In absolute terms, the travel demand is there, people are just making a different decision about their vehicle. (And likely a bit of entirely new demand.)
People who would normally drive may now decide to take the train because the trip is meaningfully faster (about 25% faster). Electrification significantly reduces train weight and allows for much faster acceleration/deceleration.
I wouldn’t chalk it up to recreation alone. Lots of people work on weekends. And lots of people dislike commuting by car. It’s stressful and expensive—the more you drive, the more you pay in gas and maintenance costs, plus risk of collisions. If the train is time-convenient, it induces greater ridership.
And indeed having fast train service is certainly convenient for people who want to come into the city to get dinner or see a show, and don’t want to deal with parking. It all adds up!
-
Comment on Heat pumps used to struggle in the cold. Not anymore. in ~enviro
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: lightly Sarcasm/humor: none The heat pumps described in this article have higher COPs than models that have been on the...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: lightly
- Sarcasm/humor: none
The heat pumps described in this article have higher COPs than models that have been on the market in the past. It is specifically talking about new heat pumps that are only just barely entering commercial production. So that anecdote is not applicable.
If you read the CCHP Technology Challenge Specifications discussed here, the detailed specifications (p.6) require that heat pumps in the challenge have COP values of 2.1–2.4 at 5°F (-15°C). That means the heat pump can operate at 210–240% efficiency in these particularly cold conditions—minimum. Many can do even better.
In contrast, a resistance heater operates at 100% efficiency. A gas furnace operates at 80–95% efficiency. So unless the electricity to heat a given space is more than 2.4x more expensive than the gas to do so, the heat pump is still a cost saving. In New England, it only sometimes gets below 5°F (-15°C) anyway, and rarely below 0°F (-18°C). From a cost perspective, New Englanders are not going to see major cost increases because their heat pumps will mostly be working super efficiently. The occasional cold spell may reduce the efficiency of the units somewhat, but only briefly.
I hear your propane example, but that seems anomalous even for the northeast. The cost of generating electricity will continue to drop in the near future as the cost of solar and wind continue to decline. If you're purchasing a heating system for the future, it's best to think about future energy costs and not just anecdotal past costs or even exclusively current ones.
I don't see any problem with having a woodstove or gas furnace as a backup to a heat pump, if indeed the area is cold enough and electricity prices are unusually high, but I don't think it is necessary anymore for the climate most people live in.
-
Comment on Heat pumps used to struggle in the cold. Not anymore. in ~enviro
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: summary, information Tone: optimistic Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none Residential reliance on natural gas is no longer necessary for the overwhelming majority of the...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information
- Tone: optimistic
- Opinion: not really
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Residential reliance on natural gas is no longer necessary for the overwhelming majority of the population. Modern cold-climate heat pumps are increasingly available and extremely efficient, even at negative temperatures.
Context - what's the problem?
Keeping homes comfortable in frigid winters and blistering summers can account for more than half of an average American household’s energy usage and generate about 441 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. But because heat pumps move heat instead of creating it, they can be three to four times more efficient than traditional heaters and slash a home’s carbon dioxide emissions by as much as eight tons per year.
3-4x efficiency improvement not only means much fewer emissions, but a lower energy bill!
In October, the Energy Department announced that eight manufacturers participating in its challenge to produce efficient residential cold climate heat pumps had created appliances that would enter commercial production as early as this fall. These heat pumps were shown in tests to be capable of operating at 5°F (-15°C) or lower “with energy performance well beyond current best-in-class products,” according to the Energy Department.
Carrier, one of the companies that participated in the Energy Department’s heat pump challenge, said its technology could operate at full capacity at 0°F (-18°C). Trial units of these heat pumps were field tested in homes in Syracuse, New York, and the company said they operated reliably, though not at full capacity, down to -13°F (-25°C).
In lab testing, the units were able to operate down to -23°F (-31°C).
Emphasis/tweaks mine. These are real-world tests of heat pumps in very cold climates. They are extremely economical in sub-freezing temperatures and still perfectly suitable for freak cold periods. The lab data indicates that further progress on this front is all but inevitable.
In addition to climate benefits, there are personal ones:
“Cold climate heat pumps can lower bills while maintaining comfort in very low temperatures, especially for people who use inefficient systems that rely on propane, oil or electric resistance,” she said.
She added that some people in places with higher electricity rates could see savings because cold climate heat pumps will switch to backup electric resistance heating less often.
“They’re very reliable,” she said. “They can control the comfort significantly better than a furnace.”
-
Heat pumps used to struggle in the cold. Not anymore.
27 votes -
Comment on World's largest renewable energy plant in Australia would be bigger than entire countries in ~enviro
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: summary, information Tone: optimistic Opinion: I guess Sarcasm/humor: none I recently wrote about the hundreds of gigawatts of renewable energy capacity being built in 2024....Comment box
- Scope: summary, information
- Tone: optimistic
- Opinion: I guess
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I recently wrote about the hundreds of gigawatts of renewable energy capacity being built in 2024.
This single project in Australia, the Western Green Energy Hub, would represent a very large chunk of that capacity when it's built. It will take a while to complete, but it seems like the scope is increasing over time rather than decreasing.
The world’s largest planned renewable energy project would be bigger than entire countries, with onshore wind turbines potentially triple the size of current market leading machines, according to new documents.
At full development the project is now slated to have a capacity of 70GW, up from 50GW as previously planned. The developers say it could generate over 200TWh of renewable energy annually, dependent upon the mix and size of its wind and solar farms.
The project will be spread across 22,700 square kilometres of coastal desert land, bigger than nations including Slovenia and El Salvador.
The project will be developed in seven stages, which will ultimately result in the installation of up to approximately 35 different “nodes” of around 2-3GW each. The construction phase is expected to last for around three decades.
Since it's being built in "nodes" (each of which are large, but achievable), this project can begin generating electricity very soon, not "decades" as implied by the article. The article doesn't have a date, but Wikipedia says the project is aiming for funding by 2028. Construction would commence shortly after.
The world's current fossil fuel-based electricity generation nameplate capacity is about 4.5 TW. This single project would replace about 1.5% of that with renewable energy. That's a big deal!
Australia's current nameplate capacity for electricity generation is about 62 GW (mostly fossil fuels), so the project would more than double it. We need that capacity to be all-renewable. We also need more capacity because electrification of sectors like transportation and industry will increase electricity demand. Australia is particularly well-suited for solar energy. The country has been pairing solar farms with battery storage for a while now, which helps even out demand and usage spikes to make an all-renewable grid more feasible.
This kind of project is massive, but it's hardly the only one happening. All over the world, countries in a variety of geopolitical blocs are building enormous renewable energy projects because it's become incredibly cost-effective compared to fossil fuels.
The energy transition is happening. And with it comes many benefits:
- Less burning of fossil fuels, improving air quality
- Reductions in lung cancer
- Reductions in asthma
- Reduction of smog
- Lower carbon emissions, reducing global warming and climate change
- Fewer extreme weather events
- Less disruption of global weather and sea heat systems
- Better food security
- Energy security: renewable energy is less subject to geopolitical strife
- Price stabilization: unlike oil and gas, renewables are less subject to sudden price fluctuations
- Lower consumer costs: renewable energy generation is quickly becoming cheaper than fossil fuel generation
- and more
-
World's largest renewable energy plant in Australia would be bigger than entire countries
9 votes -
Comment on How solid state cooling could change everything in ~enviro
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: summary, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none This video discusses so-called "solid state" cooling systems, which are more accurately called "caloric...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: none
- Sarcasm/humor: none
This video discusses so-called "solid state" cooling systems, which are more accurately called "caloric cooling systems" (electrocaloric systems). The premise is that electrocaloric systems can cool controlled environments without using refrigerants.
This is important because refrigerants, which are mostly HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), are extremely harmful to the environment and contribute significantly to global warming and climate change.
The technology is in development, but not brand-new. The concepts behind it are well-understood. The process has been demonstrated to work efficiently, albeit not in a complete environment. It seems like with a bit more research and development, real-world prototypes could easily be developed.
-
How solid state cooling could change everything
6 votes -
Comment on Growing pollution in Pakistan’s Punjab province has sickened 1.8M people in a month, officials say in ~enviro
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: acknowledgement, information Tone: empathetic, neutral Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none It is saddening to read that. I don't know what one can do personally in that...- Exemplary
Comment box
- Scope: acknowledgement, information
- Tone: empathetic, neutral
- Opinion: not really
- Sarcasm/humor: none
It is saddening to read that. I don't know what one can do personally in that situation except what you're already doing. When the wildfires burn near me, I know someone who wears an air filter (it looks like a gas mask) and eye goggles when going outside.
I think people do care about this. Everyone breathes.
Systemically: the AP article doesn't mention what is causing the pollution. It's important to acknowledge the problem, because it's not "nature" and not just "monsoons":
Root cause is smog: burning coal, petrol, diesel, gas, biomass in industries, and power plants. Then came smoke from rural kitchens, traffic pollution, increase vehicle numbers, increase price of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), vehicular emissions, car growth, low cost of parking, dieselization of cars, jeopardization of nonpolluting modes of public transports, overpopulation, low investment in public transport and lack of public infrastructure, large-scale construction activity, burning of residual crop in neighboring states such as Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.
This is a big problem and it is not simple to fix. But as an activist, there are mechanisms to create positive change. Once you acknowledge the problem, you can identify the major solutions at a high level:
- Stop burning fossil fuels.
- Stop driving diesel/gas cars.
- Stop burning pretty much anything, including biomass (industry), crop stubble (agriculture), and wood (kitchens).
Once you acknowledge solutions at a high level, you can work to identify the power brokers who have the influence to enact those solutions:
- Local, regional, and national politicians responsible for formal policy
- Bureaucratic agencies responsible for regulation
- Corporations responsible for pollution
- NGOs in your country and, in some cases, international lobbying organizations who influence all of the above
As an individual, In India, the best way to address these problems is probably to engage with established NGOs on a local level where they don't necessarily operate. In other words, as a constituent, bridge the gap between local politicians and bureaucrats (who are beholden to constituents) and the NGOs (who want to solve the problem on behalf of the constituents). Some NGOs appreciate volunteer help more than others, but in general, they tend to be receptive to local individuals who want to lead a project in their municipality to solve a problem.
Some NGOs who do work in India to directly solve these problems include:
- A-PAG (Air Pollution Action Group): "A-PAG works with the centre and state governments as well as municipal bodies to assist their implementation efforts in fighting air pollution. We run pilot programmes, which if successful, are scaled rapidly across geographies."
- Clean Air Fund: "We work with government and business, and at every level of society, to help reach India’s clean air goals."
- Environmental Defense Fund: "By pinpointing local pollution in countries around the world, we’re giving policymakers, community groups and the private sector the tools they need to reduce pollution and hold polluters accountable."
- Clean Air Asia: "We provide scientific input to city governments for better air quality, particularly in the context of facilitating Clean Air Action Plans (CAAPs) and education/communication for cleaner air."
There are more. Each of these organizations have examples of their work on their websites. The theme in their high-level statements is that they work with power brokers to change things: they work on a national level, on a regional level, on a local level. They work with politicians, with corporations, with farmers/individuals. I think A-PAG might be the most relevant to you and perhaps the most impactful, but I'm not sure.
The New Delhi city government is currently focused on artificial rain as a solution to the problem. This is a reactive solution. The most effective solution is proactive: striking the problem at its heart. That means providing tangible, better alternatives to current practices that don't have a lot of drawbacks. For example, facilitating the adoption of efficient farming machines to clear crop stubble instead of burning it, reducing traffic congestion and/or reducing driving, and holding government accountable to its pollution mitigation plans. On a broader level, adopting renewable energy generation methods, adoption of heat pumps and electrification in general, etc.
Groups like A-PAG are focused on those proactive solutions. Organized advocacy through NGOs enables activists to solve problems using capital and actual bureaucratic mechanisms, not just shouting into the wind. There isn't necessarily an easy top-down solution, so to some extent it is up to motivated people to get the ball rolling on a local level and build up from there.
-
Comment on Global solar installations to reach 469–592 GW this year in ~enviro
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: information, personal analysis Tone: indomitable optimism Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Solar photovoltaic installation projections estimate an installed nameplate capacity...Comment box
- Scope: information, personal analysis
- Tone: indomitable optimism
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Solar photovoltaic installation projections estimate an installed nameplate capacity of up to 533 GW by the end of the year. (Pessimistically, it could be more like 469 GW.) Some other sources are quoting installations as high as 592 GW in 2024.
As of 2022, total nameplate electricity generation capacity was about 8 TW. That means that in 2024, during which 500 GW of solar was installed, the equivalent of 1/16 of all electricity generation was installed in a renewable format. In ONE year!!! And really only about 4.5 TW of electricity generation globally is from fossil fuels, which means 1/9 was actually installed in a single year (just from solar).
If you are a great mathematician you may be able to surmise that, if this trend holds linearly, it would take ~8 more years for solar (by itself) to replace all existing fossil fuel electrical generation capacity. Of course, solar is not doing this by itself: it has wind on its side. By the end of 2024, experts forecast another ~85 GW of wind energy installations globally. If we take the rosy solar forecast (592 GW) plus the wind forecast (84 GW), that is 676 GW of new renewable capacty in 2024, close to 15% of fossil capacity replaced with renewables in a single year.
But solar PV demand is expected to rise slightly in 2025. And wind demand is also expected to rise slightly in 2025. Another 600 GW of solar installations next year would be more than feasible, and likely as 650 or optimistically 700 GW. We could expect up to about 90 GW of new wind next year, for a total nearing perhaps 800 GW. Another huge portion chipped away.
There are some sectors that are harder to decarbonize than others. For example, the transportation industry's power usage is mostly not considered in electrical nameplate figures because fossil fuels are combusted for locomotion, not turned into electricity first (mostly). This is why total energy graphs look so dismal. But as I've written on this website before, there is no reason to be gloomy about the renewable trajectory: the amount of total energy generation we actually have to replace with renewables is far lower than shown in such charts.
Replacing dirty fossil grid energy with green renewables is the biggest and easiest ways to reduce emissions that harm our planet's climate and pollute our air (pollution gives you and your children cancer). In 2021, nearly 40% of US emissions were from electricity generation. Nearly 35% were from heating, which is mostly done with fossil gas and oil. However, people are increasingly switching to electric heat pumps purely for economic and efficiency reasons, even people who are largely tuned out of climate stuff. The rest is mostly from transportation, but I have no doubt that slow and steady growth of the electric vehicle market (~6%/yr) will continue.
We will need more electricity generation to accommodate those categories as they switch from fossil fuels to electrical generation, but, per the previous paragraph, we don't need to replace fossil fuel primary energy 1:1 with renewables: actually only about 1/3 of it due to the dramatically greater efficiency of renewables. I don't think aviation will be meaningfully decarbonized in a decade, but even industrial heat applications are moving forward with renewables and modern energy storage technologies.
I know all the Americans here are in a rut over the incoming administration. I can't say I'm particularly pleased, but I find it exceedingly unlikely that most provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (which boosted the renewable sector considerably) would be rolled back given how bipartisanly (??) economically beneficial the act has been to districts across the country. Even if they are diminished, they have already had a major effect in furthering renewable investment in the private sector and making the technology more economically feasible permanently. Plus, the US isn't the whole world, and from a strictly absolute standpoint it's probably more important for the energy transition to take place in India and China, where it will certainly continue. (They don't depend on the US for any renewable technology. China is way ahead on solar manufacturing.) Europe doesn't have quite the same manufacturing setup as China for solar, but they are likewise forging ahead with the EU's 2023 Net Zero Industry Act.
I think about it this way: we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use to 0% to make a meaningful climate difference. Taking it from our current baseline down 5%, or 10%, or 50%, or 80%, pushes back the exacerbation of all those extreme weather events and whatever proportionally. We can hit ~20% in four years, ~40% in eight (well, based on US energy distribution), and that makes a heck of a lot of difference. There is a lot of fearmongering about the AMOC and other "climate tipping points," and I can't really comment on those, but I suspect (with no evidence) that most of it is bunk. Don't care. Can't control that anyway.
SERENITY PRAYER
O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other.
In any case I believe the point stands that no matter what, extreme weather events will be less bad if global warming is less severe. The numbers are not as good as I would like, but they still don't spell existential catastrophe to me. A near-complete energy transition in ~8 years (pessimistically and likely wrongly assuming linear growth), plus ~5 years for the rest (1/3 of the other energy primary sources), is not half bad. Even with likely increases in power draw from AI in the next few years, we are on a good track (those companies are paying for nuclear installations that will largely cover the difference). If solar continues to accelerate, which projections indicate it will, the majority of that transition will happen even faster.
Action items:
- Contact stakeholders in government on a regular basis to express your support for specific and general renewable projects.
- Local city councils responsible for permitting solar/wind farms in your local areas.
- Regional (federal) planning commissions responsible for giving recommendations to cities about transportation and energy projects, including solar installations (Where I live, this is the DVRPC.)
- State Representatives and State Senators (your postal code has one of each: look up a map in your state).
- Federal Representatives (you have one) and Senators (you have two). Your voice in support of renewable energy is especially powerful if you live in an area that doesn't typically vote for "the party that cares about climate change." For economic reasons, elected officials always have an incentive to bring infrastructure and energy projects into their local constituencies.
- If it's feasible, install solar, wind, and/or geothermal power in your home. This actually has more impact than you think, because your house merely having solar panels makes all your neighbors significantly more likely to get solar panels themselves. The whole neighborhood going green is pretty significant.
- If that's not feasible, consider a power purchase agreement with a renewable energy supplier. The market isn't deregulated enough for this everywhere, but if it is (like in my state), it's a valuable contribution. And tell your friends too.
- Replace your oil or natural gas heating system with an electric heat pump. They work in the cold. Except if you live in the far north of Saskatchewan, modern electric heat pumps can do the job just fine.
- Purchase energy-efficient appliances where possible, and weatherize your home to the extent possible.
- Consider purchasing an electric vehicle the next time you buy, even if the price is higher than you prefer. Obviously, if it's financially impossible, OK. And if it is literally impossible for you to charge it, OK. But don't let range anxiety get the best of you: the charging network is vast, and nearly any routes you would realistically take have perfectly suitable coverage. Given a certain someone's new federal cabinet position, you can expect the charging infrastructure to corruptly but beneficially expand considerably in the next few years. (But it was going to anyway.)
- If you can't do that, consider a plug-in hybrid vehicle. This functionally reduces your immediate day-to-day transportation emissions by 90%+ because most trips are under 6 miles, and nearly all under 30 miles, well within PHEV electric range.
- If you can't do that, try to replace some driving trips with cycling or walking trips. I think it is more fun anyway.
- In future elections, vote for candidates who support renewable energy, especially on the local level. Those permits are actually the barrier in a lot of places, so having people in local offices who support fast-tracking them is a win.
-
Global solar installations to reach 469–592 GW this year
9 votes -
Comment on Solar + power bank for household appliances in apartment - can I reduce my electricity bill? in ~life.home_improvement
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral/grateful Opinion: vacuously Sarcasm/humor: none I rent, but it’s not a large building. Good idea!Comment box
- Scope: comment response
- Tone: neutral/grateful
- Opinion: vacuously
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I rent, but it’s not a large building. Good idea!
Comment box
The US Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently announced another $1.5 billion going to passenger rail infrastructure projects along the Northeast Corridor. The funding covers over a dozen projects serving millions of riders.
This funding is largely available due to the 117th Congress' Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was a legislative priority for Joe Biden.
Many of these projects are bridge replacements and other changes that would have direct impacts on travel times by allowing for higher travel speeds (and less acceleration/deceleration). In the case of movable bridges, replacements would also improve reliability and minimize delays from the bridge becoming physically stuck. (Many of these bridges are 115+ years old.) Other grants focus on replacing old catenary wires, which deliver the trains' electrical power, as well as station redesigns and various planning grants.
Incremental improvements to travel times and reliability have an outsized positive impact on the region's connectivity and economic productivity because they enable faster and more frequent service and open up new possibilities for commercial growth.
Selected projects:
You can read the original FRA press release for more information.
For details, see full project descriptions: FY 2024 Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program for the Northeast Corridor (FSP-NEC) Selections: Project Summaries (or see a PDF of the project summaries).