Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
Depends what price you place on blackouts. Combustion will leave us long before we are ready to leave it.
|
I'm working through some of the genesis of different scenarios for addressing climate change.
I recently looked at a 1998 work from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
One of their economists suggested that rather than shove Kyoto down industries' throat,that carbon trading would allow them to meet targets,essentially at zero cost,provide for capital accumulation such that by 2023-2028,they would have monies for actual new technology,rather than expensive retrofits to existing infrastructure.
They were looking at carbon capture back then and thought that in 25-30 years,as facilities wore out,that they might have new 'clean' fossil tech.to replace retiring plants.
As of 1998,they figured that we were locked into 560ppmv any way we looked at things,and we ought to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at that level.
In the intervening years they've tried to lobby their way out of meaningful R&D as if the American people would bail them out.
It looks like the market and technology has evolved in the meantime,and today,new fossil combustion is no longer a viable business model.I'm just talking about Adam Smith's invisible hand of capitalism.
There are development models which exist which don't include CO2 as a requisite.Evidently,economic growth is no longer predicated upon petroleum,or coal,or even methane.
There won't be any 'grand gestures' in the US.They send the economy into chaos.There will be steady,incremental transition as we move away from combustion.If we're not to go over 3-degrees C.
'Spinning reserves' is not a concept lost on contemporary planners.And they'll do market-based solutions if they work,otherwise it will be command and control and you'll have no say in the matter.
That's if the climate is important.And looking around me,I see no evidence that this is the case.
'what a strange trip it's been'