Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TwinCities.com)   EPA says that Wisconsin must cut carbon emissions 34 percent from beer making, but Miller Lite is exempt   (twincities.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, EPA, Wisconsin, carbon emissions, Public Service Commission  
•       •       •

1043 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jun 2014 at 4:58 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-02 01:55:15 PM  
wow.

4th greenlight today about the EPA's carbon reductions.

but I guess since this article is one-state-specific, that makes this more of a follow-up.
 
2014-06-02 03:27:20 PM  
DRINK SLOWER.

Problem solved.
 
2014-06-02 05:01:11 PM  
Miller Light is exempted because it's not beer, it's water.
 
2014-06-02 05:02:03 PM  
Yeah, I know...

img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-02 05:02:46 PM  
Duh, subby, Miller Light's not-

NYCNative: Miller Light is exempted because it's not beer, it's water.


Dammit!

/tiny fist
 
2014-06-02 05:08:34 PM  
I ate nothing but meat today so I get a carb credit.
 
2014-06-02 05:18:02 PM  

PainInTheASP: DRINK SLOWER.

Problem solved.


But then I have a drinking problem.
 
2014-06-02 05:21:07 PM  
Tastes Great
 
2014-06-02 05:22:00 PM  
Considering they aren't a power plant, I'm not sure how this is relevant
 
2014-06-02 05:23:33 PM  

meat0918: Considering they aren't a power plant, I'm not sure how this is relevant


Trolltastic headline greened on Fark. News at 11.
 
2014-06-02 05:29:15 PM  
Sooner we get Walker out of office, the sooner things like this can be done.
 
2014-06-02 05:31:51 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: Tastes Great


Less filling!
 
2014-06-02 05:42:52 PM  
From a technical point of view, a 30% reduction will be a hard number to hit. All of the existing coal plants will have to be refitted to modern standards or decommissioned.

A lot of plant owners have been skirting the EPA for a long time and this may bring them into compliance.
 
2014-06-02 05:50:16 PM  

NYCNative: Miller Light is exempted because it's not beer, it's water.


Not exactly. It's what we call "sex in a canoe."

It's farking close to water.
 
2014-06-02 05:53:16 PM  
That was kind of non-sequitur.
 
2014-06-02 06:17:45 PM  

Elfich: From a technical point of view, a 30% reduction will be a hard number to hit. All of the existing coal plants will have to be refitted to modern standards or decommissioned.

A lot of plant owners have been skirting the EPA for a long time and this may bring them into compliance.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-02 06:20:31 PM  
Maybe they could trade their cheese expertise with people who know something about electrical generation using wind, whenever Wisconsin manages to fix it's government.

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-02 06:41:12 PM  

BitwiseShift: Maybe they could trade their cheese expertise with people who know something about electrical generation using wind, whenever Wisconsin manages to fix it's government.

[img.fark.net image 194x259]


theroyalrating.files.wordpress.com

/nice
 
2014-06-02 07:21:58 PM  

Elfich: From a technical point of view, a 30% reduction will be a hard number to hit. All of the existing coal plants will have to be refitted to modern standards or decommissioned.

A lot of plant owners have been skirting the EPA for a long time and this may bring them into compliance.


You'd need outright sequestration, which I'm very wary of.  CO2 is a gas, and I'm not convinced that it won't simply leak out of wherever we inject it, even deep underground.

More likely is retrofitting the plants to burn natural gas, which has been happening elsewhere because the boom has made NG cheaper than coal w/pollution controls.

Me, I'd like to see about 30GW more in nuclear power.  About 15 plants with 2 reactors each.
 
2014-06-02 07:28:30 PM  

Vodka Zombie: TrollingForColumbine: Tastes Great

Less filling!


Tastes great!
/ok feel dirty for saying something that tastes like pine needles dipped in hand sanitizer tastes great
 
2014-06-02 07:38:03 PM  

Firethorn: Elfich: From a technical point of view, a 30% reduction will be a hard number to hit. All of the existing coal plants will have to be refitted to modern standards or decommissioned.

A lot of plant owners have been skirting the EPA for a long time and this may bring them into compliance.

You'd need outright sequestration, which I'm very wary of.  CO2 is a gas, and I'm not convinced that it won't simply leak out of wherever we inject it, even deep underground.

More likely is retrofitting the plants to burn natural gas, which has been happening elsewhere because the boom has made NG cheaper than coal w/pollution controls.

Me, I'd like to see about 30GW more in nuclear power.  About 15 plants with 2 reactors each.


I'd love to see some Gen III+/IV reactors built, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
2014-06-02 07:50:19 PM  

BitwiseShift: Maybe they could trade their cheese expertise with people who know something about electrical generation using wind, whenever Wisconsin manages to fix it's government.


I see you know little of WI. We are the home of Cooper, Waukesha transformer, Kohler, Generac, ATC, Cummins Npower, Allen Bradley, Marathon and John Deere alternators, manufacture solar panels and wind generators. S&C moved some operations up here, two separate VFD manufacturers, including R&D+ testing....

bonus: I am Dutch.
 
2014-06-02 08:13:20 PM  

Firethorn: Me, I'd like to see about 30GW more in nuclear power. About 15 plants with 2 reactors each.

While of course the capacity factor is different, we're currently on track for installing 6.6GW of solar capacity this year alone - growing at a fairly steady rate of 80% a year.

By the time you could permit, design, and build 15 nuclear plants, at our current rate of installation, we'll have nearly 70GW of additional solar online within a decade.
 
2014-06-02 09:24:42 PM  

meat0918: Considering they aren't a power plant, I'm not sure how this is relevant


Subby doesn't realize that the fermentation involved in brewing beer produces far more CO2 than any other part of the process.  He's just using "{State} must cut CO2 emissions from {thing state is famous for making other than cheese}."

Firethorn: Elfich: From a technical point of view, a 30% reduction will be a hard number to hit. All of the existing coal plants will have to be refitted to modern standards or decommissioned.

A lot of plant owners have been skirting the EPA for a long time and this may bring them into compliance.

You'd need outright sequestration, which I'm very wary of.  CO2 is a gas, and I'm not convinced that it won't simply leak out of wherever we inject it, even deep underground.

More likely is retrofitting the plants to burn natural gas, which has been happening elsewhere because the boom has made NG cheaper than coal w/pollution controls.

Me, I'd like to see about 30GW more in nuclear power.  About 15 plants with 2 reactors each.


Unfortunately, natural gas (from leaks) is a far more potent greenhouse gas.  So even the gas you DON'T burn causes greenhouse gasses to increase.

Nuclear.  In your backyard whether you like it or not.  I'm tired of farking tree-huggers blocking the most immediate solution to the problem.
 
2014-06-02 09:39:19 PM  

Petey4335: BitwiseShift: Maybe they could trade their cheese expertise with people who know something about electrical generation using wind, whenever Wisconsin manages to fix it's government.

I see you know little of WI. We are the home of Cooper, Waukesha transformer, Kohler, Generac, ATC, Cummins Npower, Allen Bradley, Marathon and John Deere alternators, manufacture solar panels and wind generators. S&C moved some operations up here, two separate VFD manufacturers, including R&D+ testing....

bonus: I am Dutch.


And apparently a huge EE nerd.

/EE nerd...
 
2014-06-02 10:50:53 PM  
Just hook the turnstiles at Lambeau up to generators. Free power!!!

//Also water wheels in the urinals.
 
2014-06-03 12:13:53 AM  

Nemosomen: Subby doesn't realize that the fermentation involved in brewing beer produces far more CO2 than any other part of the process.  He's just using "{State} must cut CO2 emissions from {thing state is famous for making other than cheese}."
...
Unfortunately, natural gas (from leaks) is a far more potent greenhouse gas.  So even the gas you DON'T burn causes greenhouse gasses to increase.


Actually, subby does know that beer produces CO2, so chose that example as a double funny.

Subby also knows that methane is not relevant as a greenhouse gas because the CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps, so teh evil CO2 is already causing all the warming which methane might.
 
2014-06-03 01:47:50 AM  

Elfich: From a technical point of view, a 30% reduction will be a hard number to hit. All of the existing coal plants will have to be refitted to modern standards or decommissioned.

A lot of plant owners have been skirting the EPA for a long time and this may bring them into compliance.


It's a 30% reduction from IIRC 2004 levels, which were 15% higher than today's emissions. We're already halfway there!
 
2014-06-03 01:58:02 AM  
Yes, just because a company makes beer it shouldn't be subject to any environmental standards.
 
2014-06-03 07:19:23 AM  

WelldeadLink: Subby also knows that methane is not relevant as a greenhouse gas because the CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps, so teh evil CO2 is already causing all the warming which methane might.


Dunning-Kruger effect, ladies and gentlemen! Behold the smug ignorance and outright incorrectness! Marvel as he dismisses actual science to link to Watts! Feel free to laugh as well, I do.
 
2014-06-03 08:07:50 AM  
Maybe if they took the excess carbon emissions and shoved it into their Lite Beer, maybe that would help it taste better...
 
2014-06-03 11:42:54 AM  

MrSteve007: By the time you could permit, design, and build 15 nuclear plants, at our current rate of installation, we'll have nearly 70GW of additional solar online within a decade.


If I'm building nuclear plants, it'd because I'm an Evil Overloard, and I guarantee I'd get the plants done in under 5 years, using the blood of protestors as mortar if handy.  ;)

Under my 'ideal' non-carbon electricity generation system the ratios would be around 20% solar, 20% wind, 40% nuclear, 20% other.

I'm not convinced that solar panels can keep getting cheaper at the rate they have been, I figure that the current price drops have been less about improved technology than China dumping on the market.  But if that turns out to be false and Tesla's gigafactory results in a steady stream of moderately used but still functional large battery packs that can be used for overnight storage, the percentage of solar can increase.
 
2014-06-03 12:04:39 PM  

Zafler: WelldeadLink: Subby also knows that methane is not relevant as a greenhouse gas because the CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps, so teh evil CO2 is already causing all the warming which methane might.

Dunning-Kruger effect, ladies and gentlemen! Behold the smug ignorance and outright incorrectness! Marvel as he dismisses actual science to link to Watts! Feel free to laugh as well, I do.


Hey, you're right. It's Miller Lite vapor which overlaps with methane. Miller Lite vapor causes most of the Earth's greenhouse effect, so any heating which methane might do is already being caused by Miller Lite vapor. You're right, that is pointed out on Watts' site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenho us e-gas/

I suppose you can find it elsewhere, but you wouldn't want to bother linking to some actual science, would you? Oh, look, they do have the absorption spectra for Miller Lite vapor.
www.meteor.iastate.edu
 
2014-06-03 12:36:40 PM  

Firethorn: I'm not convinced that solar panels can keep getting cheaper at the rate they have been, I figure that the current price drops have been less about improved technology than China dumping on the market.

In this respect, I fully agree, simply because the product itself is closing on the price of being nearly free.

1977: $76 a watt
1995: $8 a watt
2013: $0.76 a watt

Even if we halved the price of current PV panels, going from 76 cents a watt to 38 cents a watt, it's hardly going to do a thing for the overall cost of putting panels on a roof. What is the major limiting factor in price reductions for the average person is simply the cost of labor and permitting - which is also a constant for creating any other source of energy.

So simply looking at the economics, solar is nearing the point of the basic equipment are becoming a commodity, the "real-estate" to do the installations is free (as long as you install it on a rooftop), and the fuel source itself is free. Also, you generate zero emissions during the life of the product, and the only waste generated is the project itself, at the end of life; and frankly most of that can be recycled.

Compare that to almost any other conventional energy source, including nuclear. They require:

-open land for the plant
-a steady feedstock of fuel
-a secure transportation system for the fuel
-placement and processing of waste products (nuclear waste, coal ash)
-lots of water for turbines
-water supply
-constant monitoring and engineers on-site
-security protecting the plant

Rooftop PV needs none of that. And now that prices are nearing the cost of dirt, and adoption is becoming much more widespread, the only expense people face is capital costs (labor and permitting) involved with initial installation and commissioning. I wouldn't be surprised if we see PV power prices dropping below grid parity within the next few years, which will simply destroy conventional utility business models.
 
2014-06-03 01:18:54 PM  

MrSteve007: simply because the product itself is closing on the price of being nearly free.


The panels themselves have reached the point that we have to pay serious attention to the costs of the rest of the system such as the inverter.  But there's still lots of room to grow even at 76 cents a watt.  'nearly free' would be more like 10 cents a watt, or at least under 50 cents a watt for a complete system, installed.  So yeah, labor is a big thing for it.

So simply looking at the economics, solar is nearing the point of the basic equipment are becoming a commodity, the "real-estate" to do the installations is free (as long as you install it on a rooftop), and the fuel source itself is free.

You have to have an appropriate facing roof though.  50-50 for old-build, easier with new build.  Hell, it's a lot cheaper with new-build anyways, and after seeing some car ports with the solar panels AS the roof, no other materials, I wonder if you can achieve something similar without going to an expensive specialty product like 'solar shingles'.

Also, you generate zero emissions during the life of the product, and the only waste generated is the project itself, at the end of life; and frankly most of that can be recycled.

You feel the need to explain the obvious to me why?

Compare that to almost any other conventional energy source, including nuclear. They require:

Let's see
Open land - if you want to support cities and industry via solar you're still going to need lots of this.
Steady feedstock - not especially for nuclear plants.
Secure transportation - for hydrocarbons trains, pipes, and trucks aren't especially secure.
Storing waste products - point; I think it's actually less of a problem on average for nuclear waste than ash.  Lots of busted dams and such for the ash.
Turbines - you're correct here.  Conventional dam hydroelectric is effectively maxed.  We might be able to squeeze another 10% out of it, but that's still less than 1% of national usage.
Constant monitoring - Once you're looking at GWs of power, the amount of individual oversight is similar.
Security - I believe it to be a touch overkill, but again, not that big of a deal once you're looking at that amount of energy.

Rooftop PV needs none most of that.

Fixed that for you.  It's just that when you're only looking at a few kW of capacity it's mostly transparent.

which will simply destroy conventional utility business models.

Recently I  almost pulled the switch to install PVs, and I live in  Alaska.  I ended up not doing so because of (hopefully) temporary financial strain and that the company that I got the proposal from was excessively optimistic.  They were counting on the power company paying much more for power than what they were actually buying it for, excessive electricity rate increases not in line with upcoming projects to actually reduce the cost of electricity here, using higher winter rates rather than summer rates, etc...

When I reran the numbers using my situation and my estimates it didn't pay off quick enough(yet).  I'll note that this figured on my doing the install myself and using the federal rebate, but there aren't any state/local ones.

That being said, if/when solar drops below grid parity the situation does indeed change.  One example would be that you'd be encouraged to plug your EV in during the day, not at night.  You might want a larger water heater that uses either solar thermal panels or a heat pump to heat a 'lot' of water so you don't have to heat it at night at all, etc...

But this is also why I mentioned the availability of hopefully cheap batteries.  Because it's storage that's preventing solar from being a 24 hour solution.   If you have to keep baseload up to supply the night, you're restricted to about 20% of energy coming from it before you start screwing negatively with baseload*.  If you have enough storage for approximately 3 hours, that would not only allow you to more efficiently match peaks in power demand, it'd allow you to cover the last peak that happens at around 8pm before it levels off for the night.  Call it 30% coverage at that point.  4 hours would get you up to 35% or so, able to cover people waking up in the morning.

Then you drive your EV to work in the morning, park it under the solar cell carport/shade, and plug in to charge over the day, with the sun's energy diverted from roasting your interior into the battery.  Obviously I'm talking about points south of me, of course.

Personally, in my area I'd love a small nuclear reactor set up as a cogeneration system, providing heat for buildings in addition to electricity.

*Which increases expenses because efficiency is lost.  With the really efficient baseload generators you have to run them all the time at nearly full power for maximum efficiency; it can actually be cleaner/cheaper to waste the electricity than to turn them down.
 
2014-06-03 01:33:58 PM  
Methane has a Global Warming potential of 21 over a 100 year time period. This means that every molecule of Methane traps as much infrared energy as 21 molecules of Carbon Dioxide.

Courtesy of the IPCC.

So, no, Methane is in no way irrelevant. Furthermore, even if Methane itself had no direct Global Warming Potential, natural processes in the atmosphere break it down into Carbon Dioxide and water, which do. These effects are not saturated throughout the atmosphere, which is what your Watts post is haphazardly arguing. The extra insulation effect from the various greenhouse gases makes the outflowing energy have to be from higher up in the atmosphere leading to more energy being retained.

Any way you slice it, neither you nor Tom Sheahen has a damn clue what you're talking about.
 
2014-06-03 02:33:18 PM  

Zafler: So, no, Methane is in no way irrelevant.


One molecule of burned methane is a molecule of CO2, and I double we're leaking even 1% of our methane at this point, much less 5% of it.
 
2014-06-03 03:01:55 PM  

Firethorn: Zafler: So, no, Methane is in no way irrelevant.

One molecule of burned methane is a molecule of CO2, and I double we're leaking even 1% of our methane at this point, much less 5% of it.


How does it feel to be wrong about everything?
 
2014-06-03 03:31:49 PM  

BitwiseShift: Maybe they could trade their cheese expertise with people who know something about electrical generation using wind, whenever Wisconsin manages to fix it's government.

[img.fark.net image 194x259]

 
2014-06-03 04:13:53 PM  

whidbey: Firethorn: Zafler: So, no, Methane is in no way irrelevant.

One molecule of burned methane is a molecule of CO2, and I double we're leaking even 1% of our methane at this point, much less 5% of it.

How does it feel to be wrong about everything?


I don't know, how about you tell me?
 
2014-06-03 04:53:17 PM  

Firethorn: whidbey: Firethorn: Zafler: So, no, Methane is in no way irrelevant.

One molecule of burned methane is a molecule of CO2, and I double we're leaking even 1% of our methane at this point, much less 5% of it.

How does it feel to be wrong about everything?

I don't know, how about you tell me?


Maybe he's thinking of methane's global warming potential, not the number of carbon atoms in a molecule of CH4.
 
2014-06-03 04:54:52 PM  

Firethorn: whidbey: Firethorn: Zafler: So, no, Methane is in no way irrelevant.

One molecule of burned methane is a molecule of CO2, and I double we're leaking even 1% of our methane at this point, much less 5% of it.

How does it feel to be wrong about everything?

I don't know, how about you tell me?


When I'm wrong about the fact that man is causing climate change and that nuclear power isn't a solution, I'll let you--and everyone here--know about it.
 
2014-06-03 05:45:03 PM  

WelldeadLink: Maybe he's thinking of methane's global warming potential, not the number of carbon atoms in a molecule of CH4.


Maybe I'm thinking that so many more than 21X as many molecules of CO2 are emitted each year that it drowns out the effects of NG emissions.

Coal, Oil, burned NG, etc...
 
2014-06-03 07:15:16 PM  

Firethorn: WelldeadLink: Maybe he's thinking of methane's global warming potential, not the number of carbon atoms in a molecule of CH4.

Maybe I'm thinking that so many more than 21X as many molecules of CO2 are emitted each year that it drowns out the effects of NG emissions.

Coal, Oil, burned NG, etc...


Again, courtesy of the IPCC.

Anthropogenic Methane, at current levels, is approximately 25% the forcing of just Carbon Dioxide. Drowned out, it's not.
 
2014-06-03 07:15:53 PM  
www.ipcc.ch

Forkers threw away the image.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report