User Tools

Site Tools


note_on_exports

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
note_on_exports [2017/07/23 19:49]
admin
note_on_exports [2017/07/23 19:59] (current)
admin
Line 5: Line 5:
 <font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​The Paris agreement targets a 2 degree C rise in temperatures over the beginning of the industrial revolution because that is believed to be something of a safe limit. Actually, as we progress, it's safety gets questioned. 1.5degrees may be a saver target in many ways.</​font>​ <font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​The Paris agreement targets a 2 degree C rise in temperatures over the beginning of the industrial revolution because that is believed to be something of a safe limit. Actually, as we progress, it's safety gets questioned. 1.5degrees may be a saver target in many ways.</​font>​
  
-<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​These targets put limits on how long we can continue to burn fossil fuels at present "​business as usual" rates. Indeed, the answer is **"no longer"​**,​ because the process of decreasing usage is hard. The pattern of usage in the Paris 2 degree ​celcius ​limit includes that we have almost completely quit using fossil fuels by about 2040. If we considered that target 20 years away, then we would need to reduce our usage by 5% per year over 20 years to reach bottom. Generally speaking, no state or country had acheived ​a reduction rate of significantly more than 1% per year. That seems to me to confirm that ending usage by 2040 is a challenge.</​font>​+<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​These targets put limits on how long we can continue to burn fossil fuels at present "​business as usual" rates. Indeed, the answer is **"no longer"​**,​ because the process of decreasing usage **is hard.** The pattern of usage in the Paris 2 degree ​Celcius ​limit includes that we have almost completely quit using fossil fuels by about 2040. If we considered that target 20 years away, then we would need to reduce our usage by 5% per year over 20 years to reach bottom. Generally speaking, no state or country had achieved ​a reduction rate of significantly more than 1% per year. That seems to me to confirm that ending usage by 2040 is a challenge.</​font>​
  
-<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​Then, bring in consideration of an export project who's carbon footprint represents 50% of Oregon'​s current usage. Plan a build cycle of 10 years before getting any benefits out of the project. Then recognize that it would need to be operated for 50 years at near full capacity to make the investment profitable.50 years of usage at 50% of Oregon'​s footprint is equivalent to 25 years at 100% of Oregon'​s footprint. So, to make this project fit into Oregon'​s budget, we would need to say; "Okay, we'll turn off all local use of fossil fuels, NOW. Then, because the new project is at half power, and (assuming) it shuts off abruptly at the end of 35 years, Oregon will have done almost as well as it would have been budgeted – but over 2 x as long as it would have been budgeted.</​font>​+<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​Consider ​an export project who's carbon footprint represents 50% of Oregon'​s current usage. Plan a build cycle of 10 years before getting any benefits out of the project. Then recognize that it would need to be operated for 50 years at near full capacity to make the investment profitable. ​ 50 years of usage at 50% of Oregon'​s footprint is equivalent to 25 years at 100% of Oregon'​s footprint. So, to make this project fit into Oregon'​s budget, we would need to say; "Okay, we'll turn off all local use of fossil fuels, NOW. Then, because the new project is at half power, and (assuming) it shuts off abruptly at the end of 25 years, Oregon will have done almost as well as Oregon'​s original ​budgeted – but half strength for over 2 x as long a time as it would have originally ​been budgeted.</​font>​
  
-<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​This kind of logic needs to be considered for big projects! But it isn't. I don't know what kind of wishful thinking can support the belief that we can complete projects like that other than climate denial.</​font>​+<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​So a single project, as actually proposed (Jordan Cove LNG Export terminal) would not fit in Oregon'​s budget without depriving Oregon of any further budget for fossil fuel.</​font>​ 
 + 
 +<font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​This kind of logic needs to be considered for big projects! But it isn't. I don't know what kind of wishful thinking can support the belief that we can complete projects like that other than using climate denial ​to ignore the facts, because.</​font>​
  
   - <font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​If the usage must end in less than 30 years, there will not be enough time to recover investment.</​font>​   - <font 18px/​inherit;;​inherit;;​inherit>​If the usage must end in less than 30 years, there will not be enough time to recover investment.</​font>​
note_on_exports.txt · Last modified: 2017/07/23 19:59 by admin