User Tools

Site Tools


Study of Governor Kate Brown's executive order on climate

The first reports are in and posted on the following page:

The Governor's office has organized much of what you would like to know on this page: Climate Change Carbon Policy Information

The agencies reported to a virtual meeting of Senator Dembrow's committee as noted here: a virtual meeting of the SENR Interim Committee on Tuesday, June 4, beginning at noon This meeting will probably be interesting to review.

Since best available science is necessary to determine what our objectives are, we will provide some UN science context including UN IPCC SR15 context from the Special Report on 1.5 Deg C that re-evaluated whether extra effort should be put in to achieve this tighter target from the Paris Accord talks. Many scientists involved in this evaluation (Released October 8, 2018 and later additions) agreed that it was extremely important that we target that objective.

See The_Need_For_Speed

  • ItemProject Risks:
  • Here is another analysis approach that shows how important it is to figure out the strategic target to use to get to a useful answer.
  • Organizational Risks:
    • This is a complicated problem to deal with, and a huge number of players.
    • It is impossible to take a brief starting point and not be dazzled by the possibilities it could imply.
    • No two people will see it alike. But, if we start sharing understandings, we will all learn and hopefully come to some useful conclusions.
    • Please see, react, share. We will try to publish discoveries and perspectives from many directions.
  • To show the graph of getting from 2016 to Kate Brown's target in 2035 by a straight line:
  • We do not accept Kate Brown's targets as acceptable to the best available science from the UN IPCC and will use the IPCC target planning in our further discussions.
    • Return to The_Need_For_Speed to refresh the best available science targets.
    • A picture that starts to try to compare various realities of measured vs. not, and IPCC vs. Oregon and M. Z. Jacobson vs transforming fossil fuel motion into electrical motion. Note that this starts with the Oregon Department of Energy picture of plans. They use cool colors for what they track on this image. We added warm colors for two layers of things that they have excluded from Climate Emissions Regulation. Oregon's forests are not uniformly managed poorly, but the industrial approach has decreased their carbon content consistently over the years. All that content has been a largely undiscussed emission of significant magnitude. Also, there are a variety of industries where the politics of profit and taxes have made emissions a silenced topic. Modified from ODE

What seems missing in pitch for Kate's fledgeling plan:

URGENCY TO AVOID passing 1.5 degrees: This is the way people described the urgent need of meeting the 1.5 degree target with decarbonization. This picture shows decarbonization paths available with SR15 50% probability budget depending on start date (remember, Greta asks; “Would you let your child ride on an airplane only given 50% chance of succeeding?”):

Figure: scrunching the decarbonization

In the Executive Order there is not a great emphasis on reducing consumption of non-fossil CARBON fuels. Oregon give great preference to fuels that come from composting carbon materials, or burning them directly that it distracts us from making zero-carbon energy first priority.

Documentaries to gain a better understanding of regenerative soil agriculture:

Carbon composting is for contributing carbon to the earth where it holds moisture and other nutrients. Think regenerative agriculture. Using them for fuels is developing an excuse to use carbon fuels.

Also, EVs only do their work if you supply your own rooftop energy, or the Grid is Green. EVs are intended to run on green energy.

So, THE BIG TARGET is Grid plus Transportation plus HVAC (think “CODE Zero by 2030”) . and the last two NEED THE GREEN GRID.

The Fossil Fuel companies are on their last legs except if they have access to $7/barrel energy from ground like the Saudis. We want them to fade, quickly. And we want to have major efforts in getting rid of emissions, and the way to do that is to:

1) Green Grid (get rid of fossil fuel electric plants)
–a. quit using fuels, use PV, Wind, Water and Storage.
–b. strengthen the grid to tie offshore and other distant wind and sunny-side PV to the grid.
2) Stabilize the Grid with storage
3) Run everything off of either
–a) the grid directly or
–b) storage that time-averages the grid.
4) Take advantage of the green grid with
–a. EVs like crazy
–b. HVAC on the grid. Get rid of methane.
5) Recognize that getting carbon into the ground is a really important activity
–a. For sequestration
–b. For soil health

For Emphasis) Transportation is a big emitter, and we should go after it. But, running EVs (Electric Vehicles) off of a coal-fired grid returns us to the horrendously inefficient problem of fossil fuels and the “Carnot Cycle” which typically limits the useful output from an engine at about 20% of the input energy. A Green Grid is a big deal in part BECAUSE it enables other areas, too. Note how it plays out in M Z. Jacobson's efficiency story below:

Mark Z Jacobson of Stanford has demonstrated that it is entirely possible to go completely green without needing to mix in fossil fuels to keep the world stable. By using a mix of energy sources that have different random contribution patterns, there is less and less down time to cover. Various energy storage techniques can smooth out those dips. Engineers are getting more and more ingenious at having storage systems that have growing efficiency and clever ways of developing high storage capacity.

In a similar way, Tony Seba, also of Stanford, sees the future of Green Energy to very nearly be Free Energy and therefore very disruptive of the economy of energy:

I am trying to install a comments handler for reader discussion.

study_of_kate_browns_executive_order_on_climate.txt · Last modified: 2020/07/25 19:31 by admin