Honestly, I was mildly apprehensive about posting this here, since mining is generally frowned upon by environmental orientated groups. However, mining is central to renewables, whether we like it or not. It’s also been around as long as humanity. I’m not defending it’s environmental issues by any stretch. I’m very much for responsible mining and more regulation.
However, electrification of mining vehicles is a win. In some cases, it’s not going to make much difference on net emissions, but in other cases, where to have a greener grid, it most certainly will. If you have a network of solar or wind power generators nearby, it’s a no-brainer. In some cases, old waste rock piles or TSFs can be progressively reclaimed and green power generators and installed on them. While electrification doesn’t solve emissions or env. Impact on the whole but it gives the opportunity to harness other sources of power than just fuel
The current price for a megagram of forest carbon is about 25 bucks. The contract for that is 25 years. So about a buck per year per megagram.The average megagram of fossil fuels CO2 was laid down in the Carboniferous. So call it 100 mya for dipshit math. Average temperate forest might do 2 megagrams per hectare per year. So to sequester a megagram of forest carbon for the time equivalent of fossil fuels carbon, you would need to set aside apx 50 million hectares for the time equivalent sequestration benefit. Which would mean that to get the time equivalent sequestration benefit from forest carbon, you need to set aside 50 million hectares. Per megagram. Which is just preposterous. It also implied that the stored value of a non-emitted megagram of fossil fuels carbon is about 50 million dollars. Which is to say if we believe that a megagram of forest carbon stored for 25 years is worth 25 bucks, we should by extension believe that keeping a megagram of carbon from being emitted from fossil fuels is worth 50 million bucks. Obviously none of this is really true but it points to the absurdity of sequestration and the importance of not emitting more carbon from fossil fuels, in any manner. Right now solar and bev are the most obvious, straight forward, And demonstrated to be effective ways to get there. We might literally be in a path to a world of practically free electricity in some places at certain times of day.
Also big electric truck go bzzzz.
*(these are all approx numbers and math; I’m in the shitter and not looking up anything for the haters)
The thing that we don’t consider in the current models is storage time when it comes to cost/credits. There’s no distinction between storing new carbon and old carbon.
I think your point still holds water in that storage is not the answer, but reduction is
Honestly, I was mildly apprehensive about posting this here, since mining is generally frowned upon by environmental orientated groups. However, mining is central to renewables, whether we like it or not. It’s also been around as long as humanity. I’m not defending it’s environmental issues by any stretch. I’m very much for responsible mining and more regulation.
However, electrification of mining vehicles is a win. In some cases, it’s not going to make much difference on net emissions, but in other cases, where to have a greener grid, it most certainly will. If you have a network of solar or wind power generators nearby, it’s a no-brainer. In some cases, old waste rock piles or TSFs can be progressively reclaimed and green power generators and installed on them. While electrification doesn’t solve emissions or env. Impact on the whole but it gives the opportunity to harness other sources of power than just fuel
Think about it like this:
The current price for a megagram of forest carbon is about 25 bucks. The contract for that is 25 years. So about a buck per year per megagram.The average megagram of fossil fuels CO2 was laid down in the Carboniferous. So call it 100 mya for dipshit math. Average temperate forest might do 2 megagrams per hectare per year. So to sequester a megagram of forest carbon for the time equivalent of fossil fuels carbon, you would need to set aside apx 50 million hectares for the time equivalent sequestration benefit. Which would mean that to get the time equivalent sequestration benefit from forest carbon, you need to set aside 50 million hectares. Per megagram. Which is just preposterous. It also implied that the stored value of a non-emitted megagram of fossil fuels carbon is about 50 million dollars. Which is to say if we believe that a megagram of forest carbon stored for 25 years is worth 25 bucks, we should by extension believe that keeping a megagram of carbon from being emitted from fossil fuels is worth 50 million bucks. Obviously none of this is really true but it points to the absurdity of sequestration and the importance of not emitting more carbon from fossil fuels, in any manner. Right now solar and bev are the most obvious, straight forward, And demonstrated to be effective ways to get there. We might literally be in a path to a world of practically free electricity in some places at certain times of day.
Also big electric truck go bzzzz.
*(these are all approx numbers and math; I’m in the shitter and not looking up anything for the haters)
The thing that we don’t consider in the current models is storage time when it comes to cost/credits. There’s no distinction between storing new carbon and old carbon.
I think your point still holds water in that storage is not the answer, but reduction is
Some people are considering time. Also these fine folks.
Once you put time into the equation, the highlights the absurdity of valuing any form of sequestration while not valuing avoided emissions.