SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US Appeals Court Says California Can Set its Own Low Carbon Fuel Standard:
Late last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit published an opinion (PDF) stating that California's regulation of fuel sales based on a lifecycle analysis of carbon emissions did not violate federal commerce rules.
Since 2011, California has had a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, which requires fuel sellers to reduce their fuel's carbon intensity by certain deadlines. If oil, ethanol, or other fuel sellers can't meet those deadlines, they can buy credits from companies that have complied with the standard.
California measures "fuel intensity" over the lifecycle of the fuel, so oil extracted from tar sands (which might require a lot of processing) would be penalized more than lighter oil that requires minimal processing. Ethanol made with coal would struggle to meet its carbon intensity goals more than ethanol made from gas.
Plaintiffs representing the ethanol and oil industries have challenged these rules in the court system. Most recently, they challenged California's 2015 version of the rules. (In September 2018, the state's Air Resources Board announced new amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard rules, but those are not discussed in the 9th Circuit's most recent opinion.)
[...] The opinion noted:
The California legislature is rightly concerned with the health and welfare of humans living in the State of California... These persons may be subjected, for example, to crumbling or swamped coastlines, rising water, or more intense forest fires caused by higher temperatures and related droughts, all of which many in the scientific communities believe are caused or intensified by the volume of greenhouse gas emissions.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:52PM (13 children)
*cough* Nuclear *cough*
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:33PM (6 children)
And how is it that this planet coalesced from a cloud of dust and gas, including the fissionable material we use for nuclear power? It was a consequence of the formation of a certain object. Hmm...what could that be? Gee, that's a hard question isn't it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:57PM (5 children)
The nuclear energy comes not from planetary formation nor from energy produced by the sun. The energy stored in fissionable material was likely produced in some other star's collapse and explosion, where it was scattered into space dust, etc.
Saying this energy comes FROM the sun would be very odd indeed.
There is energy produced by planetary formation -- the heat inside the earth, some of which is used for geothermal heating. But the energy stored in nuclear material was not created that way, nor did that material (or energy) have a source in the sun.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @12:11AM (2 children)
All true. However, my point was that without the collapse of the gas cloud resuling in the formation of the sun, those atoms of fissionable material (as well as everything else that makes up this planet) would be just a cloud. As such, while fissionable materials (as well as all elements heavier than iron) were originally formed in supernovas long before the birth of our star, we would not have usable nuclear energy (or anything else, including us) without the sun.
Broadly speaking, the sun is responsible for the formation of our planet and the aggregation of everything upon it. Perhaps you think that's not a tight enough connection to make the claim I did. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 25 2019, @01:45AM (1 child)
I did understand your point the first time. I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. But that doesn't mean that the parent you were originally replying to didn't have a point too.
This thread was originally about the source of "power," which is energy produced over time. The literal source of that energy is (as you note) likely the energy of supernovas, stored for billions of years and now released again.
That's different from almost all other energy produced by humans on earth. I'm not saying the sun didn't have a role in making nuclear plants possible. I'm just saying it literally isn't the source of the energy released in nuclear power.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @02:17AM
Absolutely. On all counts.
But I'm a fanboi.
Hooray for the sun god! He sure is a fun god! Ra! Ra! Ra! :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 25 2019, @12:53AM (1 child)
When Brian May was interviewed on Fresh Air, he commented that "we are stardust" is literally true.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @05:04AM
The first time I heard that quote was from Carl Sagan in the 1980's Cosmos series.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:33PM (2 children)
Also came from a star :D
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 25 2019, @12:08AM (1 child)
The death of a star, yep. But not the daystar.
Also geothermal if you don't like nuclear, although some percentage of that is from nuclear decay as well.
We can ignore fusion power, which is now only 30 years away :-)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 25 2019, @04:09PM
No matter which star's death, they can still be buried along side other hollywood stars.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 25 2019, @12:31AM (2 children)
Well, one could argue that uranium is merely condensed supernova energy, I suppose.
But the real drawback to nuclear energy is that nobody is planing on paying to handle the waste. And plant managers cut costs in ways that are unsafe...which with the residual long term effects isn't acceptable. Perhaps fusion will be better.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:44AM (1 child)
1/ High level stuff - either burn it for more power or encase it in synrock and stack it in the desert somewhere. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc [wikipedia.org] )
2/ Low level - Separate out what can be used for power and stack the rest in the same desert.
3/ Liquids - Separate out whatever is making it radioactive. Goto 1/ or 2/. If it is tritium then that both has uses and a 12 year half life. Not a problem.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RandomFactor on Friday January 25 2019, @01:49AM
Reprocess fuel and use breeder reactors? That's crazy talk!
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды