Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 Next
Comments 79751 to 79800:
-
BBD at 02:38 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom The LAGI stuff is wrong. It assumes a 100% panel efficiency. This is absolutely clear from my post above. Nothing else is terribly relevant. Let's stick to the facts. LAGI is wrong, as described. Your response to that fact is all that is necessary here. Anything else might be seen as an attempt to obfuscate and distract. -
BBD at 02:34 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Thanks for prompting me to learn how to post images here ;-)
-
RW1 at 02:31 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
My main point here is how can a negative feedback reduction of about 25-40% from L&C be considered so unreasonable even though it is well within the measured bounds of the system from solar forcing, yet an amplification of 300% is considered so reasonable when it is so far outside the measured bounds? -
BBD at 02:27 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Honeycutt #84 China is the largest CO2 emitter in the world (23.33% CDIAC figures). I don't care any more about the per capita arguments than the atmosphere does. The Chinese economy is almost entirely powered by coal. Rhetoric from Beijing about smart grids and renewables is intended to distract from this. Unfortunately, it works quite well in some quarters. Here are the facts: CDIAC analysis:According to reported energy statistics, coal production and use in China has increased ten-fold since the 1960s. As a result, Chinese fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have grown a remarkable 92.0% since 2000 alone. At 1.78 billion metric tons of carbon in 2007, the People's Republic of China is the world's largest emitter of CO2 due to fossil-fuel use and cement production. Even with the reported decline in Chinese emissions from 1997 to 2000, China's industrial emissions of CO2 have grown phenomenally since 1950, when China stood tenth among nations based on annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. From 1970 to 1997, China's fossil-fuel CO2 emissions grew at an annual rate of 5.4%. Growth has occurred largely in the use of coal, not surprising given China is the world's largest coal producer, which accounted for 98.7% of the emissions total in 1950 and 72.0% in 2007. Liquid fuels now contribute 15.5% of emissions and have grown appreciably over the past decade. The anomalous peak for 1958-61 is common in Chinese data. These years are part of the period "The Great Leap Forward," and whether the anomaly represents a real event in CO2 emissions or a data residual is not clear. China is the world's largest hydraulic cement producer. In 2007 China produced over 1.35 billion metric tons of hydraulic cement, almost half of the world's production. Emissions from cement production account for 10.3% of China's 2007 total industrial CO2 emissions. China's population has doubled over the past four decades and now exceeds 1.3 billion people. Per capita emissions increased considerably over this period and 2006 marked the first year China's per capita emission rate (1.27 metric tons of carbon) exceeded the global average (1.25 metric tons of carbon).
[Emphasis added.] EIA region analysis. (Please scroll down for Coal. Note the graphs for China's coal production and consumption 1999 - 2009 and China's electricity generation by fuel type, 1999 - 2009. They summarise it all neatly).According to the World Energy Council, China held an estimated 114.5 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves in 2009, the third-largest in the world behind the United States and Russia, and equivalent to about 14 percent of the world's total reserves. Coal production rose to almost 3.4 billion short tons in 2009, making China the largest coal producer in the world. There are 27 provinces in China that produce coal, and slightly greater than half of China's coal is used for power generation. Northern China, especially the Shanxi and Inner Mongolia Provinces, contains most of China's easily accessible coal and virtually all of the large state-owned mines. Coal makes up 71 percent of China's total primary energy consumption, and in 2009, China consumed an estimated 3.5 billion short tons of coal, representing over 46 percent of the world total and a 180 percent increase since 2000. Coal consumption has been on the rise in China over the last nine years, reversing the decline seen from 1996 to 2000. China's coal imports started growing after 2002 because the cost of importing coal became competitive with domestic production. China, typically a net coal exporter, became a net coal importer in 2009, importing from Indonesia, Australia, Vietnam, and Russia. In September 2009, the China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association stated that China signed a $6 billion loan-for-coal agreement with Russia for 15 to 20 million tons of coal for 25 years.
[Emphasis added.] -
desertphile at 02:25 AM on 11 July 2011Humlum is at it again
"You can cite papers showing it is rising, I can cite papers showing it is cooling." --- Camburn at 05:33 AM on 23 May, 2011 So, ISIWoK lists =ZERO= papers that even suggest global warming has ceased, let alone stopped, let alone are cooling. Camburn appears to know something no scientist on the planet does. -
Paul D at 02:19 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Actually there is some advice from me. 1. Spend some time when shopping, to buy products with packaging that is recyclable, once you get in the habit, you can cut waste down a lot. This has to be combined with buying local/organic etc. where possible. 2. Take a bag with you to shops and don't accept disposable carrier bags that are offered (many are just advertising the shop in any case). 3. Cycle more. Actually bicycle sells in the UK have gone up significantly and the increase in the number of people cycling is noticeable. 4. Make do with what you have and repair anything if you can. Reuse if possible. Don't be drawn into any fads and trends, wait until what you have can no longer be used. -
Byron Smith at 02:12 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
(Just to be clear, I get 28.8% for this second calculation.) -
Byron Smith at 02:09 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Can I check a calculation? First you say that the pH has declined from 8.25 to 8.14 (i.e. a difference of 0.11), but then when you say that acidity has increased by 26%, you use the comparison of 8.2 to 8.1 (i.e. a difference of 0.1). Wouldn't a difference of 0.11 on a log scale be closer to the widely quoted 30% than 26%? Or am I missing something obvious here? -
Paul D at 02:09 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
It is interesting how different people from around the world are doing very similar things. Of the pool of advice given here I don't think I can add a lot. -
RW1 at 02:08 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
All I'm asking is for an explaination where the additional 12.9 W/m^2 is coming from to cause the 3 C rise (16.6 - 3.7 = 12.9). If the current atmosphere only provides an additional 2.3 W/m^2 (6 - 3.7 = 2.3), where specifically is the remaining +10.6 W/m^2 incoming flux required at the surface coming from? -
Paul D at 01:47 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@79 "the issue involved 'gadgets' as much as cultural attitudes to women in the workplace. These were changed by the wartime experience, and post-war, women began to achieve their potential. It took decades, and would not have been possible without time reallocation thanks to labour-saving devices. Sorry, gadgets." Do not repeat misleading facts and ignore my rebuttals. All you have proven here is what I already stated in my comment number 76. That culturally, in the past, men basically refused to be house husbands and woman were expected to stay at home. Given that in WWII a lot of farm and industrial work was done by women because men were not available, your argument that it was gadgets that allowed woman to work is misleading. Clearly if gadgets were the only way women could leave the home then it just re-enforces the idea that there was/is a lack of equality between men and women. If you look at adverts for vacuum cleaners and other devices of the period, they are deeply patronising by today's standards.Response:[DB] We are getting a little far off-topic here.
-
RW1 at 01:45 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom, RE: 2) You said that a doubling of CO2 was equal to about a 4 W/m^2 increase in solar irradiance, which is why I used those numbers. I always assumed the 3.7 W/m^2 was equal to post albedo solar power, which is amplified by about 63% (390/240 = 1.63) even though the IPCC doesn't even really even make any such distinction (to my knowledge, at least). RE: 3) The 1.63 applies to the power of 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 - not the 1.1 C in temperature, which has already been multiplied by 1.63 (3.7 x 1.63 = 6 W/m^2, which equals +1.1 C). RE: 4) I'm well aware of the difference between marginal and average rate; however, neither term is dictated by the laws of physics that govern the processes of energy flow in and out of the climate system. -
Paul D at 01:28 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@79: "the consequence has had no meaningful demographic impact (your statement about women in the workforce during WWII is beside the point). It is post-war peacetime economics we are discussing here" Well you can't cherry pick a point in history and pretend that periods before and after were some sort of islands of isolation. WWII had a big impact in British politics. We aren't actually discussing economics, we are discussing British history, politics and culture. You may want to discuss a subject, but you are not the judge here. -
Paul D at 01:23 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@79 "all infrastructure development post-1945 to be 'bad' capitalism" You are a strange person BBD (an American ideologist??). I suggest you actually read my posts. Post war, the UK was deeply socialist, so I don't know where you get the idea that being critical of post war British policies is a critique of capitalism??? Most of big UK industry was nationalised after WWII. That includes energy production. -
Tom Curtis at 01:09 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, 1) I really don't care what Lindzen and Choi have to say. They have amply proved that what ever it is that they are doing, it is not science. 2) The total insolation is reduced by albedo, so the "amplification factor" (aka, the greenhouse effect) is 62.5% at the surface, not 14%. 3) Given that you wish to run your specious argument, one wonders why you don't run it with regard to Lindzen and Choi's paper. On that basis you would expect a climate response to doubling of CO2 of at least 1.2 *1.625 = 1.95 degrees, which is close enough to the IPCC range, and large enough to mean that anthropogenic emissions are dangerous. In fact, that you do not apply it in that way suggest that you are either disingenuous in presenting the argument, or disingenuous in insisting on a low climate sensitivity. 4) Finally, I have already answered your question in 461, or are you also going to pretend that you cannot understand the difference between a marginal and an average rate? -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:04 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD @ 83... I would say that remains to be seen how China's impact on CO2 plays out. They are certainly out pacing the US on nearly every front related to renewables. They're investing heavily in their own smart grid. The average middle class Chinese person still has a carbon footprint that is a fraction of any western country. -
Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD seems intent on making a fool of himself over treehugger's figures. To be quite clear, LAGI as quoted by tree hugger uses a conservative calculation to determine that appropriately located, approximately 500,000 square kilometers could supply the worlds estimated total energy needs by 2030. They rely on a US Department of Energy estimate that 678 quadrillion BTU's, or approximately 23 terawatts, averaged over the whole year. To put that into perspective, BBD's much quoted Griffiths quotes 15,000 square miles or approx 40,000 square kilometers of CSP being able to produce 2 terawatts, or 460,000 square kilometers to produce 23 terawatts. In other words, his own source produces a figure 8% more optimistic than LAGI. Despite this, in BBD's opinion, Griffith's estimate is "far more realistic" while LAGI's is "seriously amiss" and "out by an order of magnitude". To compound the confusion, BBD himself calculates, by "generous[ly] assum[ing]" a 15% efficiency, efficiency rates already being exceeded, he calculates that 400,000 km^2 is required for 6 terawatts, or over 1.5 million square kilometers for 23 terawatts, more than three times LAGI's and the "far more realistic" Griffith's figures. I'm not sure how he turns three times greater into a order of magnitude, so I'll leave that for him to explain. I'll take a different approach. Consider the annual average surface insolation of Europe:
This chart shows insolation after seasonal averaging, after adjustment for latitude, and after the effects of the diurnal cycle, and of local weather including clouds. So, let's consider the south of Spain, which receives 1800 plus kWh/annum, or 205 Watts averaged over the year. Therefore, if all our solar power plants were located in similar conditions, with 15% efficiency, we would require 750,000 square kilometers to provide 23 terawatts of electricity.
Indeed, even at Berlin (or London) with 1000 plus kWh/annum, at 15% efficiency, it would only take 1.35 million square kilometers or 10% less than BBD's estimate for deserts.
Of course, these figures as calculated are no more an endorsement of the LAGI figures than of BBD's. But nor would I expect them to be. The insolation figures used are for a flat plate laid horizontal to the ground. If we, for example, align our trough collectors on a north-south axis, and than rotate them to track the sun during the day, loss of insolation due to solar altitude is largely eliminated except near dawn and dusk. Alternatively, we can angle flat mirrors to be perpendicular to the suns rays eliminating the geometric effects of latitude and time of day during daylight, again greatly increasing efficiency. In other words, LAGI's figures are very reasonable, and in fact, conservatively calculated.
BBD will no doubt now accuse me of renewables boosterism and of not know the difference between relative and absolute solar energy. After all, he made the same accusation against LAGI even though they explicitly accounted for all relevant factors. But that is not enough for BBD. You have to also assume that you cannot angle collectors for solar angle your else, in his opinion, your maths is just not up to scratch.
-
RW1 at 00:40 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom, "RW1 @458 the first thing that needs explaining is that your statement is simply false. The expected change in mean global surface temperature from a 2% change in total solar irradiance (an approx 4 W/m^2 change in solar forcing) is about 3 degrees C, just as with the approx 4 W/m^2 change in forcing from doubling CO2. The second thing that needs explaining is the nature of your error. It is very simple, you are comparing the marginal climate feedback of CO2 forcing, ie, the incremental change in net Top of Atmosphere Irradiance given current temperatures and conditions with the average climate feedback of solar forcing, ie, the integral of the marginal climate feedback over the whole range of TSI values, from 0 to approx 1366." What is so unique about the next 3.7 W/m^2 that it is reasonable to think the system will respond to it so much greater than the original 342 W/m^2 from the Sun, which is only amplified by about 14% at the surface (390/342 = 1.14)? You should also explain why it doesn't take more like 1534 W/m^2 at the surface to offset the 342 W/m^2 from the Sun (16.6/3.7)*342 = 1534. -
BBD at 00:36 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Honeycutt #81 Thanks for the US perspective. Paul D and I were discussing the UK, but broadly similar development took place in all industrialised economies. Agree wrt the creation of a Chinese (consumer) middle class. Which will of course help to propel global CO2 ppmv to new heights irrespective of treaty/tax/cap policy measures taken by the West. Same applies to India. It just isn't as far along the road as China. -
Ed Davies at 00:24 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Mathew, you answered your own question while I composing a longer reply but a link to Wikipedia might help anyway: Atomic_mass_unit#Relationship_to_SI. -
BBD at 00:20 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Marcus #73 Do you have grid load curves to support this? Standard grid balancing uses intermediate and peaking plant to deal with variability. Baseload is not usually under-utilised. 'Off peak' incentives are targeted at keeping intermediate plant within optimum output parameters. I'm very interested where you get this. Can you provide more information? Thanks -
Mathew Varidel at 00:17 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Oh, wait, I get it. It's a counting unit - not for weight. So 1 molar of hydrogren is just 6.022 x 10^23 of hydrogen atoms. The weight of that would obviously be n(6.022 x 10^23), where n = the average weight of hydrogen atoms. I hope I just answered my own question. -
RW1 at 00:14 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom, I didn't know you were still talking to me. Actually though, L&C is operating under the assumption of an 'intrinsic' 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.1 C with the negative feedback reducing this to about 0.6-0.8 C. I was referring to the direct warming of 3.7 W/m^2 from S-B of 0.7 C, which if it were to become 3 C needs to be increased by over 400% (3.0/0.7 = 4.28). -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:58 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Re #20, I had the same question, do you drink your beer warm? Are you sure you are from Australia? On a previous thread I posted my electric bill of $30/month. Turns out that was for 9 kWh per day, so my electricity (rural Virginia) is very very cheap. My highest usage was last summer at 14 kWh per day average since it was so ridiculously hot. Total for year: 3000 kWh. Obviously I should do better. -
Mathew Varidel at 23:23 PM on 10 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Can you clarify something for me. Is the Atomic Mass Unit the same as a Mole? Therefore, the amount of Moles in a certain element is the same as the average amount of Moles/AMUs found given the abundance of isotopes measured? -
Rob Honeycutt at 23:19 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD @ 79... Had to chuckle a bit at your comment on post-war baseload expansion. Hell, by today's extremist rhetoric that expansion was pure socialism, not capitalism. Post WW2 had top tax brackets hit with a 90% tax rate. Immediately following WW2 was a period known as "The Great Compression" where massive amounts of wealth basically was redistributed to the middle class over the course of a decade. The development during that period was the government spending those tax dollars creating, what was at the time, state of the art infrastructure. I'm on kind of a theme right now since I'm visiting family in China... but what you saw in the US after WW2 was almost exactly what you see going on today in China. A government with lots of capital and a clear purpose to build out a broad middle class. (Feel free to delete this comment if it's too far off topic or too political in nature.) -
Tom Curtis at 23:08 PM on 10 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 @458 the first thing that needs explaining is that your statement is simply false. The expected change in mean global surface temperature from a 2% change in total solar irradiance (an approx 4 W/m^2 change in solar forcing) is about 3 degrees C, just as with the approx 4 W/m^2 change in forcing from doubling CO2. The second thing that needs explaining is the nature of your error. It is very simple, you are comparing the marginal climate feedback of CO2 forcing, ie, the incremental change in net Top of Atmosphere Irradiance given current temperatures and conditions with the average climate feedback of solar forcing, ie, the integral of the marginal climate feedback over the whole range of TSI values, from 0 to approx 1366. If we were to perform an impossible experiment and set TSI to zero and allow the temperature of the Earth to reach equilibrium, the equilibrium temperature would be approximately 4 degrees K. The Earth would have no atmosphere, for it would have condensed and frozen on the surface, hence it would have no greenhouse effect. Increasing TSE gradually, for a long time the surface radiation would rise proportionally to the change in TSI, as the Earth would not be warm enough for ice to melt and atmosphere to form. Hence there would be no feedbacks. After a while a thin atmosphere would form, but an atmosphere without any CO2. The albedo would probably start to rise at this time as the sun started producing visible radiation (which is reflected by ice) rather than just radio an IR radiation (which is not). Whether the net feedback would be positive (because of atmospheric redistribution of heat) or negative (because of the increasing albedo) would not be determinable without detailed modelling. Regardless. over this period the net feedback would be close to zero, so surface radiation would rise approximately with increasing TSI. As the TSI increases still further, till it approaches more modern values (and reaches values it has never been lower than in the last 4.5 billion years), CO2 will enter the atmosphere and the surface radiation will finally start increasing faster than the increase in TSI. (The OLR at the TOA of course, will continue to increase with TSI). Eventually, the equatorial snow and ice will start to melt, and with a declining albedo, surface radiation will rise still faster relative to TSI. When the Earth reaches that stage, it will flip from the snowball Earth configuration, and for the first time climate sensitivity will approximate to modern values, as it has for the last 500 million years. Because you are comparing the modern feedback factor (for both solar and GHG forcings) with the average of the solar forcings for all values of TSI, you claim an inconsistency - but the only inconsistency is yours. It is the same inconsistency found any those fool enough to claim that somebody else on the same income is getting a special deal from the tax office because that persons average tax rate is less than their own marginal tax rate. -
BBD at 23:01 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul D Sorry - meant to ask: have you ever used a solid-fuel range for cooking? It's not much fun. And you have to get up at the crack of dawn to get the wretched thing going so you can heat your passive kettle and cook breakfast. -
BBD at 22:55 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul DWhat you have stated is that instead of dealing with the problem, technology has been used to mask it.
Astonishing. In summary, you appear to believe that - all infrastructure development post-1945 to be 'bad' capitalism - the consequence has had no meaningful demographic impact (your statement about women in the workforce during WWII is beside the point). It is post-war peacetime economics we are discussing here - you must ask: why did the post-war expansion in baseload occur? Was it an evil capitalist plot or a rational response to development, ongoing electrification of the housing stock, plans for new-build to accommodate a growing population etc? - the issue involved 'gadgets' as much as cultural attitudes to women in the workplace. These were changed by the wartime experience, and post-war, women began to achieve their potential. It took decades, and would not have been possible without time reallocation thanks to labour-saving devices. Sorry, gadgets. BTW you're lucky Mrs BBD is out ;-) -
BBD at 22:41 PM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR Thanks for your response. Agree wrt 'enlightened' leaders. They have much to learn. Wind - Fully-referenced data on 2010 wind output here. The big picture is clear. Please do not cherry pick ;-) A word to the wise. DECC is politically (and ideologically) committed to an expansion of wind that was formulated by the previous New Labour government. It is the Big Project. You must treat its presentation of 'supporting' data with caution ;-) Also, I did not quote the Muir report as it is in contention. Why do you bring it up? Your attitude to LAGI is vexing. - It is not an 'estimate', it is a misrepresentation - The error involved is of an order of magnitude - It is so elementary I suspect intent to mislead - I do not discuss LAGI using UK weather and insolation - See #219 - The calculation error in LAGI is as follows: This is the relevant section of the original LAGI article, which Treehugger does not quote in full. The error and its propagation are highlighted:We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land). So now we know the capacity of each square meter and what our goal is. We have our capacity in KW so in order to figure out how much area we’ll need, we have to multiply it by the number of hours that we can expect each of those square meters of photovoltaic panel to be outputting the .2KW capacity (kilowatts x hours = kW•h). Using 70% as the average sunshine days per year (large parts of the world like upper Africa and the Arabian peninsula see 90-95% – so this number is more than fair), we can say that there will be 250 sun days per year at 8 hours of daylight on average. That’s 2,000 hours per year of direct sunlight. Therefore, we can multiply each square meter by 2,000 to arrive at a yearly kW•h capacity per square meter of 400 kW•h. Dividing the global yearly demand by 400 kW•h per square meter (198,721,800,000,000 / 400) and we arrive at 496,804,500,000 square meters or 496,805 square kilometers (191,817 square miles) as the area required to power the world with solar panels. This is roughly equal to the area of Spain.
The assumption is that 200W/m2 insolation (correct for desert-sited solar plant) is converted with 100% efficiency by the panels 10% is a reasonable average. If we calculate correctly: 10,000km2 = 100GW 400,000km2 = 4TW To achieve 16TW would require 1,600,000km2. With a generous assumption of 15%: 10,000km2 = 150GW 400,000km2 = 6TW To achieve 16TW would require 1,066,666km2. The LAGI solar map should be withdrawn. Imagine if it was a climate graph, created by some outfit somewhere and then broadcast far and wide by WUWT. What would the reaction be on this site? In fact, what is this site supposed to be for? Frankly, I'm not impressed. Why wasn't the error spotted by the 'science editor' at Treehugger (it took me a couple of minutes)? And why does no-one here acknowledge the fault instead of defending this stuff? Which, I note, is in wide circulation now. -
quokka at 22:20 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
#71 Marcus, How about some sort of reference to back up your claims about uranium supply limitations? From the MIT 2010 Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle report:Uranium resources will not be a constraint for a long time. The cost of uranium today is 2 to 4% of the cost of electricity. Our analysis of uranium mining costs versus cumulative production in a world with ten times as many LWRs [my emphasis] and each LWR operating for 60 years indicates a probable 50% increase in uranium costs. Such a modest increase in uranium costs would not significantly impact nuclear power economics.
This is for a once through fuel cycle. Development of advanced closed fuel cycle technologies vastly increase the nuclear fuel resource over and above this assessment. There is ongoing R&D into the latter is several nuclear nations. Further, I hardly think that a threefold expansion of world nuclear capacity is something to be sniffed at, as you do. Such an expansion would see nuclear producing 40% of current world electricity supply and displacing rather a lot of coal burners. We could really do with comments falsely attributing statements or claims to "those who spruik Nuclear Power" or those who "spruik" anything else, and then declaring those made up claims to be fact. -
Mark Harrigan at 21:52 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
@ Marcus #72 - you make some good points but your figures are a little misleading. Australia's generation was actually 230TWh in 08/09 of which roughly 7% was renewables - so roughly 16THw - but by far the bulk of this Hydro (5% of the 7%) which doesn't have much capacity to scale much further. That's about 4.6TWh from "new" renewables so I presume that's the 5 you are talking about. So we have a long way to go Your figure for Germany's 101Twh in 2010 is correct but it INCLUDES nearly 20 hydro and 34 biomass (which doesn't cut it as a CO2 emssions free technology). So the real comparison figure is less than 50TWh from comparable technologies. (see Wikipedia) German Renewables But I agree with the overall thrust of your point - we could do a whole lot better and if Germany can do 50TWh using Wind, Solar and Geothermal then why can't we? Well, price is one (see below) As for your statement about renewables costs - sorry but that's boosterism. If you are going to assert someone else's statement is rubbish as you did to me then you need to back it up with evidence. My evidence below says you are wrong. I agree renewables are getting cheaper all the time - which is encouragning - and wind is getting competitive (if only it were more reliable?) but solar still has a LONG way to go - especially CST which is by far the most promising alternative for baseload. It is also an entirely false assumption to assume that reductions achieved over the last 30 years can actually continue - Solar PV is already close to the limits of physical efficiency today - so the evidence is not nearly so strong that it will keep getting cheaper. Relative Energy Costs Please don't misunderstand me. I am in favour of renewables but argue that over stating their case or understanding their costs actually harms the cause. We have to deal with what's real. The other factor you're missing is costs of electricty and the impacts this has on industry. The average consumer tariff in Australia is about 18c/KWh - In Germany its over 25 euso cents per KWh or more than 33c/KWh on current exchange. Of course Industry pays a lot less. So Australia enjoys a low price for electricty as part of it's economic structure. Germany can (apparently) afford a higher tariff because it has other industrial structural advantages. I find it telling that they are choosing to phase out nuclear ahead of coal right now so maybe things there aren't quite what they seem? So all that also places some economic limits on what can be done in Australia - or at least how fast we can afford to move. The Carbon Tax announcement today and the plans to fund/finance more investment in renewables is however a positive step forwards. I hope it will lead to actions that will continue to advance the relaibility of CO2 free alternatives as well as reduce their overall costs AND in a managed transition that sees us gradually wean ourslevs off coal without the lights going out. -
Rob Painting at 21:05 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
African style eh? Don't expect my wife would be too keen on that idea. -
Paul D at 20:56 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Rob@20 "Actually you can make a 'fridge' or 'cooler' with two plant pots, some sand, a cloth and some water. One pot has to be bigger than the other. You place the smaller pot in the larger one and fill the gap with the sand (or similar material). Damp the sand between the two pots with water and place the food inside the inner smaller pot. Then place the damp cloth over the top. The evaporating water keeps the contents cool. -
Rob Painting at 20:47 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
All the efforts readers are making are fantastic! Hat's off to ya!. One thing stood out for me though: Ranyl - how do you make do without a fridge? -
Doug Mackie at 20:21 PM on 10 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
fixed -
Paul D at 20:15 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD: "The post-war enconomy in the industrialised West has benefitted (and will continue to benefit) from an influx of women freed from time-intensive domestic labour by what you call 'gadgets'." Actually you are just stating that sexism exists and that men are incapable of doing house work! Although domestic gadgets are credited as allowing women to work. In the UK women did all types of jobs during WWII including flying bombers and fighters from factories to airfields. So the issue wasn't about gadgets, it was about cultural attitudes to work and place in society. What you have stated is that instead of dealing with the problem, technology has been used to mask it. -
Rob Painting at 20:15 PM on 10 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Badger - hyperlink provided. From Peru - "However, the only climate proxies for SST anomalies in the Tropical Pacific that I could find were in the following paper about the Central Pacific" The supplementary information for Mann (2009) is here. It details the CFR method outlined by pauls, and note the data and codes provided. From Peru-" From what proxies did Mann obtained proxies that record the entire 1000 past years and from where obtained data about the entire NINO3 area, a zone where there are no islands?" There are few proxies for the tropical Pacific, Palmyra coral, Galapagos coral, and Californian and South American marine sediments, but given the locations of the two indexes are you proposing some new, as yet unobserved, flavour of ENSO? There was a bit of scientific 'how's your father' over whether the Pacific SST's were warm or cold up until recent years, but the general concensus now is that a La Nina-like background state prevailed in the MWP. El Nino and La Nina still happened, but the background state was cool like La Nina. A cool tropical eastern-central Pacific (La Nina-like) validates the paleoclimate proxies for rainfall elsewhere on Earth during the MWP, in contrast to a warm eastern-central Pacific (El Nino-like) which doesn't. For example: the centuries-long megadrought, of the (now) southern United States, during most of the MWP is only observed in climate modeling when the tropical Pacific is in a cool La Nina-like background state. Combining the La Nina-like Pacific with the warm Atlantic (evidenced by the strong positive NAO) matches the distribution of drought and wet areas in North America during the MWP. Suggest you have a read of Graham (2010) provided in the post. The point of this post was to highlight that the Mann (2009) proxy data are consistent with climate model simulations, and modern-day observations of global circulations. The La Nina drying of the southern US is a feature still observed today. From Peru-"I would like more info, both for having a better answer to the "skeptic" arguments about the MWP" May pay to ask them why North American glaciers were advancing during the MWP too. I can point you to a few other recent studies if you're interested. From Peru-"and for living in Peru, where the ENSO climate oscillation is the dominant force in the regional climate and weather behaviour" Long-term, most models indicate an El Nino-like background state for the tropical Pacific. Again that doesn't mean more El Nino's, just the background warming resembles the El Nino state. This will be bad for the Peruvian fishing industry if it occurs, and Amazonian drought too. -
Paul D at 20:09 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD in comment 65 you stated that my statement was: "Chicken and egg reasoning" Yet in comment 69 you state: "So we have a post-war UK energy policy which installs baseload." That contradicts your chicken and egg statement. I take your second comment as an admission that you comment in 65 is incorrect. -
Paul D at 20:04 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD: "So we have a post-war UK energy policy which installs baseload. The benefit is improved public amenity (electric cookers, washing machines, dryers, heaters etc)." That is a distortion of the reality and a distortion of the truth. People had cookers and fires or heaters, using coal and gas or wood. Government policy was interested in economics to improve income (taxes) of the socialist state, that was the primary reason that the power stations were built. In order to soak up the surplus electricity high power consumer goods were promoted. Mostly electric goods replaced existing items. Electric heaters were promoted to either replace coal, gas or wood, or to supplement those. eg. An electric kettle replaced a stove top kettle. Although I remember many people continued to use stove top kettles well into the 1970s and 1980s because they were cheaper. During WWII people (UK) used coal, gas and electric heating. The government issued leaflets that showed people how to save energy for all types of heating. The point is post war policy was to push people into using more electricity in preference to the other sources. That changed later when North Sea Gas became available, that created new promotions to change again. None of this was driven by the customer. The infrastructure was built first, then the public were inundated with pressures (carrots) to change. -
ranyl at 19:39 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Have a very low carbon print and as said it is more fun than hardship. However all of the above says that individual action isn't enough, however if your communicating environmental change and not doing anything then no one will listen for a second and your words will undermine any confidience people have in the whole issue. Carbon pricing will most likely merely disadvantage those who are have nots even more. What is needed is an inherent understanding that not using carbon is the most self preserving thing to do for an individual, a street, a town, a nation, the world, for then people might act out of deep motivation rather than forced leglisation which if the war on drugs is any barometer will totaly fail. For the record, Haven't got a car, don't fly, grow as much veg and fruit as possible, have solar hot water, collect rain water, have no fridge, use no toxic chemicals, only buy organic local or organic fair trade, dry all washing naturally, use eco-balls for washing, buy all clothes from charity, cook of log range in winter and have induction low energy hob, shower less frequently, harvest water for flushing toilet, use as little water as possible, have fully thermally renvoated my house with hemp and lime insulating render which is carbon negative, insulated loft with recycled paper insulation, electricity is from renewable supplier, only used 800-900Kwh a year for the last 5years, heat our home with logs and only use 3m3 a year, follow a none meat, none GM, none soya, none palm oil, and dairy free diet, get some food from part of community supported agriculture scheme, reuse and then recycle everything we can and am looking to purchase land to convert for woodland and food production. Have no chance of having any other useful renewables, little wind, nowhere near enough sun to justify PV with the very serious environmental impacts making PV has and no chance of hydro. Life quality has improved throughout changing as we used to be frequent flyers, have 2 cars and shopped for what we wanted, it has taken only 5-6year to change and in overall assessment it has been challenging but interesting and fun. -
Ed Davies at 19:33 PM on 10 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Typo: your first given value for the Avogadro constant swaps the last two digits of the mantissa (22) and the exponent (23) so is nearly ten times too small. -
RW1 at 16:32 PM on 10 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
And still no one can explain why GHG ‘forcing’ will be amplified by over 400% when solar forcing is only amplified by about 60%. Yet they vehemently object to a negative feedback of about 40% from Lindzen and Choi. I think the peer review process is broken. -
Doug Mackie at 16:17 PM on 10 July 2011OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
Thanks Patrick, but my question to you was: How much carbonates do you think would need to be added and how would you do this? Since you were not able to do these calculations I shall point you to the first of several similar papers (that would have been easy to find)that presents such calculations: In 2008 Danny Harvey at U. Toronto published a paper ( abstract) that does the calculations. Harvey L.D.D. (2008) Mitigating the atmospheric CO2 increase and ocean acidification by adding limestone powder to upwelling regions. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, C04028, 2008. The conclusion:Geographically optimal application of 4 billion t of CaCO3 a−1 (0.48 Gt C a−1) could induce absorption of atmospheric CO2 at a rate of 600 Mt CO2 a−1 after 50 years, 900 Mt CO2 a−1 after 100 years, and 1050 Mt CO2 a−1 after 200 years.
That is, a fleet of tankers dumping 4 billion tons of powdered limestone per year could be sucking up 600 million tons of CO2 per year after 50 years. A slight problem is that current emissions are about 30,000 million tons of CO2. Yes, current emissions are 50x the amount that would be being sequestered by 2100 – and your guess is as good as mine for what emissions will be in 2100. Every little bit helps? Perhaps. But mining, crushing and transporting the limestone might be a little carbon intensive. Harvey is not seriously proposing this as a solution. He goes through those calculations too, as he says to show that:The calculations presented here serve to illustrate the enormity of the task of even partially reversing the acidification of the oceans that is yet to occur under even the most optimistic scenarios concerning reductions in CO2 emissions. The task is not only enormous but would need to continue for several 100 years. These calculations also underline the fact that in the absence of stringent reductions in CO2 emissions, efforts to reduce adverse impacts on ocean chemistry will be ineffective.
Harvey goes on to say that if emissions have dropped to zero by 2100:then application of limestone at a rate of 4 Gt a_1 (0.48 Gt C a_1) beginning in 2020 serves to restore about 20% of the difference between the minimum pH and preindustrial pH by 2200 and restores about 40% of the difference by 2500, with the same benefits for the degree of supersaturation with respect to calcite.
Yes quite. If emissions have dropped to zero by 2100. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:48 PM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Here's that paper on ponded ice: From Itoh et al 2011:"Sea-ice melting processes were inferred from in situ sea-ice and ocean condition data obtained in the Arctic in summer 2006 and 2007. The relationship between ice concentration observed by on-board ice watches and water temperature showed negative correlations. This implies that as ice concentration decreases, the upper ocean becomes warmer due to greater absorption of solar radiation into open water, which promotes ice melting. However, heating of surface water is significant even in regions that were almost completely ice-covered, suggesting that transmitted solar radiation through the ice is also effective at melting sea ice. A simplified ice–upper-ocean coupled model was applied to examine the effect of heat input from open water, thick ice and thin ice. The ponded thin ice is estimated to transmit approximately three times more solar radiation than ponded thick ice. Model results suggest that transmission of solar radiation through ponded ice amplified the ice-albedo feedback mechanism, particularly in thin ice regions. Recently, the extent of old and thick multi-year ice in the Arctic Ocean has been rapidly reduced. As a result, heat input to the upper ocean through the ice is enhanced and ice melt is further accelerated."
Emphasis added. -
Buzzook at 13:16 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
East coast NSW Australia. Old post-WWII, uninsulated weatherboard house. So far this (southern) winter I have not used any form of artificial heating at all. Zero. Inside temperature has been as low as 9degC during daytime, but rising to as much as 20degC in sunroom/office. Guess where I am right now? :) I have simply dressed appropriately for the conditions, and warmed ME rather than the AIR around me. Two layers all over, inner layer being thermal underwear (only put on after sundown); fleece pullover and fleece jacket on top; thick socks and warm boots on feet, cap or beanie to prevent heat loss through head. Blanket over legs while resting or watching the giggle box. Saves 2-4kW/day; up to 480kW per quarter; 1.8 tonnesCO2/annum or up to Au$320 saved off bill. Shower every second or third day, merely changing underclothes in the interim days (unless performing hard physical labour). Saves around 23kL per annum of potable water; reduces gas consumption (instantaneous) to less than 1 x 45kg cylinder (2300MJ) per annum, saving (at 68gCO2/MJ nat gas) around 300 kgCO2/annum. Flush loo twice daily - "if it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down". Saves 9L/flush or around 50L/day, say 18kL/annum of potable water. Use remote-switched 'standby-power-savers' to minimise unecessary power consumption from computers and entertainment devices, otherwise all but fridge off at wall. All lighting low consumption fluoros or CFLs, single lamp per room. At night, only one light on at a time. Swapped (very) old and inefficient fridge + separate freezer for modern 3-star 406kW/annum fridge/freezer unit. Saved around 3kW/day, or 1100kW/annum, or 1.1 tonnesCO2/annum, or Au$240/annum off the bills. But with 2kW grid-tie solar PV earning 60c/kW gross feed-in-tariff this saving further generated $657/annum in revenue, paying off the fridge in less than two years. Total PV generation (aver 9kW/day/annum) is approx 3200kW/annum, or Au$1920 in revenue (till July 1 2017, anyway). Current surplus/credit is $280 owed to me by the retailer. Buying gas from the same retailer effectively means that gas is free as well, as the 'solar credit' is taken off the TOTAL bill, which includes any gas purchased. Average daily consumption under 4.5kW. Compared to national average of around 15kW/day for a similar household, thus saving (at 950gCO2/kW from coal-fired gen) around 3.6 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Live regional, commute local, average around 200km/week, down from 1000km/wk when living in metro Sydney and commuting to full time job, saving about 5 tonnes of CO2/annum. I fly seldom, but if I have to (or choose to for holidays) I offset each flight. Only one flight O/S in past 6 years, and that only to New Zealand. One internal flight SYD-HOB in past 6 years. Grow some food items, but don't have space to do more, so buy from local growers. Bottle, preserve or make jam from any surplus fruit and veg I can get hold of. My mulberry conserve is famous among friends and family. :) Educate others via volunteer capacity as 'Sustainability Consultant' on Council and TAFE courses in local region. Future plans include: - install insulation in roof space and under floors - installation of wood-burning stove (windfall wood is available for local collection from forestry operations, making any wood burned effectively oxygen producing and CO2 negative, due to replanting by forestry which over-offsets losses [CSIRO figures]. - increasing size of solar PV array (by 2017 will need to increase by at least 100% in order to offset losses from end of feed-in tariff and compensate for increase in grid power price) - install underground rainwater harvesting tanks (currently not cost effective based on existing low consumption and high cost of installation; desirable but not essential) - plant more food-producing trees and better utilise on-site growing areas (currently lawn) - install composting toilet (unofficially, as Council will not allow it, but will enable recycling of on-site produced human waste as fertilizer for gardens) - eat more vegetarian food and less meat to further reduce impact on environment and climate. And, like John Russell (above) have found it thoroughly enjoyable. I'm pleased to be able to do my bit but, frankly, have little hope for the majority of global population. Self-interest and comfort 'rule' I'm afraid, but every little bit - and every example - helps to win the 'hearts and minds'. -
John Hartz at 12:53 PM on 10 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Not everyone reading this article will know what the "NCAR model" is. Please insert explanatory info into the text or in a footnote. -
Marcus at 12:27 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
@BBD. Paul D is correct. Here in Australia our base-load generates produce large amounts of waste electricity-especially at night-& so the electricity industry has come up with some ingenious ways to flog off that extra capacity-which have in turn driven the development of our economy. For example, they created the whole "off-peak electric" system to flog off excess power at night-mostly for the purpose of keeping water hot-even though on demand systems are clearly a more cost effective way of providing hot water. The Industrial Sector also gets a per unit discount on its electricity prices the more electricity it uses-which has led to our industries being quite energy intensive compared to those in other economies. Two classic cases of the tail wagging the dog. -
Marcus at 12:22 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark Harrigan. Australia's total demand for electricity is around 210TWh of electricity per year. Germany, a Country that does *not* enjoy the enormous benefits of our ample sunshine, our massive coastline or our huge land area, is able to generate 100TWh of electricity from renewable sources (not including large hydro power). They have done this *without* causing large increases in the average family electricity bill. Australia, meanwhile, still only generates around 5TWh of electricity from renewable sources. So the question is-why the massive discrepancy? In fact, Australia has one of the lowest levels of Renewable Energy Generation in the OECD-something we should be appalled by given the fact that much of the ground-breaking advances in the field were made by Australian Researchers-most of whom had to go overseas due to a lack of support. As to your claims that the price of renewable energy remains "stubbornly high", that's just a load of rubbish. Photovoltaic Cells have dropped in price from around $25 per watt to less than $4 per watt in the space of less than 30 years-whilst simultaneously improving *average* efficiency from less than 5% to more than 20% in the that same space of time-all on a fraction of the government support that either coal or nuclear power have enjoyed. The same is true of all the other renewable energy technologies-they have shown a massive & significant decline in price in a few short decades, whilst simultaneously boosting their efficiency. Who knows how much more they would have improved if governments had supported them as much as they support *mature* technologies. -
Marcus at 12:12 PM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Quokka-even those who spruik Nuclear Power admit that tripling capacity will-at best-reduce global CO2 emissions by no more than 12%-yet then we'll be in a situation where known Uranium Reserves will last less than 50 years. Sure we might find some more-but how much land will need to get overturned in order to both extract that uranium & store the resulting waste by-products of the entire nuclear fuel cycle? Meanwhile, it is entirely possible to store sufficient Wind Power to achieve base-load power output, if you'd ever bothered to do research into various storage mechanisms. Also, some Wind Turbines have Capacity Factors as high as 40% *without* storage-& this is expected to improve even more over time. So it really seems to me, Quokka, that you're ignoring all the inconvenient facts about significant improvements in *all* renewable energy technologies-so that you can keep spruiking the false hope offered to us by Nuclear Power.
Prev 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 Next
