Recent Comments

Prev  1589  1590  1591  1592  1593  1594  1595  1596  1597  1598  1599  1600  1601  1602  1603  1604  Next

Comments 79801 to 79850:

79801. Norman at 14:42 PM on 9 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Albatross @ 307 "Have you managed to identify the two myths being perpetuated on the hail Wikipedia page?" Wikipedia quote from your ealier post. "Unlike ice pellets, hail stones are layered and can be irregular and clumped together. Hail is composed of transparent ice or alternating layers of transparent and translucent ice at least 1 millimetre (0.039 in) thick, which are deposited upon the hail stone as it cycles through the cloud, suspended aloft by air with strong upward motion until its weight overcomes the updraft and falls to the ground". I guess one would be the formation aspect of hail. Ice is not deposited on hailstones to make them grow. Supercooled water is one of the processes. I guess the biggest myth is that the weight of the stone overcomes the updraft and falls to the ground. This explanation is dominatnt on articles on hail. I answer would be that hail falls when it encounters the downdraft (falling with the rain) or it can be blown over the downdraft and fall before the rain. Hail formation and why it falls. And this one: Hail over the downdraft. Hail likely in the downdraft with the rain.
79802. r.pauli at 14:06 PM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       There are lists upon lists of things we can do. The most important thing we can do is stop the denial. It is like an alcoholic, first step is to admit to the problem. Because without that step, all others are ineffective or sabotaged. That is why the battle over denial is so fierce - because once that step is taken, then all other steps can become more effective. And thanks go to John Cook and SkepticalScience team for making that happen.
79803. actually thoughtful at 13:43 PM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Mark Harrigan @ 23 - this is another, insidious, form of denialism: "it can't be done". Earlier this week I had a challenge - how to use off the shelf parts to create a thermostat system that would use solar when it was available to store EXTRA energy in the slab of a radiantly heated home, and use boiler when necessary for space heating. Anytime you have renewable energy as the heat source, you have the "quality" problem of using the free energy to create more comfort (74F in the winter instead of 68F), which has the byproduct of reducing energy bills as the back up heat now doesn't come on until you slide down from the toasty 74F to 68F - when you leave the wacky world of fossil fuels, things tend to improve. Although simple to describe, it is actually quite challenging and I have been working on it, on and off, since 2006. In a carbon-taxed world, this would be solved with (cheap) electronics. World class control companies such as Tekmar, Honeywell, Wirsbo/Uponor have NOT solved this problem (well, Uponor came up with a quote of $15,000 to implement the solution I designed). So let me say, no cost effective solutions. I now have the solution. My own (obviously humble) ingenuity solved this problem (for a couple hundred bucks). So this illustrates a couple of points, I think: 1) If the problems of carbon were internalized (instead of being an economic externality) - I would never have had this problem - I would go to the local supply house and choose which of the 10 thermostat/control systems that already solved this I preferred - the free market would EASILY solve this problem 2)If a lousy plumber can figure out challenging control problems along the road to maximizing renewables - imagine the HUGE steps we will take as soon as we unleash the big brains on these issues. Big brains come when there is demand. Demand is created by people taking action (be it motivated by a systemic change like a carbon tax, or by WE THE PEOPLE realizing a change must be made. People are sheeple - exploit this reality for the good of humanity. "It can't be done" is the same as "let the government solve it" is the same as "it isn't that bad" is the same as "there is no problem" - it is all denialism, denying we have a problem and we HAVE to solve it, right away. It can be done, we can do it, and many posting in this thread are SHOWING how to do it. I personally think it is hypocritical to call for mass, government action before taking personal action. Be internally consistent. And instead of finding ways it can't be done, go out and do somethingthat solves the problem. (I don't mean to sound too harsh, I realize you are someone who takes the problem seriously - perhaps it is even more aggravating to find stealth denialism in one who understands the problem so well).
79804. arch stanton at 13:31 PM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       I am sorry this post follows RE’s. I don’t mean to diss her or anyone else. She obviously makes many sacrifices as we all do. -- My wife and I went out of our way not to have any kids. (That's the biggie). I could go on about how we conserve and how we travel (and avoid doing so) and how we turn off lights, eat less meat, recycle and reuse etc. It is all true. Some of it may sound impressive (solar panels, passive solar home, heat pump, ’04 Honda Insight, I haven’t flown in over 3 years, buy local, etc) but I would be misrepresenting us if I didn’t admit that I still go skiing sometimes in the winter, or that I own a 4WD truck to help me gather downed firewood that provides most of our winter heat from our CARB stove. Combine that with Jevon’s Paradox (which is a bitch despite what, Joe has to say) and it makes it tough to live in the developed world and feel good about one’s lifestyle. Our taxes alone probably support a CO2 footprint that is unsustainable.
79805. Rob Honeycutt at 12:45 PM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Found this paper that looks at a long list of studies on well-to-wheel reports for EV, HEV and PHEV vs ICE vehicles.
79806. barry1487 at 11:14 AM on 9 July 2011
       Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
       Nice bit o' story-tellin' there. A body can languish in a world of prose. ('descendant') Congratulations, Robert. Go eat it up.
       Response:

       [DB] Descendent is a relic from bygone days of yore.  Like me.

79807. Albatross at 10:40 AM on 9 July 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Sphaerica @191, Good grief! I wonder if its proximity tot he lead has anything to do with that? The researcher must be nervous about losing their equipment... 2011 is now tracking below 2007, the next few weeks will be telling. If I am looking at the ECMWF data correctly, the Arctic dipole is expected to set up. Other guidance is suggesting above average temperatures and sunshine over much of the Arctic basin in the next week or so. All this does not bode well for the beleaguered Arctic sea ice...
79808. Bob Lacatena at 10:31 AM on 9 July 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Has anyone else noticed the huge meltpool that's recently developed seemingly right under north pole cam 2?
79809. Tom Curtis at 10:31 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       From David McKay as quoted by BBD:

       "The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of land area in Britain, we must make several corrections. We need to compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about 60% of its value at the equator (figure 6.1)." (emphasis mine) I know this is a radical, and untried technology, so probably not suitable for serious analysis, but ... perhaps we could "compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land" by tilting the solar panels relative to the land. I know all the solar panels I've ever seen are laid flat to take advantage of the greater inefficiency that results, but do we really need to do so?

79810. Rosco at 09:43 AM on 9 July 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       Should read "should result in temperature changes of the order of 5 K in the atmosphere" IN THIS ONE YEAR !
       Response:

       [DB] Please refrain from all-caps usage.

79811. Rosco at 09:41 AM on 9 July 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       How can you argue with the fact that if you use the IPCC's "forcing" formulae (Delta)F = (alpha)ln(C/C0) - and using 380 ppm CO2 5.35*ln(380/280) = 1.633792 Watts per meter squared (W/m2) and thus you arrive at absurd amounts of energy increasing in Earth's climate system which should result in temperature changes of the order of 5 K in the atmosphere. Multiply 1.633792 X surface area of earth X no. seconds in a year and you arrive at ~ 2.6 x 10 exp.22 Joules. You can't argue with the physics involved but you can wonder about the "forcing" equation.
79812. GaryB at 09:33 AM on 9 July 2011
       Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
       Sometimes, given the atmosphere in the west, and the party in power, it's hard to realize there are Canadians who accept AGW as a fact. Way to go Robert.
79813. Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Taking Griffiths' figures as supplied by BBD, it would take 310,000 square kilometers to completely power the world by solar thermal. That represent 0.06 of the surface of the Earth, 0.2% of the land area, or 62.4% "seriously amiss" tree hugger figures. Griffith estimates double that for solar voltaic, but photovolatic can be installed with dual use of land area so it is not clear that photvoltaic requires any additional area beyond that which is already committed to urban development. Using the expected efficiencies of the Andasol solar thermal power plant in Spain, the land required to generate 16 terrawatts of power is 400,000 square kilometers. The Andasol plant can generate power for 20 out of every 24 hours.
79814. les at 09:03 AM on 9 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       5.- Tor B You are welcome, it's always a pleasure to help people understand science. Now, as Doug says, back to tho science issues at hand.
79815. Doug Mackie at 08:44 AM on 9 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       Tor, your nomenclature comment feels like a "see the squirrel" in the same way earlier comments attempted a derail with questions about the meaning of "acidification". IUPAC does indeed recommend "hydrogen carbonate" instead of "bicarbonate". However, "bicarbonate" is still the commonly used name for HCO₃^- in chemistry, marine sciences, and general usage, so we are sticking to the familiar terminology. You knew what we meant with "bicarbonate". The readers knew what we meant. The readers would not have known what we meant if we used "hydrogen carbonate". You know this. Please try stay on topic. If you have issues with the actual science then by all means raise them here.
79816. BBD at 08:37 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       KR #197 You say:

       BBD - "...whether renewables can displace coal from the global energy mix as fast or faster than nuclear between now and 2050" That's a good question. Limits on nuclear expansion include politics, how long it takes to build the plants, total fissionables available, and not insignificantly the land use required (external cost) and energy required (fossil, electric, fuel generated from nuclear energy?) for mining those fissionables.

       Good questions. They cut both ways: - Build time constraint and political/social resistance to realistic-scale renewables footprints will be comparable to nuclear and - given the footprint - possibly even greater. - Full energy accounting for the Australia-area-equivalent global renewable plant? Including component replacement (lifecycle and failure) and upgrades? You continue:

       I don't believe it would be possible to significantly expand the nuclear supply to begin replacing fossil fuel use without breeder reactors and (preferably on-site) reprocessing of fuel, or with the currently quite underdeveloped thorium reaction. There's just not enough fuel for a long-term plan otherwise.

       - This is the hard question. There's probably enough economically recoverable uranium to fuel ~30 years of Gen III expansion as fast as it can be built. - This displaces coal rapidly and efficiently. - Nothing so far indicates that renewables can do the same. - There's only one bag of money. - Much rests on Gen IV, as you say. This is why Dr Hansen cautioned President Obama:

       However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% “soft” energy) and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power. Therefore it is important to undertake urgent focused R&D programs in both next generation nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. [...] However, it would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India.

79817. Albatross at 08:34 AM on 9 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Sphaerica @310, Large-scale atmospheric dynamic is not my area of expertise, so I am reticent to talk though my hat about it. What I do think is that as climate zones shift in response to the warming and changes in moisture content, that such changes will affect thunderstorm and perhaps even severe thunderstorm occurrence. IIRC the Canadian Arctic is already experiencing an increase in thunderstorm activity in response to the warming and moistening up there. So it will be interesting to see what happens down the road.
79818. Albatross at 08:29 AM on 9 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       A new paper out by Durack and Wijffels (2010) that corroborates other research that the planet's hydrological cycle is amplifying as the planet warms. They conclude: "Qualitatively, the observed global multidecadal salinity changes are thus consonant with both broad-scale surface warming and the amplification of the global hydrological cycle." So another independent line of evidence. More here.
79819. JosHagelaars at 07:20 AM on 9 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       @TorB I see no point in having a big discussion over the nomenclature. Most chemists are brought up using the official name Hydrogen Carbonate and also with the historical name Bicarbonate. At least during my chemical education in Holland this was common practice. The origin of the name Bicarbonate is described here (second answer) : http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99492.htm. @SteveBrown Very funny website, thanks.
79820. BBD at 06:58 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       JMurphy The BBC article you link actually highlights the subsidy-driven investment bubble in SPV that has occurred in the UK. Which is why the government has been forced to reduce the irresistably genererous FIT for large-scale SPV arrays. Anyway, let's look at what is possible:

       The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000W per square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of land area in Britain, we must make several corrections. We need to compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about 60% of its value at the equator (figure 6.1). We also lose out because it is not midday all the time. On a cloud-free day in March or September, the ratio of the average intensity to the midday intensity is about 32%. Finally, we lose power because of cloud cover. In a typical UK location the sun shines during just 34% of daylight hours. The combined effect of these three factors and the additional complication of the wobble of the seasons is that the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2, and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is roughly 100 W/m2.

       And:

       Fantasy time: solar farming If a breakthrough of solar technology occurs and the cost of photovoltaics came down enough that we could deploy panels all over the countryside, what is the maximum conceivable production? Well, if we covered 5% of the UK with 10%-efficient panels, we’d have 10% × 100 W/m2 × 200 m2 per person ≈ 50 kWh/day/person. I assumed only 10%-efficient panels, by the way, because I imagine that solar panels would be mass-produced on such a scale only if they were very cheap, and it’s the lower-efficiency panels that will get cheap first. The power density (the power per unit area) of such a solar farm would be 10% × 100 W/m2 = 10 W/m2. [...] How audacious is this plan? The solar power capacity required to deliver this 50 kWh per day per person in the UK is more than 100 times all the photovoltaics in the whole world [text published 2009]. [...] And today, electricity from solar farms would be four times as expensive as the market rate. So I feel a bit irresponsible as I include this estimate in the sustainable production stack in figure 6.9 – paving 5% of the UK with solar panels seems beyond the bounds of plausibility in so many ways. If we seriously contemplated doing such a thing, it would quite probably be better to put the panels in a two-fold sunnier country and send some of the energy home by power lines. We’ll return to this idea in Chapter 25.

       SPV in a mid-latitude maritime climate is the wrong policy choice. As I hope is now clear. DESERTEC and HVDC interconnectors are fine as dots and lines on a map, but regional instability and insurmountable security issues, especially with the interconnectors, are likely to keep North African solar on the drawing board for the forseeable future. Which is a great shame, but we have to play with the cards on the table. And while we're on the subject, note the misrepresentation of the size of the CSP footprint in the DESERTEC graphic.
79821. BBD at 06:38 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       KR I have no idea if your figures for the area of Patton's training grounds is accurate (link?). Assuming that it is, then let's remember that the average per capita energy consumption in the US is 250 kWh/day, not 125 kWh/day as in Europe. Yes, covering 360,000 km*2 of the SW USA with solar plant could meet the energy needs of 500 million Americans. But a picture is, as ever, worth a thousand words. Obviously vast areas could be covered with horizon-to-horizon CSP. But in your #197 you correctly ask about the political impediments and build time constraints for nuclear. The same applies here. You might find the locals (well, all of Texas I imagine) resistant. The odd environmentalist might kick up a fuss too. Just a thought: you mention water cooling in your #197. It would be interesting to know ow much water will be required to clean the mirrors on a Texas-sized CSP array. Everywhere, constraints. You were right to say that the sum of my comments here is that nuclear and renewables are not going to displace fossil fuels rapidly enough. Hence my focus on known efficiency when it comes to baseload technology. This is mistaken by many here as 'nuclear boosterism'. It is pragmatism. You say:

       Side note: "Transparent evasions and linking to yet more hand-waving about renewables helps no-one." If I'm in error, then by all means point that out, and I'll take a look. But insults are quite unnecessary in the discussion.

       The LAGI maps you referenced are in error. They underestimate the footprint of solar plant by over an order of magnitude. And you haven't read the critique of J&D. I read your links; all I ask is the same courtesy from you. This hardly constitutes an insult.
79822. Steve Brown at 06:36 AM on 9 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       The really scandalous aspect of this hydrogen carbonate stuff is its close link to the thoroughly vile and evil substance Dihydrogen Monoxide!
79823. wingding at 06:12 AM on 9 July 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
       Re 30: "If he was using the GISTEMP met stations only, the 5-year moving average in 2000 was +0.55C. Akasofu's graph in Figure 5 above only shows a temperature anomaly of ~0.45." Yes because Akasofu has botched it. That ~0.45C value is actually the 5 year mean value for 1998. Akasofu has simply "extended" that value through 2000. Figure 2a states "The red line is a smoothed version of the 5-year mean in Figures 1a and Figure 1b" Figures 1a and 1b are GISTEMP met stations only, but the data ends in 2000. That means the 5 year running mean ends in 1998. So where did Akasofu get the data to plot the 5 year running mean for 2000? He simply extended the 1998 value, which happens to be 0.45C As you point out the actual GISTEMP met station only 5 year running mean for 2000 was about 0.55C
79824. RE at 06:10 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Me and my husband both drive Toyota Prius's. Our average is well above 50 mpg though, especially in the summertime. We have no problem maintaining a 55 mpg average, and I always drive with my 2 kids and all their junk, so the car is quite heavy. Specifically for CBDunkerson, comment #3, the gas engine does not always kicks on at 25mph. It depends on how "heavy" your foot is and also on the charge of the electric battery. From my experience it kicks in at either: 8mph, 12mph, 17mph,25mph, or even 42 mph. Yes, you can drive at 41 mph without the gas engine, I do it everyday in a certain portion of my way home. Of course, the car has been working for 10-15min, the battery is well charged, the speed limit is low and usually there is no one behind me! We try to do a lot of other things (most of them already mentioned) to keep a low carbon footprint, but we also have family living overseas, so we travel to Europe at least once a year. A few other things we do is to use cloth diapers for our baby, line dry our clothes, cook baby food at home instead of buying baby food jars. Yes, it is a little extra work, but I do everything I can to make our carbon footprint the lowest possible.
79825. KR at 05:49 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BBD - "...whether renewables can displace coal from the global energy mix as fast or faster than nuclear between now and 2050" That's a good question. Limits on nuclear expansion include politics, how long it takes to build the plants, total fissionables available, and not insignificantly the land use required (external cost) and energy required (fossil, electric, fuel generated from nuclear energy?) for mining those fissionables. I don't believe it would be possible to significantly expand the nuclear supply to begin replacing fossil fuel use without breeder reactors and (preferably on-site) reprocessing of fuel, or with the currently quite underdeveloped thorium reaction. There's just not enough fuel for a long-term plan otherwise. Another limiting factor is cooling - most current designs use a great deal of water, which is a limited resource, so I would suspect it necessary to use the somewhat less efficient air-cooled methods (10% hit on efficiency?). But - if you know of any well fleshed out plans for completely powering the world with nuclear rather than fossil fuels, preferably on the order of the various case studies presented in the topic post, please point them out.
79826. KR at 05:27 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BBD - I did read your earlier postings; they all seem to add up to "It can't be done", either with renewables or with nuclear. Taking MacKays numbers: 360,000 km^2 of solar to fully power 1 billion people? In WWII Patton's Southwestern US military training grounds totaled ~225,000 km^2 (~87,500 miles^2), right where the best locations for solar power are located. That's enough by MacKays numbers to supply all the energy needs of ~625 million people, almost twice the population of the US. And Patton didn't use all the available land, either. It's a big job - but not, I hope, an impossible one. --- Side note: "Transparent evasions and linking to yet more hand-waving about renewables helps no-one." If I'm in error, then by all means point that out, and I'll take a look. But insults are quite unnecessary in the discussion.
79827. JMurphy at 04:59 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Here in Britain, we have increased solar power generation by a factor of 24 just in one year, from 4 to 96 megawatts, and the latest Solar Park is in Wales - not exactly noted for its levels of sunshine ! We're not sitting around saying it's too difficult or can't be done...
79828. Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 9 July 2011
       Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
       Congrats Robert!
79829. Phila at 04:40 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       I buy most things used (e.g., clothes) and do my best to deconsume overall (e.g., using baking soda and apple cider vinegar in place of shampoo...it actually works much better at a fraction of the cost). My household's entirely vegan. We haven't (and probably couldn't) cut out driving entirely, but have reduced it by 60-70 percent over the last few years -- partly by moving to an area with better mass transit -- with little inconvenience and considerable savings. We almost never fly. Most of our appliances are pretty efficient, we use a clothesline and passive heating/cooling whenever possible, grow some of our food (we need to work harder on that), try to buy local or in bulk to avoid packaging waste, etc. We also went from producing a can of garbage a week to one every two or three weeks (by composting, mostly, plus buying in bulk). For whatever it's worth, an online carbon footprint calculator reckoned that ours was about 17 tons, compared to the US average of 53 for a household of our size. I don't really think that my lifestyle has suffered; in fact, I'd say it's improved in some ways (less time in traffic jams, more time gardening and baking fresh bread). But then again, these steps weren't as big a change for me as they would be for some people. And of course, people in many parts of the country have fewer options and less support for these decisions than I do, so I certainly don't mean to hold myself up as a model for everyone else. Sensible community norms and infrastructure are crucial, IMO; without them, things that are easy for me might seem unthinkable.
79830. ribwoods at 04:38 AM on 9 July 2011
       Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
       Missing from the map: location of Hell, Norway
       Response:

       [DB] Try here:

       

79831. BBD at 03:48 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       KR

       (That site you referenced, incidentally, is essentially unreadable due to the lack of contrast between foreground and background. Peter Lang, who's referenced, has posted here before, had these issues pointed out, argued a lot, and then left.)

       I'm deeply unimpressed by this. As I said above, I am unable to continue the discussion in good faith until you have read at least some of the references provided. Transparent evasions and linking to yet more hand-waving about renewables helps no-one. Especially as the LAGI graphic appears to be based on flawed calculations of area. The first clue that something is seriously amiss is the author's claim that:

       We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land [for solar generating technology] (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land).

       The standard figures are 5-20W/m*2 for SPV and 15W/m*2 for CSP. Not 200W/m*2. So this is going to be very wrong indeed:

       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.

       Going back to MacKay* (who is working from CSP at 15W/m*2), we find that an area equivalent to Germany would be required to power 1 billion people or 1/7 of the current global population. See here (pp178 - 185). A more realistic picture emerges from Saul Griffith's estimate of the size of Renewistan:

       The world currently runs on about 16 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy, most of it burning fossil fuels. To level off at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to 3 terawatts and produce all the rest with renewable energy, and we have to do it in 25 years or it’s too late. Currently about half a terrawatt comes from clean hydropower and one terrawatt from clean nuclear. That leaves 11.5 terawatts to generate from new clean sources. That would mean the following. (Here I’m drawing on notes and extrapolations I’ve written up previously from discussion with Griffith): “Two terawatts of photovoltaic would require installing 100 square meters of 15-percent-efficient solar cells every second, second after second, for the next 25 years. (That’s about 1,200 square miles of solar cells a year, times 25 equals 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic cells.) Two terawatts of solar thermal? If it’s 30 percent efficient all told, we’ll need 50 square meters of highly reflective mirrors every second. (Some 600 square miles a year, times 25.) Half a terawatt of biofuels? Something like one Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae, installed every second. (About 15,250 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of wind? That’s a 300-foot-diameter wind turbine every 5 minutes. (Install 105,000 turbines a year in good wind locations, times 25.) Two terawatts of geothermal? Build 3 100-megawatt steam turbines every day-1,095 a year, times 25. Three terawatts of new nuclear? That’s a 3-reactor, 3-gigawatt plant every week-52 a year, times 25.” In other words, the land area dedicated to renewable energy (”Renewistan”) would occupy a space about the size of Australia to keep the carbon dioxide level at 450 ppm. To get to Hanson’s goal of 350 ppm of carbon dioxide, fossil fuel burning would have to be cut to ZERO, which means another 3 terawatts would have to come from renewables, expanding the size of Renewistan further by 26 percent. Meanwhile for individuals, to stay at the world’s energy budget at 16 terawatts, while many of the poorest in the world might raise their standard of living to 2,200 watts, everyone now above that level would have to drop down to it.

       This was originally posted at at #69. Please take the time to read earlier comments. It is a courtesy. At the risk of being repetitive, your core argument confuses this: - the claim that renewables might one day possibly make a contribution of >30% to the global energy mix With this: - whether renewables can displace coal from the global energy mix as fast or faster than nuclear between now and 2050 *David MacKay is professor of physics at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific advisor to the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
79832. Tor B at 03:38 AM on 9 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       LOL on the super-subscripts (and nobody listens to geologists ... :) Les's IUPAC link to wikipedia offers: "The modern method specifically names the hydrogen atom. Thus, NaHCO3 would be pronounced sodium hydrogen carbonate." Chemindustry.com indicates and Chembase.com supports: Search for: bicarbonate IUPAC Name: hydrogen carbonate CHO₃- I guess my question regarding the use of the term "bicarbonate" or "hydrogen carbonate" remains.
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) Any further "Look. Squirrel!" comments will be deleted. Let's keep to the topic at hand.
79833. Albatross at 03:24 AM on 9 July 2011
       Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
       Way to go Robert!
79834. ranyl at 02:48 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       JFK via JMurphy 26 above, "because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept" What is the challenge? Peak 400ppm!
79835. dana1981 at 02:40 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Mark, if you had read my link you would have seen that the external costs of coal aren't just limited to climate change (which yes, generally effects the poor nations in question the most), but also direct health effects of various other emissions like mercury. Those who rely on coal for energy have to pay these costs, whether it be in terms of medical care, deaths, etc. even though they may not be reflected in the price of electricity. You can't get away from the true costs. I'm not talking about imposing any costs on third world energy, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. We don't dictate the price of energy internationally. I'm saying they can't get away from paying the full true costs of coal, if that's the energy source they choose. I would also suggest that since it's in our own best interests, developed countries should help developing countries financially and technologically to build renewable energy plants rather than fossil fuels. There are international agreements in place to do just that. Just look at what's happening in Kenya, for example.
79836. dana1981 at 02:31 AM on 9 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Mark, I think you're a bit confused. I wish the Germans would prioritize phasing-out coal before nuclear. This has nothing to do with renewables being unable to take up the burden. If the Germans phased-out fossil fuels first then nuclear, renewables would be able to take up the burden for both with no problem. As it is, some studies find that Germany can phase-out both simultaneously and replace with renewables, as long as they don't do it too quickly. The only problem here seems to be that Germany may be trying to phase-out nuclear power too quickly for renewables to be able to fully replace it and the coal which is being phased-out simultaneously. It's not a matter of renewables being unable to supply most energy (in fact Germany still plans 100% renewable power by 2050), it's just the speed at which they're trying to do it.
79837. Mark Harrigan at 02:27 AM on 9 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       ahem - moderator - seems to be an issue with how new posts are numbered in this thread?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It may be that some posts have been deleted. It is generally better to refer to other posts using an URL rather than a number as the URLs are stable under deletion.
79838. Mark Harrigan at 02:27 AM on 9 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Okay I've moved my point to this thread as per request :) German Energy Priorities ----------- Ouch - obviously the practical realities in Germany mean that the denial of nuclear and the as yet "not ready" renewables means more fossil fuels Unfortunately reality mugs wishful thinking again? ----------------- @ Dana #7,#8 You say you wish they had other priorities? Me too - but why do you think they don't? Clearly Germany have been leaders in transitioning to renewables so it can't be the argument that they don't want to. Isn't this somewhat indicative that when push comes to shove the idea that renewables are ready to take on the sort of burden of generation that many in the green movement proselytise is simply not practical and wishful thinking? Isn't it time we confronted this reality and stopped being guilty of evidence denialism - the very thing that makes many of us so disparaging of climate science deniers? Isn't it time we pushed for practical realistic plans for renewables instead of unrealistic very high renewable scenarios? If Germany appears to have no alternative in its replacement for nuclear (something I disagree with but understand given the risk/hazard issue I posted at #135 in the Baseload Renewables Thread) then doesn't this suggest the promise of renewables (at least currently) is being vastly overhyped? Maybe in the long run we might get there - but, as the saying goes, we are all dead in the long run
79839. Paul D at 02:15 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Rob@42 thanks for that link. It's based on the UK grid mix. Page 14 gives the details. The problem with that is the UK is better then the US regarding the generator mix. The gCO2 per kwh is about 500 to 550 or so. Also they give figures for a vehicle manufactured in 2010. But not many vehicles on the road are 1 or 2 years old! 109 gCO2e/km for electric 172 for petrol 156 for diesel The long term figure for the EV is 69. Which makes my point really. The current figures are a bit better, although if you had a look around you would probably get an ICE with a similar figure to 109. Don't get me wrong BERR produce some great data on carbon emissions. But I would like to see better figures than 109gCO2/km and that can only be achieved with some serious investment.
79840. les at 01:59 AM on 9 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       Tor B. What you see in this series is chemical nomenclature following the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry. What you see on the page you linked to uses Nuclide naming nomenclature. Roughly if the superscript number comes before it's the isotope of the element (physics), if the number comes after it's the number of ions (+, 2+ etc; -, -2 etc for extra electrons), subscript after means the number of instances of that element (e.g. CO₂ Carbon and two Oxygen) - thats all chemistry. It's a bit context dependant but as chemists and physicists don't communicate often, there's little confusion ;£
79841. Mark Harrigan at 01:55 AM on 9 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @ dana #175 With due respect I completely reject your argument of "We may not pay that high cost in market energy prices, but we pay it elsewhere, and so would developing nations which chose to install artificially cheap coal power" I find it a very western myopic view that ignores the brutal reality of energy poverty And quite frankly at a certain level it is morally repugnant with respect to my comment about solving that problem. And I'm sure reading your other posts that you would not intend to damage the world's poor. So I urge you to reconsider your views. I agree the true externalities of coal are NOT priced in - and won't ever really be unless we create a market mechanism to do so (i.e. carbon tax). The problem of course that the external costs (AGW) are not paid by the polluters/consumers. AND that we in the west (who are mostly responsible for AGW to date) built our wealth on ("articially") cheap fossil fuels. We've imposed a share of that cost on the world's poor already by the damage done to the climate. By what right do we now impose on the 25% of the global world's poor who current have NO electricty an increased price to pay for renewables/alternatives when we didn't pay it? The reality is by saying this you are denying the world's poor affordable energy and hence the right to lift themselves out of poverty (which by the way is the key to reducing the population pressure created by the world's poor) I would argue that unless and until we can offer the world's poor cheap and affordable alternatives that match what we paid (in not pricing the externalities of coal) we have NO right to impose a high price for energy on the world's poor. To tie this back to the plan that spawned this thread I would argue that our focus must be on testing such a plan in the west with the best available renewables (as per my post at #161) and PROVING it works/lowering the cost before we have the right to tell the global poor what to do
79842. dana1981 at 01:26 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Dan #24 - I rarely fly anywhere. Two flights in the last 6 years, one for my honeymoon, and one for a trip to Australia. So I've been averaging about one flight per three years. Regarding EVs, if 100% of their energy comes from coal, they have roughly the same emissions as a gas car. In most cases they create emissions reductions vs. hybrids. See here. Regarding meat vs. vegetarian, it's a matter of efficiency. It requires energy (in the form of fossil fuels) to grow a crop. You can the either eat the crop, or feed it to livestock, and down the line eat the meat from the livestock. The latter is a substantially less efficient process, requiring much more energy, and thus more CO2 emissions. And this varies by type of livestock, cattle being among the worst, chickens being not too bad, etc. That's another thing I've done - reduced the amount of meat I eat, and I almost never eat beef.
79843. OPatrick at 01:25 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       CBDunkerson, I'd be interested to see a lifecycle study of emissions from meat and I also wonder how much of these emissions are outside of the natural carbon cycle. I've had a brief look and I can't find much that's easily digested(!) This is the sort of thing that comes up http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/386/index.html Looks bad for beef, but is it as bad as it seems? This sort of thing is important when it comes to making personal decisions and reliable information doesn't seem easy to come by (maybe a Skeptical Science post for the future?) Until recently I went out of my way to buy local on the basis of emissions reduction, but really there's a very small gain here, and in some cases a loss. Now I have other reasons for buying local.
79844. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 01:20 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Water is also an issue in food production. 1kg of beef requires ~13,000 litres of water to produce. Back on topic; I got rid of my car last year and mainly travel by bike on foot or by train. I have also switched to 100% renewable energy tarrif through Ecotricity a small UK energy company. They also reinvest all their profits back into developing more renewable energy.
79845. OPatrick at 01:12 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Rob Honeycutt, globally aviation only contributes a relativel small amount, although I'm not convinced that 3.5% should count as small, but only a tiny percentage of the population benefit from it. In terms of 'low hanging fruit' for the individuals, or organistaions, who do fly I think it should be at the top of their lists. This is not saying that no-one should ever fly, or perhaps more accurately travel long distances as other means of transport aren't much better on a per mile basis. Rather, flying should come to be seen as a valuable luxury, to be used sparingly, maybe a few times in the average person's life.
79846. pbjamm at 01:07 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Link to Fully Charged. Robert Llewellyn is the former host of Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars as well as playing Kryten on the Red Dwarf.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] [homer] MMMMMM, Tesla [/homer] ;o)
79847. Rob Honeycutt at 00:58 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Paul.. Here is one report from 2008 suggesting that switching to EV's would reduce CO2 emissions by 40%. I also think what gets missed here are all the other inefficiencies built into producing auto fuel. It's an energy intensive process to convert oil into auto fuel.
79848. Rob Honeycutt at 00:50 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Paul D... Unfortunately I can't link it for you because I'm in China and can't access Youtube from here. I'll be back home later next week and will find the link for you then.
79849. CBDunkerson at 00:49 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Rob #36, the 'acres per human fed' and/or 'watts per human fed' arguments are logically consistent... but then I question how much impact we are really talking about. That is, if we calculate the difference in total land and/or energy required to feed the world on a vegetarian diet vs current mixed diet how much would we be changing CO2 emissions? Both the percentage of total greenhouse gases accumulations due to agricultural land use and the percentage of total energy use due to agriculture are already relatively small numbers by most accounts.
79850. Paul D at 00:33 AM on 9 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BTW, if you do calculate the emissions for an EV. You have to remember to include grid losses (about 6 or 7 percent) and battery losses.

Prev  1589  1590  1591  1592  1593  1594  1595  1596  1597  1598  1599  1600  1601  1602  1603  1604  Next