Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 Next
Comments 79851 to 79900:
-
From Peru at 07:45 AM on 10 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
There is one thing about the Mann 2009 paper that I could not find: Where is the evidence about past sea surface temperatures in the Tropical Pacific? The paper show that during the so-called MWP the Tropical Pacific was dominated by a persistent La Niña anomaly. 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: El Niño/Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium That shows an incomplete record of the SST anomalies in the central Pacific (NINO 3.4 area), showing that at least during the periods covered by the Palmyra Islands coral record, the NINO 3.4 zone was dominated by La Niña. But in the Mann 2009 paper (from where the above map was taken) show a persistent La Niña over the entire MWP and also shows the NINO 3 area as a zone with reconstructed cool SST anomalies. 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? I searched for studies showing this, and I just found the Palmyra Islands (incomplete) record for just the NINO3.4 area linked above. I would like more info, both for having a better answer to the "skeptic" arguments about the MWP and for living in Peru, where the ENSO climate oscillation is the dominant force in the regional climate and weather behaviour (after all, the name "El Niño" is a Peruvian one, referring to the Holy Baby (Jesus Christ) Christmas holiday that is when typically an ENSO event peaks) -
AL at 07:43 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Paul D, We will just disagree on how effective change happens i guess. My own feeling is that it is not one or the other. An effective resistance movement has to contain elements of both. Currently the mainstream environmental movement has really failed because it it has focused primarily on trying to convince people to make personal change. (see Al Gore movie.) The other issue i take with relying only on personal change and educating others is that it is not clear how much time we have to actually change the direction of this culture. In addition, we are also up against corporate funding of disinformation that has been so successful in crafting public opinion to accept the status-quo and deny there is even a problem. Our job is much harder and we have way less power to influence. It is a very dire situation. BTW, i'm not in America, and direct action is a global tradition that spans the globe through all of history, and has often (not always) been successful in making positive change. It's not at all clear to me why the killing of the biosphere should not warrant the same sort of response. Cheers! -
Paul D at 07:39 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark Harrigan: "Second the reality for industry is a LOT different. They are far more dependent on reliable supply 24/7 and this is where the economic impact lies." Actually it isn't always straight forward. Look up 'Constraint Management' Some businesses in the UK have contracts in which they can be cut off for short periods in return for a discount. This is in case there are local load balancing issues. Businesses may have to shut down for a day or so or provide backup generation. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:25 AM on 10 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross, looking at the link in 321, and comparing months in the lowest graphic, the severe reports (total) peak in May. Looking at each separately, the hail and tornadoes peak in May, but the wind peaks in July (at almost the same value as June). The distribution of reports moves north with each passing month. That would be due to a variety of factors, jets moving north, cold air disappearing to the north, warm air aloft moving north, etc. The link to CC will come at the edges of that pattern. I would except an earlier severe weather season further south. Also I would expect the migration of severe weather to the north to start sooner in the season. That website doesn't appear to show trends, but I also do not expect such trends for quite a few more years due to the vagaries of variability especially in the U.S. where the Pacific ocean has such a large effect. -
Paul D at 07:23 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD: "Chicken and egg reasoning" Hardly. As I stated in 66, who is going to buy electrical consumer goods if there is no infrastructure? The infrastructure has to be put in place first and then the promotion and advertising begins, to get people to buy cookers and washing machines to plug in. -
Paul D at 07:15 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD: "Your source for this?" During the 1940s and 1950s there was a state programme to expand the electricity generation capacity and grid system. Because the power stations were designed to run constantly, when there were dips in demand, it caused load balancing problems. So the national electricity 'boards' set up shops and showrooms across the UK to sell washing machines, cookers and heaters and other consumer gadgets in order to justify the building programme and fill the load troughs. http://www.twixtaireandcalder.org.uk/WakefieldCMS/Pages/TAandC/ImageView.aspx?source=l01268&thumbnail=False Also logically you can only sell the gadgets once the infrastructure is in place, not the other way around. No one is going to buy an electric cooker first, if they don't have a house wired for electricity. So the massive investment drove energy supply first, then the energy companies promote the convenience of using it. -
Norman at 07:14 AM on 10 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross @ 321 I thank you much for these tools. -
Paul D at 06:43 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
AL@13 "I have, however, seen people take direct action to win labor rights..." Most of that has not been because of direct action, most of it has been because of a change in public opinion through education and better understanding. A lot of direct action has been taken on other issues and largely failed, which is why change in attitudes is more important. Maybe direct action can help, but it is just as likely generate negative opinions which are an embarrassment to a wider audience. Also the things you are talking about have nothing at all to do with environmental issues. In the UK we never had segregation in modern times, in fact most Brits were pretty appalled by American race attitudes during WWII. I don't think you should assume American political problems today are duplicated world wide. If Americans feel they need to take direct action that is their problem and a symptom of American politics today. -
Patrick 027 at 06:38 AM on 10 July 2011OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
Maybe this will come up in future posts ... I was wondering about the pH effect (and related potential for CO2 uptake) that other cations have (Mg+2, K+, Na+, etc.) - and regarding the idea of mitigating pH changes and enhancing oceanic uptake of CO2, how would adding either carbonates or silicates with Mg, K, or Na compare to adding Ca (I know the difference between silicates and carbonates is that you can add the dissolved cations from the silicates and actually remove CO2 from the air and form a carbonate mineral (if conditions are right - this may be only common with Ca as I understand it) whereas adding carbonate to enhance CO2 uptake requires that additional substance to remain in solution). -
BBD at 06:36 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul D You say:Yes but industry as it stands is a product of the energy supply, not the other way around. You only perceive it to be the other way around because you have been born into a society that has been dependent on the system for many decades.
- Chicken and egg reasoning - Are you suggesting industrial economies must be dismantled? - If so, What policy mechanisms should be employed? - How do you envisage a politically surviable delivery of same?FYI large scale power stations were built and then (at least in the UK) the energy companies needed consumer products that would soak up the spare capacity.
Your source for this? -
AL at 06:09 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Paul D, I have not seen anybody take action to move us beyond the left/right political spectrum. I have, however, seen people take direct action to win labor rights, to win human rights, to win minority rights, to desegregate buses and schools, to defeat NAZI's, to defeat the british, etc... these actions have been successful. I think we agree on the point that there is certainly more information available to people, and there is certainly more and more science we can rely on to help us understand and educate others. But from what i can tell so far this has resulted only in a small amount of people making personal change and corporations using "green washing" to convince us to consume our way to a healthy planet. (an absurd notion, IMO). Meanwhile, emissions are higher than ever and habitat destruction continues unabated. -
Paul D at 05:24 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
AL@9 "People have been doing the personal change thing for decades and it has not stopped the problem from getting worse, way worse." People have been taking action in an attempt to change politics for decades and you still have the same left and right political ideologies manipulating peoples lives! There is also no guarantee that anyone can stop the problem from getting worse. The only thing that you can do is educate people and do your best and hope that it is enough. Education in this context is quite broad. The reality is (and I contradict you here) that quite a lot has been been done, more than many people would have thought possible 5 or 10 years ago. I remember a few years ago in the UK that even eco-friendly people didn't know how to work out carbon footprints or emissions of cars and other products. Now statistics are available from manufacturers and government every year. -
CBDunkerson at 05:23 AM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
In any case, the 'Nonsense On Ice' link Sphaerica provided in #197 above includes several photos showing the Skate having broken through the ice, people standing on the ice next to the sub, et cetera... all on exactly the same date (March 17, 1959) when it was supposedly in 'open water' at the North Pole. -
Albatross at 04:52 AM on 10 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman, And play with this too. -
Albatross at 04:50 AM on 10 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman, Play with this. -
JMurphy at 04:24 AM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
That first USS Skate photo has also been discussed at Arctic Sea-Ice Blog - Patrick Lockerby joins in there too. In fact, Neven (whose site it is) uses the picture as his avatar. Basically, it has been used by so-called skeptics, to claim that the Arctic has been ice-free lots of times in the past. I first saw it used on WUWT (no surprise there) but some of the comments on WUWT (from real sceptics, of course) about the photo show that it cannot be proven to be at the place and time often suggested, i.e. March 17, 1959. Patrick Lockerby shows that also. In fact, there is no official original for that photo - the link at NavSource.org (where the copy is held) goes to a web-hosting service called Tripod.com.Response:[DB] Also correct. The discussion begins in that thread here.
-
BBD at 04:21 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
And this is relevant how? -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"To achieve 16TW would require 1,600,000km*2" Which, incidentally, is quite a bit less than the current global sea ice area negative anomaly. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:56 AM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
194, DB (inline), I did find this link: Nonsense On Ice. Is that the one you're talking about?Moderator Response: [DB] Yes. See also JMurphy's comment below. -
BBD at 03:52 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
No response to #211 (212). Tom Curtis #201: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.
Earlier I said: Based on the standard estimate of 15W/m*2 for desert sited CSP: 10,000km*2 = 150GW 400,000km*2 = 6TW And that's assuming that there is absolutely nothing but CSP in every single one of those 400,000km*2. I should have been far clearer on the last point. Real-world plant power density is lower than assumed above. Vaclav Smil writes:Europe’s first commercial solar tower, PS (Planta Solar) 10, completed by Abengoa Solar in Sanlúcar la Mayor in 2007, is rated at 11 MWp. With annual generation of 24.3 GWh (87.5 TJ, 2.77 MW), its capacity factor is 25%. Its heliostats occupy 74,880 m2 (624 x 120 m2), and the entire site claims about 65ha; the facility’s power density is thus about 37 W/m2 factoring in the area taken up by the heliostats alone, and a bit more than 4 W/m2 if the entire area is considered. PS20 (completed in 2009) is nearly twice the size (20 MWp; 48.6 GWh or 175 TJ/year at average power of 5.55 MW and capacity factor of nearly 28%). Its mirrors occupy 150,600 m2 and hence the project’s heliostat power density is, at 36.85 W/m2, identical to that of PS10 but, with its entire site covering about 90 ha, its overall power density is higher at about 6 W/m2. Bright Source Energy’s proposed Ivanpah CSP in San Bernardino, CA should have an eventual rating of 1.3 GWp and it is expected to generate 1.08 TWh (3.88 PJ) a year and deliver on the average 123.3 MW with a capacity factor of just 9.5%. Heliostat area should be 229.6 ha and the entire site claim is 1645 ha. This implies power densities of 53.75 W/m2 for the heliostats and 7.5 W/m2 for the entire site. Again, no stunning improvements of these rates are expected any time soon and hence it is safe to conclude that optimally located CSP plants will operate with power densities of 35-55 W/m2 of their large heliostat fields and with rates no higher than 10 W/m2 of their entire site area.
So, again but with 10W/m*2: 10,000km*2 = 100GW 400,000km*2 = 4TW To achieve 16TW would require 1,600,000km*2. -
BBD at 03:45 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Mark Harrigan #216 My doubts about renewables hitting 20% of actual generation globally are based on the underwhelming performance of wind in the UK. It is supposed to be the 'jewel in our renewables crown'. It isn't exactly shining. Back to another link posted earlier:2010 Renewables Target Missed by Large Margin The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) today published an Information Note on the performance of the UK renewables sector in 2010 based on analysis of new DECC and Ofgem data (see www.ref.org.uk). The work shows that the 2010 target for renewable electricity has been missed by a large margin, and confirms longstanding doubts as to the feasibility of this target, and the still more ambitious target for 2020. The key findings are: • The UK failed to reach its 10% renewable electricity target for 2010, producing only 6.5% of electricity from renewable sources, in spite of a subsidy to renewable generators amounting to approximately £5 billion in the period 2002 to 2010, and £1.1 billion in 2010. • Onshore wind Load Factor in 2010 fell to 21%, as opposed to 27% in 2009, while offshore fared better declining from 30% in 2009 to 29% in 2010. • Although low wind in 2010 accounts for some part of the target shortfall, it is clear that the target would have been missed by a large margin even if wind speeds had exceeded the highest annual average in the last 10 years. • The substantial variation in annual on-shore wind farm load factors is significant for project economics, particularly Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and future cost of capital. • Planning delays do not appear to have been responsible for the missed target, with large capacities of wind farms, both on and offshore, consented but unbuilt.* • The failure to meet the 2010 target confirms doubts as to the UK’s ability to reach the 2020 EU Renewable Energy Directive target for 15% of Final Energy Consumption, a level requiring at least 30% of UK electricity to be generated from renewable sources.
It might surprise Tom but I agree with his argument about speed and the inertia of nuclear and its consequences in ppmv. But renewables cannot compete with nuclear over decades. This discussion has been had already. I am not revisiting it again. You could take the view - as I do - that TC is essentially anti-nuclear and pro-renewables. And that his argument above has a strong tactical purpose: to push nuclear off the table. However reasonable it may sound on a first reading. -
michael sweet at 03:37 AM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Sphaerica, If you look beyond the pools you will see wide leads in the ice. These have been visible for several weeks and vary in width day to day. A sub could come up in one of the leads. Camburn: If you read the background information on the web cam page you will find out that: "In 2010, the snow became soft Jun 25, similar to many other years, but widespread meltponds formed by Jun 27, earlier than in any of the other years observed by the webcams." This year melt ponds formed earlier than in 2010 (at the end of June), although they refroze for a few days. Your claim of pond formation in May is incorrect. Please try to be more accurate in the future. According to the Barrow Sea Ice Oservatory (linked through Neven's web site), melt ponds have been observed at Barrow at the end of May. Perhaps you are confusing Barrow with the North Pole. -
Mark Harrigan at 03:35 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@ Dana #193. Yes, I am aware of the geothermal moves in Kenya - it's great - and I'm not saying there aren't things happening. It's good to see that they are. I do take your point about other "externalities" - I am well aware (at a personal level) of the real health costs of burning fossile fuels which we all pay. It's one of the main arguments I use when comparing the real safety impacts of nuclear to coal - most people are unaware of how many deaths there are globally from burning fossil fuels. Of course we also don't dictate the price of energy either. But if we insist poorer nations must go renewables isn't that what we are doing? The trouble is the economy doesn't work on pricing externalities - except artificially. I guess what I am arguing is that while the price of low CO2 emitting electricty generation remains so much higher than Coal (and they are and will be for some time in the future) and that we in the west built our wealth on low cost coal we have no right to deny that to the world's poor. Did you read my link about solving energy poverty? It says (in part) It is also clear that using less energy is not the answer for the world's poorest. "In Uganda, less than 5 percent of the population has energy, it doesn't make sense to talk about energy efficiency," says Juan Jose Daboub , former World Bank managing director and founding CEO of the Global Adaptation Institute, an organization devoted to adapting to the challenges of climate change. In the starkest terms, energy, largely from fossil fuels, has freed humans and animals from labor by powering machines—it would take 100 human slaves to do the work of one gallon of gasoline. It is also about health: burning smoky fuels indoors shortens lives, and a lack of modern energy means a lack of electricity to power refrigerators to store life-saving vaccines. Those applications of energy are definitely ones we want to extend to the developing world, certainly more so than sharing our love of gadgets and cars. The trick will be doing it in a way that preserves people and the planet. I don't see a ready answer to that moral challenge from anything you've posted? The way I see it we must strive to develop low CO2 emissions technologies in the west whilst we also try and use less - and help the global poor out of poverty the best way we can - and if that means they choose CO2 emitting technologies who are we to deny them unless WE are willing to pay the difference? -
AL at 03:25 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Tom, Thanks for that. -
Mark Harrigan at 03:06 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom and BBD above (sorry my browser is not showing the numbers) - I think your debate is throwing the spotlight on the essence of the problem. I think it's #208 above where Tom you set out a detailed expose of the issues - thanks for a very considered view - I enjoyed reading it and found it illuminating. I've not had time to pull apart all your numbers and possibly debate the details but even if I did I very much doubt it would defeat your core premise. Unfortunately I think you are right. I can foresee no realistic scenario where renewables can pick up the baton fast enough nor can I see nuclear being allowed to do so even if it could be done fast enough (that is a little debatable I think Tom but in any event moot as the politics of nuclear acceptance won't allow any conceivable fast track) Then there is also the problem of China Which Graph 5 from World Energy outlook shows only too well :( World Energy Outlook The only remaining uncertainty with AGW is how far/how fast it will happen (and therefore how long we have got). Maybe we have a little longer than we think but that is wishing for good luck. But on the counter side BBD I'm not sure why you are so vehement that there is no possibility of renewables meeting 20% in the next 5 years? In 2008 it was 18% (admittedly 15% is Hydro which won't grow so much) according to Renewable Energy Status Wikipedia quotes the 2008 figure as 3584 TWh out of 20261 TWh - close enough to 18% to make no difference I also note that year on year growth rates from Wikipedia are encouraging? 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 895 930 1020 1070 1140 1230 GWe That's a growth rate accelerating from 4% p.a. to almost 8% p.a. If we assumed that growth rate levelled out at 8% and applied from 2009 until 2016 (5 years from now) that would give a capacity of 2108GWe. The IPCC certainly seems to think it is achievable IPCC Press Release I gather forecast demand is to grow at less than 2% per year (see page 1 2nd para) World Energy Outlook That translates into roughly 24000TWh demand in 2016 and if Renewables can grow at 8% as per above that would be a little over 6,600TWh or a little over 28%. So perhaps there is room for a little more optimism? The challenge is can renewables maintain such a high growth rate year on year? And can we limit global demand to those levels given the expansion of China and India? I don't know but can only assume the IEA and IPCC aren't complete dolts and would have taken those considerations into account? -
Tom Curtis at 03:04 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
AL, PaulD, throbgoblin's latest makes an appropriate observation on the interaction of personal and political: http://throbgoblins.blogspot.com/2011/07/brave-old-world.html -
AL at 02:57 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
PaulD, Personal change is crucial, i agree. The point was that personal change on its own does not = political change. And only radical political change will stop the destruction. My own experience is that personal changes at best might help me survive ecocide for a time, but it will not stop ecocide. I still get up and go to work and partake daily in this culture no matter my personal choices. People have been doing the personal change thing for decades and it has not stopped the problem from getting worse, way worse. Let not kid ourselves into thinking the systems of power and the infrastructure they use are going to go away because i compost, buy locally produced foods, garden, and ride my bike. All around me are people who are only thinking about their next snowmobile and ATV, while the corporations and government are wondering where to put the nuclear plant that will power the tar sands. I could move out to the woods and totally detach myself from this culture (if i had the skill to do that :) ), but the culture would still go on its destructive path without me. DJ is not saying "no" to personal change, building communities of like minded people, and inspiring/educating others, he is saying that this is not enough. We also need to be politically active and most importantly, willing to take direct action against those who actively kill the planet. -
Tom Curtis at 02:53 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
DBDunkerson @213, that would be approximately 20% of existing generation capacity as additional renewable generating capacity. Obviously existing capacity at 2008 will not reduce emissions from 2008 levels. Of course existing capacity will not need to be replaced either, but I neglected that, and emissions from transport so to not clutter up the exposition. In the ideal case, enough additional renewable generation would be installed in the next six years to substitute for all growth in demand and eliminate an additional 10% of existing emissions. This is the case even if we only install new nuclear facilities after that point. If we fail to do that initial work we are committing ourselves to doubling the rate at which we eliminate emissions in the following decades. -
CBDunkerson at 02:46 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
"Don't use a clothes dryer. All washing is dried naturally (despite the fact that we live in a very wet climate)." A good compromise here is a 'spin dryer'. These work on the same principle as the final spin cycle on a washing machine... pull the water out of the clothes via 'centripetal force'. They just spin faster and thus do a much better job. Takes just a couple of minutes and gets most clothes nearly dry. Obviously this would still use more power than just letting them air dry, but it is nothing compared to a heat dryer... and you could always abort the washing machine spin cycle to use the spin dryer exclusively and thus come out ahead on power use. -
Paul D at 02:45 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark Harrigan: "Fourth there is nowehere in the world today where renewables are able to supply reliable supply to industry at a capacity factor anywhere near fossil fuels or nuclear." Yes but industry as it stands is a product of the energy supply, not the other way around. You only perceive it to be the other way around because you have been born into a society that has been dependent on the system for many decades. FYI large scale power stations were built and then (at least in the UK) the energy companies needed consumer products that would soak up the spare capacity. Also you neglect the fact that there is capacity in modern products for them to intelligently decide whether they need energy or not based on monitoring their own requirements and on what is available from the grid at any point in time. Is this fiction? Not when one of the biggest supermarkets in the UK is installing refigeration in 200 stores that do exactly this. -
BBD at 02:38 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
CBDunkerson Are you confusing installed renewable capacity with actual output? Where are you getting the numbers from? -
Paul D at 02:35 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Dave123@59: "We also line dry inside in winter which humidifies the house. Attic fans instead of air conditioners where possible." This can be a problem in that condensation can attract mould. I have no idea where you live, but why is air conditioning or fans required? Dave123@59: "Self-interest....I'd be many times dead without it." How many times would you be dead without the mutual support of other human beings? I don't think your statement has a lot of credibility. -
Camburn at 02:35 AM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
The subs use sonar to look for leads in the ice. Any ice greater than 1 meter results in structural damage if they tried to surface. There is always thin ice at the poles because of the currents. The melt pools/leads shown in the photograph are a normal occurance, even in May.Moderator Response: (DB) Please substantiate your claim about thin ice always being found at the pole with a link to a credible source; I have personally seen sub logs that belie your claim. -
CBDunkerson at 02:33 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis wrote: "What I do know is that any plan that does not have renewables taking over as much as 20% of total power generation capacity in the next five years makes mitigating climate change ruinously expensive." Does that factor in existing nuclear? Obviously that existing capacity doesn't have to wait 6 years to come online... and isn't causing GHG problems. If we add that existing nuclear to the renewables total, we were at 19% back in 2008 according to the 2010 IEA world energy outlook. Given the boom in renewable power generation since then we must be over 20% from non-fossil fuels already. Further, given that global renewable energy production is already more than double global nuclear energy production AND growing faster than nuclear it seems likely that any losses in nuclear generation over the next five years will be more than offset by growth in renewable generation. Indeed, the way renewables have been growing I suspect we'll see at least 25% non-fossil generation by 2015 even without any sort of significant effort by world governments. -
Paul D at 02:27 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
I disagree with AL@6 personal change is a fundamental step in changing behaviour on a wider scale, including political opinions. You have to make personal changes in order to influence others. It is a part of the education process and how communities change. From personal change you can expand it to educating groups and communities. In fact taking political action without making personal change has negative outcomes and hypocritical. -
AL at 01:53 AM on 10 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
The much discussed essay by Derrick Jensen, Forget Shorter Showers seems appropriate here. http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/ Personal Change does not = political change. The implications of his essay are that we need to take direct action to stop those who kill the planet, just changing our own behavior is woefully inadequate, and worse, it fulfills the delusion that we can consume our way to preventing ecocide. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:41 AM on 10 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
193, DB, I'm very surprised this would happen. I've always assumed that the melt pools are shallow and just near the surface. This implies deeper melting than that. By the way, have you ever seen the photos of the U.S. submarines that surfaced at the North Pole in the fifties and sixties? This has been a common denier tool to claim the pole has melted like this before (hah!). I've never seen an explanation of that, but I've always suspected that what looks like open water is in fact just shallow melt pools on the surface, with ice underneath that is much thicker (as well as being a rare thin area that was specifically located to be able to surface). Does anyone know the facts, or know how to find out?
Moderator Response: (DB) There's a recent paper out quantifying the increased transmission of the sun's energy through melt pools; Patrick Lockerby did a takedown of the NP submarine denier meme on his blog some time back. Not at a PC for a while but I'll put up the links when I can. -
BBD at 01:36 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Predictably, I made a mistake with the HTML above. Apologies: Returning to a link posted above: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.
I appreciate that we do not all have the dubious honour of living in the UK. You can see some global figures here. It is disturbing that no-one noticed this fundamental error in the LAGI artwork. There are many evidently knowledgable commenters here. So this is suggestive of a strong confirmation bias at work. -
BBD at 01:31 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
All I am concerned that no-one here seems to understand the difference between absolute and relative solar energy. It is being routinely misrepresented. The deeply misleading LAGI solar map reposted (and so broadcast far and wide) by Treehugger is a fine example of bad science. Yes, 1000W/m*2 is the absolute figure. No we may not assume that a 15% efficient solar technology yields 150W/m*2. Returning to a link posted above: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 compli- cation 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. I appreciate that we do not all have the dubious honour of living in the UK. You can see some global figures here. It is disturbing that no-one noticed this fundamental error in the LAGI artwork. There are many evidently knowledgable commenters here. So this is suggestive of a strong confirmation bias at work.
-
BBD at 01:08 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
This is wildly to overstate the emissions reductions capabilities of renewables:The problem for renewables is almost as stark. Because completion times for many renewable power plants is a matter of months to a year (for smaller plants), renewables do not need to meet the target all at once. What is more, because early constructions reduce the total emissions in a given period, the deadline is extended, and with a sufficiently fast build rate, can be extended as far as 2020.
-
BBD at 01:05 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis If I understand you correctly, your entire argument hinges on this:What I do know is that any plan that does not have renewables taking over as much as 20% of total power generation capacity in the next five years makes mitigating climate change ruinously expensive.
If so, we are indeed in trouble. There is absolutely no possibility that renewables will account for 20% of total electrical generation in the next five years. -
Tom Curtis at 00:57 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
There is one very simple, and very fundamental reason why nuclear power cannot by the mainstay of power generation in the near future. It is that if it is, we will have failed to meet the challenge of global warming. This can be seen very simply by looking at the carbon budget of permissible emissions on the assumption that we wish to keep the rise in temperatures below 2 degrees C. To have a reasonable prospect of doing so, we must keep total anthropogenic emissions between now and 2050 below 1,000 gigatonnes of Carbon. Given that, we can distribute emissions rights various ways, the most straightforward of which is equal per capita emissions rights between now and 2050. Allocated in this way, western nations face a sharp challenge in reducing carbon emissions:
In fact, if the USA was to continue emitting at 2008 levels, in just 6 years they would consume their entire emissions budget. The problem is that nuclear power plants take approximately 6 years from inception to completion. In other words, for the US to remain inside its carbon budget using nuclear power, it must plan and construct nuclear power plants sufficient to replace all fossil fuel based power production in just simultaneously, with design and approval of all power plants to be completed by the end of this year to have any chance of meeting the 2016 completion date.
I do not say this is impossible, but it is a challenge.
The problem for renewables is almost as stark. Because completion times for many renewable power plants is a matter of months to a year (for smaller plants), renewables do not need to meet the target all at once. What is more, because early constructions reduce the total emissions in a given period, the deadline is extended, and with a sufficiently fast build rate, can be extended as far as 2020.
In fact, a plan to for zero emissions for stationary energy by 2010 in Australia (a nation facing a similar challenge) exists. It has been widely and rightly criticized as impractical, as relying on untried technology, and as underestimating difficulties and costs. Even if they have not underestimated costs, the estimated cost of 3% of GDP per annum for ten years would push Australia into a decade of negative economic growth, enough to make the plan politically impossible.
But whatever the flaws of the plan, it at least adresses the right problem:
"The premise of a ten-year transition is based on ‘The Budget Approach’ from the German Advisory Council on Global Change. In order to have a 67% chance of keeping global warming below 2 C above pre-industrial temperatures, on a basis of equal allocation of emissions on a per-capita basis, it would be necessary for the USA to reduce emissions to zero in 10 years. Australia has about the same per-capita emissions as the USA, and would need to pursue the same goal."
Now, whatever the flaws of "Zero Carbon Australia", and they are many, their plan is certainly more feasible than replacing the entire power generating capacity of the nation with nuclear power plants in just six years. In fact, purely in political terms it is dubious that any Western nation could be persuaded to take the required effort. Persuading them to not only to go emission free, but to go nuclear at the same time is to send your folorn hope forward with neither guns nor ammunition. Being practical, there is no way the US or Australia will sign up to an agreement requiring them to end all emissions in 10 years (nor any hope of negotiating any agreement in less than three). So, perhaps we should be looking at the emissions reductions required on the assumption of an international emissions trading scheme, or (sadly more likely), on the West insisting that the third world surrender its emission rights without compensation to place everybody on a "level footing":
As you can see, the longer we wait for peak emissions, the faster emissions must be reduced thereafter. If emissions peak in the next year or so, we are committed to replacing around 4% of stationary power generation with emissions free equivalents per annum. If they peak in five years time, that rises to 5.3%; in ten years in rises to nearly 10% replacement per annum. Again, and obviously, the speed at which we can start reducing emissions then becomes the critical decider of the practicality of a plan. Reliance on nukes means reductions to do seriously begin for from six to 8 years. IN contrast, renewables can begin reductions now. Consequently the commitment to a primarily nuclear emissions reduction program is a commitment to (probably) unsustainably high economic costs. In contrast, a program based on an initial renewables based reduction to turn the curve down as soon as possible greatly reduces the overall economic impact of the plan.
It is perfectly possible that the best plan will involve, in the end, the majority of the worlds power being provided by nuclear power plants. That is something which I think can be argued. It is also something I do not need an opinion on. What I do know is that any plan that does not have renewables taking over as much as 20% of total power generation capacity in the next five years makes mitigating climate change ruinously expensive. It is possible that a 100% renewable economy could be achieved in 40 years. But the only way a near 100% nuclear economy can be achieved in the same time scale is by committing ourselves to 3 or 4 degrees of warming.
-
BBD at 00:45 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis #202 This is an attempt at humour, isn't it? -
Mark Harrigan at 00:44 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Hi Tom @ #204 (I think - numbers not showing on my browser alas) My point, which I don't think you've answered - is that what you quote cannot be achieved reliably throughout the year - but only for around 3/4 or thereabouts. If you can point to evidence that refutes this I will be very pleased to see it - really. Perhpas you can provide a link? The % you quote are irrelevant I think - what will make CST a success is when it can supply at a reasonable capacity factor 24/7/365. I have seen no evidence that it is close to that yet - although I do note that it continues to improve and shows great promise. So I do call it boosterism when we point out the positives of renewables without acknowledging the deficiencies. I think it hurts the case rather than supports it. -
Mark Harrigan at 00:37 AM on 10 July 2011German Energy Priorities
Hi Moderator - I don;t think it's my browser - I;ve done a complete refresh and also deleted all history and the issue I describe avove is still the case? Does anyone else see it? -
BBD at 00:32 AM on 10 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis #201 You say: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.
Based on the standard estimate of 15W/m*2 for desert sited CSP: 10,000km*2 = 150GW 400,000km*2 = 6TW And that's assuming that there is absolutely nothing but CSP in every single one of those 400,000km*2. Less than half way there. -
Mark-US at 23:55 PM on 9 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Sounds like living ones values! That's great. Here's one of many other ideas.... cooperative buyers' clubs for bulk/whole foods, if there's a distributor in your area that will do business with you. In my old city we had a group that bought at wholesale prices just like the storefront businesses, except the group had to order in large volumes and that required several families' commitment. But that was ok, because what family really needs 25 lbs of kidney beans at one time? The catalogue was available in spreadsheet format, so the group had an "order night" that was a mass negotiation, as families signed up for portions of the large bags, until we had rounded out an order, and folks paid the treasurer up front, who then placed the order. On delivery day volunteers broke up the bundles according to the order sheet. Takes a bit of time, but greatly reduced packaging and shipping costs of smaller quantities, really stretched the grocery dollar, and built great community (as did the semi monthly coop potlucks). ................. As for being off the grid, I too like the emotional appeal, but I think I've seen articles saying you get more anti-globalwarming bang for buck by being plugged in, because end-user generation can (A) help with grid stabilization and (B) preventing transmission losses due to voltage drop. I probably have that wrong. -
Tom Curtis at 23:50 PM on 9 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Mark Harrigan @203, on the contrary, the figures I used for Andasol where based on the Forecast gross electricity volume. That represents just 40% of the plant's rated capacity, which in turn is just 40% of incident sunlight (annual direct standard radiation * solar field area). Why you should consider an expected efficiency of around 15%, and figures 30% more conservative than those quoted by BBD as "renewable boosterism" I do not know. It suggests that any figures quoted that do not prove that renewables cannot do the job will be rejected by you as "renewables boosterism". -
Daniel Bailey at 23:44 PM on 9 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Meltcam #1 seems to have passed perihelion and is already heading towards The Door of Night:
-
Mark Harrigan at 23:22 PM on 9 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@ Tom #201 With due respect Tom your comments on Andasol amount to renewables boosterism. The Andasol plant can only achieve those sorts of figures for a around 2/3 to 3/4 of the year. That's not enough. When we share such data we really should point out the limitations too. Mind you - the developments in CST remain very promising as they continue to improve their ability to deliver reliable power. I'd like to see a plant implemented in Australia - of at least 50MW capacity - but don't know what the capital cost might be or if there are any plans. Perhpas the proposed investment fund associated with our proposed carbon tax might bring such an experiment closer to reality
Prev 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 Next
