Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 Next
Comments 80101 to 80150:
-
KR at 05:49 AM on 9 July 2011A 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. -
KR at 05:27 AM on 9 July 2011A 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. -
JMurphy at 04:59 AM on 9 July 2011A 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... -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 9 July 2011Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
Congrats Robert! -
Phila at 04:40 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
ribwoods at 04:38 AM on 9 July 2011Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
Missing from the map: location of Hell, NorwayResponse:[DB] Try here:
-
BBD at 03:48 AM on 9 July 2011A 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). -
Tor B at 03:38 AM on 9 July 2011OA 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. -
Albatross at 03:24 AM on 9 July 2011Tales of the Cryosphere Kid
Way to go Robert! -
ranyl at 02:48 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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! -
dana1981 at 02:40 AM on 9 July 2011A 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. -
dana1981 at 02:31 AM on 9 July 2011German 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. -
Mark Harrigan at 02:27 AM on 9 July 2011German 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. -
Mark Harrigan at 02:27 AM on 9 July 2011German 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 -
Paul D at 02:15 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
les at 01:59 AM on 9 July 2011OA 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 ;£ -
Mark Harrigan at 01:55 AM on 9 July 2011A 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 -
dana1981 at 01:26 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
OPatrick at 01:25 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 01:20 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
OPatrick at 01:12 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
pbjamm at 01:07 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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) -
Rob Honeycutt at 00:58 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
Rob Honeycutt at 00:50 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
CBDunkerson at 00:49 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
Paul D at 00:33 AM on 9 July 2011Climate 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. -
CBDunkerson at 00:32 AM on 9 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Ranyl, sure livestock cause land use changes... but so do crops. And on methane... sure, cows and other ruminants release some of their carbon as methane, but that methane oxidizes right back to CO2 in the atmosphere within a few years. Thus, unless we're concerned that methane is having a major impact before it breaks down to CO2 (which seems unlikely given that we stabilized atmospheric methane levels back in the 1990s) it doesn't seem to make much sense. And if methane IS the concern then first order of business ought to be pushing for people to stop eating rice. -
Paul D at 00:30 AM on 9 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
I haven't owned a car for about 12 or more years. I think if I had, my health would be a lot worse than it is now. I haven't looked at the details recently Rob@35 , but I don't think you are correct about electric vehicles compared to ICE vehicles. Electric vehicles only come into their own when they are charged by low carbon electricity sources. Otherwise they are about equal to ICE vehicles (based on working out the grammes of CO2 per passenger km or mile). If you know differently then I would like to see your sources. Especially for the case of coal, emissions are so high per kwh that the greater efficiencies in an EV are not really enough to compensate. So you get similar emissions per km or mile. This would be different with low carbon electricity. -
Rob Honeycutt at 00:27 AM on 9 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
CDB @ 33... I should be better informed on this topic having been a veggie for the past 25 years but I believe the argument is that the land use and energy intensity for farming meat is much greater. You have to farm the food to feed the animals that are then harvested for food. By cutting out the meat you're essentially cutting out the "middle man." Honestly, it's probably an overly simplified concept because you can't just turn all grazing land into crop land. My personal opinion is that it's likely the human race will end up getting forced into a position of being more or less vegetarian as available crop lands dry out and world population continues to increase toward 9 billion. That's gonna be a lot of mouthes to feed. -
KR at 00:22 AM on 9 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD - With equal respect, this topic has been discussed on multiple threads here and elsewhere, and I have to disagree with you. (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.) The carbon footprint backup for wind, for example, has been presented as a conflict (too much CO2), without properly considering an interconnected grid covering distances >250km. Support over larger distances averages out the weather considerably, while single-site analysis is in many respects a near sighted and unreasonable comparison. Much of the solar focus has been on material limits to PV and the backups required there, whereas concentrated thermal solar power is lower tech, requires less restricted materials, and lends itself quite naturally to 24 hour+ on-site thermal backups, with an operational availability around 80% for single sites already demonstrated (without fossil fuel backup). Again, a distributed network with overcapacity is very important. The scale/size required, another frequent objection, is not out of range - see Surface Area Required to Power the Whole World With Solar and Wind Power, shown on Treehugger (horrible website name, 'tho).
Now, I fully agree that nuclear should be part of the mix; preferably (IMO) using breeder reactors and on-site reprocessing so that fuel utilization is ~90% rather than ~5% as in once-through reactors.
But what I see, repeatedly, in this and similar discussions is consistent knocking of renewable resources by what (in my opinion) appear to be nuclear supporters who consider it an either/or proposition - attacking renewables to defend nuclear. It's not! And these objections to renewables on baseload supply really do not hold up.
~25% of new power generating capacity over the last decade has been in the form of renewable sources (from Celsias). Nuclear only accounted for 2% over that period - personally I would like to see both of those numbers rise significantly. But right now renewables are replacing coal an order of magnitude faster than nuclear is. It seems a significant number of people think renewables are a reasonable proposition.
-
BBD at 00:08 AM on 9 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I should have said that I joined this thread with a five-part comment here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 23:57 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
By IPCC estimates aviation contributes about 3.5% of anthropogenic warming. This is significant but it's by far not where the big impacts come in. As I mentioned before, at least aviation is an industry that is aggressively addressing the issue. What we do individually is definitely very important, so reducing your air travel is a step in the right direction. But the big benefits come from what we do collectively to address the BIG contributing sectors, like auto-truck transportation and buildings, is where we make the BIG changes in reducing global warming. Re: Mark @ 23... I can't link to it right now but there is a good series on youtube called "Fully Charged" about electric vehicles. I think it's in the very first video where he addresses the idea that EV's are just as bad as ICE vehicles depending on the source of the electricity. That whole meme is completely wrong. If you compare well to wheel efficiencies for both electrics beat ICE vehicles by a mile even charged on coal generated electricity. Add to this the fact that batteries are set to become 3-5X more efficient this decade you can't hardly go wrong with an EV. -
ranyl at 23:39 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Farming cows and lifestock generally changes th elandscape a little! http://www.arthurrankcentre.org.uk/projects/rusource_briefings/rus07/464.pdf And cows turn CO2 into methane. http://jas.fass.org/content/73/8/2483.abstract -
CBDunkerson at 23:10 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Heraclitus wrote: "Going vegetarian (although not so effective if you choose processed products) or at least choosing pork and chicken over beef and lamb can make a real difference." This has always seemed like a logical inconsistency to me. Since we are talking about ways to reduce our carbon footprint it'd be good to get it sorted out. The reason this seems inconsistent to me is that in previous discussions a very persuasive argument has been put forward that greenhouse gas emissions from humans (that is, our actual bodies rather than our technologies) are not a concern because all the carbon we emit INTO the atmosphere was recently taken OUT of the atmosphere... in short, we recycle. To me this seems very logical... a human being cannot possibly emit a single atom of carbon which didn't come from some source of food they ate... which in turn ultimately got that carbon from the atmosphere. Yet, if this is true, would it not also apply to cows and other animals? So how exactly do cows put more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than came out of it to feed them? -
Bob Lacatena at 23:03 PM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross, Question: Does an expansion/growth of the Hadley Cells have an impact on this? Does it move certain weather patterns further north (or south in the SH) with the edges of the growing cells? Does this in turn potentially result in a greater temperature gradient, or the delivery of more moisture to a location with a more severe gradient, or the movement of the relevant weather patterns to a more or less geographically fertile region for severe storm generation? -
Tor B at 22:49 PM on 8 July 2011OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
I came across the phrase “hydrogen carbonate (formerly bicarbonate)” on a blog I frequent. Can you say a word about the nomenclature you are choosing to use? -
OPatrick at 22:44 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Watching Jeremy Rifkin (via Adelady's Climate Crock link in #19) he makes the point that the second biggest contribution to global warming is meat, particularly beef, production. Going vegetarian (although not so effective if you choose processed products) or at least choosing pork and chicken over beef and lamb can make a real difference. Flying can't be shrugged off though. If you fly regularly it's almost certain the biggest realistic change you can make in your own life is to stop flying. Even if biofuels become viable this is still energy being used that could be replacing fossil fuels elsewhere. For many this is unacceptable and it may be a long term goal, as people realise that moving abroad is going to lead to a dilemma they don't want to face. The strange thing is we are more connected than ever before and should have less need to fly. My parents lived abroad in the '60s and 70's when even 'phone calls home were prohibitively expensive. Yet they survived happily returning home only once in 4 years. Now we have instant communications in so many forms, yet people living abroad seem to feel the need to return home two or three times a year. -
mike williams at 22:34 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/ Ouch..qucik delete this.. HahahahaModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Link only messages are a contavention of the comments policy. Feel free to post links, but post them on an appropriate thread, and add a substantive comment explaining the relevance of the link to the topic of the thread. The last line is rather childish, this is not the correct blog for such behaviour. Please restrict yourself to rational, grown-up discussion of the science. Link activated; this issue is clearly off-topic, so please take any discussion to a more appropriate thread, or better still to Currys blog. -
BBD at 21:46 PM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR With respect, everything you say has been examined and discounted during the course of this thread. I know long threads are hard work, but hard work has gone into making this one so long. Please read the whole thing, then comment on specifics with reference to earlier discussion. As just one example among many, your statement that North Africa is 'a lovely place to put solar power generators' has been examined critically above and found severely wanting. I welcome serious discussion, but not endless repetition. WRT you assertions in paragraphs 1, 2 and final, please read the critique of J&D linked repeatedly in this thread. Like many commenters here you are apparently unconsciously confusing two very different things: - the claim that renewables might one day possibly make a contribution of >30% to the global energy mix - whether renewables can displace coal from the global energy mix as fast or faster than nuclear between now and 2050 -
les at 21:46 PM on 8 July 2011OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
No better post to remind people: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. great series. -
Steve Brown at 21:43 PM on 8 July 2011OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
I'm thoroughly enjoying this series. The explanation of such a complex topic beats the stuffy marine biochemistry textbook I had to use. With all this reference to saturation, do I detect a segue to a future post on Carbonate Compensation Depths? They were my favourite :-/ -
CBDunkerson at 21:06 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Dave123, you must be a big guy. I'm 6' 3" and never had any trouble with my 2004 Prius or the 2010 I recently traded it in for. I have to slide the seats WAY back, but then I can actually tilt the seat-back up for back support. On various comments above about distributed grid technology... here in New Jersey the local power company has been putting some very neat solar panels on every telephone/electrical pole with good exposure. They already own the poles so there are no zoning or permitting issues. The panels have a clamp and screws mechanism designed so that someone in a bucket truck can pull up to a utility pole and install one in about twenty minutes (including diagnostics to verify it is working and set at the optimal alignment). What's really cool is that they have converters built in so that they can feed the power directly into the local grid AND they all have 'smart grid' metering and communications... so by installing them all over the state PSE&G is effectively turning their existing 'dumb grid' into a smart grid where they have data on power flow and demand for every wire with a connected panel. Most of the power generated by the panels is also used right there on the same street where it is generated, reducing transmission losses to effectively nil. Thus far they've put up about half of the 200,000 they are planning to install in the state. There are also transparent glass windows which generate solar power. If every window, utility pole, street light, parking lot, and building roof in the world were generating smart grid connected solar power we'd have far more electricity than we currently use... without having to 'set aside' any land at all to generate it. We just need to add solar generating capabilities to infrastructure we already have in place... a process which has already begun in many places and seems to be accelerating. -
Dave123 at 20:33 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Dana, Of course 2004.... get old enough and 1 decade blurs into another. As for fitting in, in order to fit into a 2004 Prius i had to tilt the seat back so far that I had no back support at all. More recent models may be different. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:49 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
There are many other reasons to reduce fossil fuel consumption ...” I would add that these are “adequate grounds” to do absolutely everything possible to minimize energy use of fossil fuels. 1. Mortality from coal mining in China and other poor countries (which currently dominate the mining of coal in the world) is the thousands of victims (!), hundreds of thousands of people are cripples, suffer from inhaling coal dust, etc.. 2. Surface mines leave behind "lunar landscape" - millions of acres of without of soil. 3. Most of the exhaust still is not filtered. BC - aerosol - from over India, Africa (in China is getting better) is now - in the atmosphere around the world - bigger than before, when dominated by European, American and Japanese BC. 4. One "leak" from the tanker or oil platform is doing - usually - more destruction to the environment than the global waste water volume penetrating the seas and oceans. 5. Contributors of fossil fuels monopolize production and sales, use fossil fuels to political conditionality - countries without fossil fuels. 6. I live in a country dependent on coal and gas - and see how it is limited - inhibits the development of science, the development of new technologies. Carbon Lobby torpedoes any change in favor of biofuels. In many ways, Poland is - in this way - yet in the XIX century ... Whether we will be ready to prepare for the inevitable "peak oil"? Associate energy savings only with the theory of AGW is very dangerous ... But I think the biggest threat to reduce fossil fuel consumption for the development of alternative energy sources - is a way to "fight" with CO2 emissions in Europe adopted a new climate package. Faith of "Eurocracy" that large corporations - on the auctions - do not buy up (perhaps all) of CO2 emission rights, is "an admirable." In addition, large corporations will earn on geo-sequestration - are really as the only appropriate technologies and, of course, the place for CO2 storage - and even more addictive us from fossil fuels ... P.S. I commutes to work by car on gas, warmed up my house, the water heats the photovoltaic cells, use light bulbs - and other electrical appliances - a class the most energy-efficient ... Why? For liquid fuels, coal, electricity in Poland are relatively very expensive ... -
MarkR at 19:31 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
#20 quokka: solar resources in a lot of the world are more than 100% bigger than in the UK. In parts of the Mojave you get 2,200 kWh/m^2 over a year compared with 750-900 across most of the UK. Some parts of Cornwall get 1,000, but that's rare. I find it remarkable that the UK is subsidising solar power. I mean, it's wonderful, I did my masters in a solar cell physics lab and it will be really important in the future. But the UK is a ridiculous place to put panels. -
JMurphy at 19:20 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
I sometimes get the feeling that some people seem to think that because some things are hard to do, we shouldn't or can't do them, or should fall-back on options which are not necessarily ones we would choose if we had a proper choice. Perhaps we need someone to take a lead, in the way John F Kennedy once did : We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon...we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. -
ranyl at 18:58 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
"other than NOT using energy." MH post 1. Tend to agree, and need to add in biodiversity and nitrogen concerns on top of carbon ones. Where do batteries comes from? What are they mining for in the Congo? Do rubber tree plantations cause any problems? How much wildlife do cars and roads kill each year? Is the 6th mass extinction a concern? -
Dan Olner at 18:53 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark Harrigan: "it IS hard to make good decisions (other than using less) unless the price of carbon pollution is factored in (yes - we are in furious agreement on this - go the carbon tax!)" Exactly. Sometimes it seems taking any personal action is pointless without some carbon-costing mechanism to start changing behaviour through the market. To come back to flying: Dana, you didn't actually say, but do you fly? At the moment, I don't, simply because it cancels out anything else I'd attempt to do. For instance, four years ago I flew from the UK to Sydney and back, worked there for six months. That single flight was the equivalent of about a year's worth of driving, by my quick check. I suspect a lot of people still fly simply because they think it's necessary - especially academics. Can I ask who else in academia here has a position on flying? The problem is: if you exclude flying from your personal decisions on reducing carbon, doesn't that just make every other decision pointless? I'm not sure myself: I worry that not flying reduces demand, and we need the aviation industry to have a reason to innovate! Confused. Very confused. -
Mark Harrigan at 18:34 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Hi Dana @#2 Thanks for your reply - but I don't think your rebuttal of my points is comprehensive. I agree the whole prius vs hummer contrast is a bit ridiculous - but my point is that sometimes the comparison is not obvious. There are plenty of low emission car alternatives that do better than the prius (mostly diesel) and there is also lots of evidence that plug in hybrids and electric cars can actually be worse for emissions depending on the source of power. In other words it IS hard to make good decisions (other than using less) unless the price of carbon pollution is factored in (yes - we are in furious agreement on this - go the carbon tax!). I'm happy to move the discussion about the German nuclear stance to another thread but it IS evidence that a shift to more renewables is by no means easy. My claims of Solar PV are based on the recent productivy commission report. I understand there have been a number of challenges to this but the high level of subsidy HAS been an expensive way to offset carbon. So in terms of past decisions to install solar the cost HAS been way too high. Hopefully going forwards that will change. I'd much rather see Solar PV stand on it's own merits in the market - hopefully we will see that start to happen and if it can keep lowering it's cost curve, well and good. Finally - your link to the Diesendorf plan as proof that renewables can cut the mustard is not convincing. Don't get me wrong - I actually really like the plan and would love to see it trialled somewhere. But it is completely unproven and has been subject to much legitmate criticism. I have actuall posted extensively on`it in the last week or so over at that thread and have tried to be supportive but also realistic. The real issue seems to me just how much CO2 producing offset is needed and how practical that might be. So far the evidence based on the UK experience and what Germany plans to do are not promising. Happy to switch the dialogue about that to that thread but for now I maintain my view that wishful thinking plans, whilst encouraging, do not provide evidence that renewables can provide the entire answer. To pretend otherwise means we are guilty of a type of denialism that we often criticise those who do not accept the reality of AGW of committing. -
Albatross at 15:40 PM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom @289, Sorry for the delay in responding to your questions. Re "My question is, to what extent do these regions owe there intense thunderstorms to their peculiar geography, and to what extent to their mid-latitude location? Or perhaps better, are storms more frequent and intense in the tropics except under unusual geographical circumstances which promote thunderstorm and tornado formation?" Geography is important. For example, thunderstorms (including severe thunderstorms) in Canada, USA and Argentina are found in the lee (downwind side) of mountain ranges. In Argentina, they have a similar low-level barrier jet to the Great Plains low-level jet, with the South American low-level jet pulling down moisture from the Amazon (kinda like the forest equivalent of the Gulf of Mexico). Anyhow, this particular aspect is something that I am not very familiar with, at least not off the top of my head, and it is not really germane to the discussion here. Also, we are by and large in good agreement on the pertinent details concerning severe storms. Re "I continue to believe the lightning map gives a reasonable representation of thunderstorm frequency and intensity." I wholeheartedly agree about the frequency, intensity is more tricky, especially if by "intensity" one means tornadoes and severe hail. One has to be cautious when using lightning occurrence or frequency as a proxy for severe weather-- just because a region had a lot of lighting activity one month or year, does not necessarily imply that there was a higher incidence of severe thunderstorms (at least using the criteria for severe thunderstorms used by most met agencies/services). There is ongoing work in using various lightning metrics to infer storm severity, but the results so far concerning flash rate in a cell versus cell severity are not entirely clear. Goodman (1999) found evidence of jumps in flash rates preceding the occurrence of severe weather in Florida storms, others have found that the ratio of positive to negative cloud-to-ground flashes can be important discriminator for hailstorms (e.g., Liu et al. 2009). With many countries now having the luxury of sophisticated lightning detection networks that record the amperage, polarity etc. of the strikes, and some progress is being made. IMHO, lightning data is underutilized and much is still to be learned by looking at lightning data more closely.
Prev 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 Next
