Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 Next
Comments 11151 to 11200:
-
william5331 at 06:03 AM on 18 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
Here is a reference
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/14/hydrogen-from-renewables-could-make-emissions-free-steel-possible/
-
william5331 at 05:58 AM on 18 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
Just curious. Is it possible to use the reducing power of hydrogen to make steel instead of coke.
-
michael sweet at 23:45 PM on 17 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
Nigelj and Sauerj:
Jacobson 2011 (cited over 1100 times) has done the analysis for renewable energy and all the materials, including land for the panels, are readily available for renewable energy. Jacobson discusses the amounts of materials used for the panels and wind turbines. Recycling solar panels and wind turbines is covered. Your 1.2 mm (? what does mm mean) per day seems off. Perhaps a comparison to Jacobson, which is peer reviewed, is warrented.
Jacobson found that all materials exist in adequate quantaties except for rare earth metals used in the turbines. Since then the designers of wind turbines have reduced the use of rare earth metals so that is not an issue.
By contrast, Abbott 2012, published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (and other places and here), shows that sufficient materials for significant nuclear plants (more than 5% of world power) do not exist. (Nuclear plants also use a lot of rare earth elements.) No nuclear supporter has attempted to show that enough materials exist for nuclear plants. On Tamino's site a nuclear supporter told me to contact an economic geolgist on my own for answers when I asked if materials existed. No citations exist.
It currently costs more to run a nuclear plant with no mortgage than to build and run a new renewable plant including mortgage costs. Nuclear is not economic.
-
michael sweet at 23:20 PM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
This Scientific American article discusses using electricity directly to manufacture steel. It appears that it is possible to use electricity to manufacture steel directly. One issue is the cost of rebuilding current factories. If CO2 cost was high it would be more economic. How much do people want to reduce CO2?
-
Johnb at 22:41 PM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
Here’s one possible technology being looked at
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link tool in the comments editor.
-
MA Rodger at 18:50 PM on 17 April 2019Models are unreliable
Ignorant Guy @1104,
You are entirely correct to say that the problem is the use of the phrase "hottest year since X" when what is meant is "hottest year on record" when X is the start-year of that record. Looking at a few of those thousands of Google hits, the phrase usually does not track back to 'responsible' organisations but it seems to be later reporting when journalist-speak for "hottest year on record" & "the record began in X" is edited down to a shorter phrase.
There is ClimateChangeNews who use the headline "Earth on course for hottest year since 1880" yet NOAA put it as the likely "new record for the warmest annual average temperature since records began in 1880." Note this NOAA statement is correct. The ClimateChangeNews headline is not correct -1880 was a lot colder than the year they were reporting about - 2015.
Mind, the press officers attached to the likes of NOAA or NASA are also journalists and not immune to compressing information into a single but inaccurate statement. Although the article does say "Last year was the third consecutive year in which global temperatures were more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) above late nineteenth-century levels," it also promenantly says "Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA."
But even so, you'd surely have to be a bit of a foolish pedant to run away with the belief that 1880 was as warm or warmer than today's temperatures, even if you inhabited that contrarian planet Wattsupia.
-
scaddenp at 13:42 PM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
I am a little intrigued by the comment: "coking coal is replaced by gas/electricity".
My understanding is that making steel needs CO to reduction of Fe oxides, some carbon for the Fe-C alloy that is steel, and importantly, the porosity to allow the CO circulate within the furnace. I can see gas can provide CO, but the porosity? I know of bio-coke trials (happening here), but is there a commercial process for steel from iron ore without coke yet?
-
jonb at 12:43 PM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
Thanks for the clarification. I'll just add that the replacement of coking coal to make steel and other metals with the use of direct electrical smelting or the use of gas will be a quite slow process due to economics - hence Australian coking coal exports will be fine for at least the next decade or so. On the other hand the replacement of thermal coal for electricity generation, both in Australia and around the world, will be and is a quick process by replacement by renewables (and gas) and is already happening quickly as the article mentioned.
Whether new coking coal mines are needed in Australia is difficult to say. This was brought up in the Rocky Hill court case in NSW and the judge decided (on what basis was not really shown) that no more coking coal mines were needed to meet Australian export needs. This case may be appealed - we'll see.
-
Riduna at 12:01 PM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
jonb – thank you for your comment.
In 2018/19 the expected value of coking coal exports is a reported estimate of ~$38 billion and for thermal coal ~$28 billion, though both are predicted to decline in value in 2019/20. A downward trend in the value of Australian coal exports, seems likely to continue thereafter as coking coal is replaced by gas/electricity and thermal coal is replaced by solar/wind generators.
-
jonb at 11:07 AM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
On the contary to the first comment I think this is a very unclear article. After mentioning the difference between coking/metallurgical coal and thermal coal early in the article all mention of coking coal and its role in exports is dropped. Australia exports are a majority of coking coal (more than 60% of value I think) used to make steel and other metals. While using this coal adds to considerable greenhouse gas emissions, at the moment there is no other economically way to make steel (excluding recycling). So unless we are prepared to give up or severely reduce our use of steel we will need to mine and use large amounts of coking coal. On the other hand thermal coal is completely replaceable in the generation of electricity by gas, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave etc. The article needs to explain this difference and hence the quite different future for Australian exports of coking coal (probably good) versus thermal coal (not so good as described). Of course Adani (and all the other proposed Galilee Basin mines) is a proposed thermal coal mine and that is why it is quite unlikely to ever go ahead.
-
Ignorant Guy at 10:30 AM on 17 April 2019Models are unreliable
The pattern "hottest year since VXYZ" is rather usual. As an example we can go to NOAA's web-site for presenting time series for global land and ocean temperature anomalies at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019. You can see that the particular data set presented there is from 1880 upto now. And in this set there are new annual top records lately set in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Those years it was correct to refer to this data and say "this is the hottest year since 1880". And there are of course other data sets, global and regional, so other years are possible.
I tried to net-search (with Google) for some instances of this pattern. I found:
"hottest year since 1880" 18900 hits
"hottest year since 1895" 59 hits
"hottest year since 1896" 14 hits
"hottest year since 1900" 51 hits
"hottest year since 1901" 97 hits
"hottest year since 1909" 11 hits
"hottest year since 1910" 28 hits
But the point is that if I say "2016 was the hottest year since 1880" that could make someone believe that I mean that 1880 was hotter. I most certainly do not mean that. So I avoid that particular wording. -
scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 17 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
ELIofVA - I did an analysis of how my countrymen (NZers) spent energy and results were a little depressing on the conservation front. Every country would be different but it is worth looking at. Home energy costs were about 10% of energy used. Even a 100% reduction doesnt reduce emissions much. Worse, here at least where we have 85% renewable electricity, home energy wasnt a big part of emissions. Transport, especially flying and cars (retail petrol), were the big factors. With cars at least, a move to electric is a big saving. And the elephant in the room was the embodied energy in all the stuff we consume. Reduce, reuse, recycle (in that order) is probably the biggest conservation measure we can make outside transport.
-
nigelj at 06:40 AM on 17 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
Metals are a finite resource and some are quite rare. It's very troubling but would effect nuclear power as well as renewables.
But the answers are difficult. I suspect people wont voluntarily go without electricity, heating, computers, and transport etcetera.
The most realistic answer is probably a fairly urgent drive to waste less, more energy efficient appliances and getting population growth to stop. Does the world need more people? I can't see a good reason why.
-
william5331 at 05:56 AM on 17 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
Nuclear power is relatively safe as long as we have our present economy and infrastructure but we seem to be in the final phase of an exponential growth curve. In the real world of biology, these end in a vertical graph — straight down. Under these conditions, the finance and infrastructure no longer remains to manage these devices and they are likely to all go critical and melt down. This will result in areas around the plants which are no go areas of high level radioactivity. Anyway, on a practical level, even now, wind and solar are financially feasible to replace fossil fuel and energy storage systems are improving by leaps and bounds. We probably do not need nuclear. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/12/energy-storage.html
-
nigelj at 05:40 AM on 17 April 2019The Future for Australian Coal
This is a clear, well composed, and well ordered article full of detail. Almost a textbook example.
-
ELIofVA at 23:52 PM on 16 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
These kinds of discussions seem to always imply that our current energy demand primarily satisified with fossil fuels must be replaced with low carbon electric production. The low hanging fruit is reducing the energy demand through conservation. Pricing carbon emissions using a carbon tax would create a demand for the conservation sector of the economy. We could retrofit all our existing buildings to be super energy efficient. This becomes more economical as carbon emissions become expensive. Yes, it would be inflationary. I do not think we should commit to our current level of abundance as a given. That is leading us to disaster.
-
sauerj at 23:15 PM on 16 April 2019Should a Green New Deal include nuclear power?
I'm a bit concerned about a plan does not ALSO include an aggressive NP component, but only subsidizes for a 100% RE direction. If people were to study what it would take to achieve 100% RE (both in coverage of land, how much MASS of material will need to be mined out of the ground and how much MASS of material is needed to keep replenishing all of that as it depreciates), then environmentally minded people would start scratching their heads and say, whoa, I didn't realize how much we have to eat up the earth (read: that much harder to get off fossil fuels) to achieve 100% RE (no gas peaking in the mix).
This video HERE is a little nerdy and these two guys throw out the #'s WAY too fast. But it is a real head scratcher. The chart at the very end makes NO sense to me and they don't explain it well. But, the chart near the beginning that shows the necessary land coverage is troubling. Then, the real WHOOPER is that 1.2mm solar panels would have to be replaced EVERY DAY and FOREVER just to replenish the ones that wear out (on a 40 year rotation cycle). ... I've checked their numbers; they are not lying about this.
For any environmental person who also is very anti-NP and is willing to put due diligence in what we ultimately have to do to achieve 100% RE, then this should deeply make them think twice. If they are REALLY about zero emissions, then they've GOT to reconcile with this.
Shellenberger videos are also very good on this subject, such as THIS one.
I know NP takes time, but if we go the 100% RE route (like Germany, vs France), and don't succeed to get below 50% reductions 30-40 years from now (due to the not having a stable baseload source and use a lot of gas peaking power to 100% avoid brown outs), and then realize we need some other form of stable baseload NP, then we will be that much more be behind. So, I think we need to look at what it really takes to go 100% RE and then be honestly realistic. If that path doesn't seem really plausible, then we should ALSO include NP (R/D and commercialization) in the accelerated GND program. ... HERE is a good site to use to compare France w/ Germany.
Ultimately we ALSO need a rev-neu CT so to comprehensively address the underpinnings of our economy away from carbon consumption as well. The current EICDA bill (#763) is ideal for this (now up to 30 house co-sponsors). -
Postkey at 17:58 PM on 16 April 2019Models are unreliable
And where have you 'often' heard, "this year is the hottest year since 1898"?
-
scaddenp at 09:26 AM on 16 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Looking at effect of subsidies, I am not following your argument on price. The Lazard graphic linked in orginal is unsubsidies cost. Comparison and effect of subsidies is in the linked 2018 Lazard report from the article. Graphic comparison of cost with/without subsidies for renewables in US:
Comparison with fossil fuels
And dont forget that FF is also subsidized.
-
scaddenp at 07:40 AM on 16 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinking Man, I followed your link which was to again blog (and from a energy advocacy) but the blog did fortunately link to their source of data namely CME here. On pg 6, we find:
"The comparator countries are all members of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)."which is somewhat different from "highest electricity rates in the world". The data is from 2015 except for exclusions noted. So no, I was not moving the posts back several years, and not updated since SA installed the storage battery for instance. Note too that the leading edge energy blog compares 2017 prices in Oz to 2015 prices in rest of world.
Furthermore, the prices paid in other countries are converted to AUD at "Purchasing Power Parity", which is a good methodology, but a different basis to that for world electricity comparison in my source.
I would say that your industry blog is misrepresenting their data source frankly. I would also say, that if you want to make a case renewables and electricity pricing, then you need to be comparing wholesale generation rates not retail, since retail is affected by many considerations other than the full cost of generating the required power. In your accc.gov reference, I find wholesale cost makes up 31% of the retail price. The report does quite an analysis of change in wholesale price. Retirement of coal plants and slow development of new capacity certainly do figure but SA is also particularly vunerable to gas price. Market issues around concentration and gaming the system were also identified.
-
Ignorant Guy at 06:27 AM on 16 April 2019Models are unreliable
CommonSense @ 1099
Yes, we often hear things like e g "this year is the hottest year since 1898". But that does not mean that 1898 was hotter. It usually only means that the data set referred to starts at 1898. So the phrase is shorthand for "this year is the hottest year in the entire data set upto this year. And that data set starts in 1898".
Note to others: And that's a good reason to avoid that ambiguous way of phrasing. Because if you try to interpret it using only your common sense you may get it all wrong. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:21 AM on 16 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinking man, it would be appreciated if you could format the links so they actually function and can be clicked on. Use the insert tab, the rest is fairly self explanatory. As it stands, I didn't follow your links because I didn't have the patience. It may be that you have a point with the Australian electricity prices but so what? The higher prices reflect the real costs, they are not as artificially low as fossil fuel electricity that relies on higher externalization. Everywhere in the world, we are going to have to get used to higher electricity prices, or pay dearly in other ways. Where I live, we enjoy very low electricity prices due to the abundance of hydropower in our mix. I personally would have no problem absorbing a cost increase of 50 or 75% if it was for the purpose of switching to all or more renewables. That is something I am willing to spend money for, it's worth the cost. I will gladly cut on less important petty consumption to allow for that.
Whatever we think we save with cheap power is externalized. It does not go away. It accumulates, compounding interest in that pesky physical world where money is irrelevant. Then the physical world leverages its position, most recently in the disastrous form that has been predicted by climate science. Australia, and Europe, and the US all have experienced record heat, fires, drought and heavy rains on a regular basis in the recent past. Houston saw three 500 year type of rain events in 3 consecutive years; this year's extreme weather in the midwest is adding to the bill; Australia has been burning its summers with fervor several years in a row, while the great barrier is showing signs of stress never seen before. What's the price tag?
I do have to agree with you on one point though, the regular joes are the ones coughing up the dough in this mess. I don't see the people who raked in profits from fossil fuels pitching in now to help those who lost their farm, their house. Are the fossil fuel barons offering extraordinary help for the great barrier? Considering how much denial they spread, even if they did, that would be a token. Capitalism being what it is, they continue to try to obtain maximum advantage, at the expense of everything and everybody else. Within this dominant ideology, one can hardly blame the wind industry of also trying to obtain maximum advantage...
-
ThinkingMan at 00:28 AM on 16 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
This post replies to scaddenp’s misleading comment about South Australia electricity prices and the commonly made claim wind electricity is cheap. Another post will deal with other comments about other points made by me.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA ELECTRICITY PRICES— scaddenp moved the goal posts back a few years and to the average for all of Australia. During those years, much has happened in South Australia plus the neighboring states of Victoria and New South Wales to drive up their electricity prices. Specifically, South Australia and New South Wales have closed thermal generators, installed renewables and increased purchases of electricity from Victoria.
All three states now pay extraordinarily high prices for electricity. The 27 June 2017 issue of Australia’s ABC (aka Australian Broadcasting Corporation) makes the same point made by the Financial Review article scaddenp disputed. See: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/sa-has-most-expensive-power-prices-in-the-world/8658434 . An Aussie energy services firm shares that assessment. See: https://www.leadingedgeenergy.com.au/highest-electricity-prices-world/ The point is: South Australia’s electricity price became the HIGHEST IN THE WORLD during the second half of 2017.
The assessment is based on data from the US Energy Information Administration for electricity prices outside Australia. Domestic sources provided electricity prices for the Australian states.
The 18% price increase cited in the Australian Financial Review and ABC articles and elsewhere merely worsened the global rankings of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. Their retail electricity prices were already among the 5 highest in the world in early 2017 and during 2016. See pages 12 & 13 of http://cmeaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/160708-FINAL-REPORT-OBS-INTERNATIONAL-PRICE-COMPARISON.pdf .
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission echo the assessment that retail electricity prices are higher in South Australia than elsewhere in the world. See p. 26 of https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Inquiry%20-%20Preliminary%20report%20-%2013%20November%202017.pdf .
WIND MUST BE THE CHEAPEST SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY because wind wins power auctions.
Wind has lower levelized costs than and gets picked ahead of new natural gas generators and old coal fired generators largely because of preferential treatment by government. Preferential treatments range from “renewable portfolio standards” to loading order regulations favoring wind to production tax credits, investment tax credits, property tax rebates, renewable energy certificates and other forms of assistance.
Renewable mandates affect long and short term decisions about wind’s share of total electricity supply. In the U.S., Renewable portfolio standards profoundly affect the types of generators constructed and closed, as well as how much of each. “Loading instructions” influence wind’s share of “day ahead” sourcing decisions. California’s Public Utility Commission, for example, orders the CA ISO to choose renewables before choosing fossil fuel generated electricity. See: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/How-Electricity-Gets-Bought-and-Sold-in-California#gs.4p4rxu
How important are tax credits, tax rebates, renewable energy certificates and other forms of financial assistance? They are vital individually and collectively. The U.S. production tax credit was $23 / MWh in 2015 & 2016. $23 is almost 60% of the levelized cost of wind power shown on the SkepticalScience blog that started this discussion. In the New England region of the U.S., renewable energy certificates were valued at $45-50 / MWh in 2015. $45-50 exceeds the levelized cost. In one of the New England states, Massachusetts, renewable energy certificates exist because “… renewable projects cannot generate enough revenue for private developers to finance the project solely from selling electricity … . Private developers rely on REC sales to the utilities in order to make up the difference.” (source: www.massclimateaction.org/recs ). Maine’s Green Power program buys renewable energy certificates to offset renewables’ cost disadvantage vs. conventional electricity (see: https://www.maine.gov/mpuc/greenpower/faq.shtml ). My town granted a 60% property tax reduction to the wind farm located here.
The financial and competitive advantages gained from the above is revealed by the wind lobby’s efforts in 2015 to extend U.S. incentives that were about to expire. The wind lobby pushed to extend incentives even though the investment per unit of capacity had plunged over the 2010-2015 period and further declines were anticipated.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed links (I hope). Please learn how to create links yourself using the link tool (chain icon) in the comments editor. It is simple to do.
-
william5331 at 05:13 AM on 15 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #15
Massie, with two MIT engineering degrees has discovered real-politics. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. It is almost unthinkable that he doesn't realize that the climate is changing and that we are doing it so he is looking to who will pay for his next election campaign. Far better a one term politician who is honest than a multi term politician who continually bows to vested interests.
-
Dora Pan at 12:09 PM on 13 April 2019Stauning and Friis-Christensen on Solar Cycle Length and Global Warming
The misleading Friis-Christensen correlation is again presented by a german anthroposophic wannabe guru. No that the Fridays For Future movement gets attention, many deniers shoot counter attacks, blaming the activists to be manipulated.
-
Brentkn at 05:43 AM on 13 April 2019What will Earth look like in 2100?
Okay.
This year the Arctic is expected to become ice free.
When that happens the polar air will shift to Greenland where there still is ice. This will dramtically change the jet streams in the northern hemisphere and we can expect to see even more wild weather extremes.
But that is not the biggest threat.
Warmer air will move into the Arctic region which just so happens to be surrounded by permafrost. There is enough greenhouse gases in the permafrost to triple what we currently have in our atmosphere. It is over 7 times more than what we have emitted with the burning of fossil fuels in the last 300 years.
In the seabed below the Arctic ocean there are vast reserves of methane hydrates that can destabilize from the water warming up. Just 1% of that being released will cause a global extinction.
The President of Finland has already stated that if we lose the Arctic, we lose the world.
When the Arctic loses all of it's ice, it will be like turning off the air conditioner in the Northern Hemisphere during the hottest time of the year.
Temperatures will very quickly climb by as much as 18°C in just a decade.
We will see a 4-5°C rise in just 3 years. A 3°C rise is probably enough to kill off most humans.
It's not the temperature rise that will kill us but the speed in which it happens.
Whereas humans have proven to be versatile with temperature change, the species that we depend on for food and the air we breathe are not so resilient to temperature changes.
Even if we could somehow survive the extreme heatwave events during the summer months, we would still need food, clean water and an atmosphere with at least 19% oxygen content.
Sorry folks but the oxygen content is also falling. That is to be expected when we chop down the trees that provide the oxygen. Wildfires will destroy the rest as well as convert some of the oxygen to CO2.
Can the world really change in 81 years?
Just in the last 40 years there has been a loss of 60% of the world's wildlife. It's not going to take another 40 years for the rest to die off.
81 years is more than enough time for the world to change.Moderator Response:[DB] "This year the Arctic is expected to become ice free"
That's not what the science tells us to expect. Pretty much most of what you wrote after that is nonsense. This is not the venue for you, if you're going to engage in speculation and fearmongering.
Rhetoric and sloganeering snipped. -
Philip at 22:49 PM on 12 April 2019What will Earth look like in 2100?
Imagine we would have evolved just a million years ago , do you think climate would have changed ? To what it is now ? Climate has been changing, is changing , and will always be changing untill our sun becomes a red star. We can't even predict the weather correctly for the next month . And you are talking about predicting the weather in 2100 ? The best way to go is nuclear power, solar and wind is a strain on the environment . Nuclear thorium power , that is. I am far more worried about platstics everywhere in the food chain.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering, off-topic, logical fallacies and disinformation snipped. Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy and comport future comments to comply with it.
-
MA Rodger at 18:46 PM on 12 April 2019Models are unreliable
CommonSense @1099,
I will read your comment less literally than Eclectic @1100.
The instrument temperature records becomes less extensive the further we run back in time, eventually measuring just Western Europe, Eastern US & a record in India. And then they require the invention of thermometers so there are none before the 1700s. But there are proxy measurements that show us (with the few temperature records) that global temperature was cooler in those times.
The proxy data on its own allows us to see that it was warm back a few thousand years ago (the Holocene Thermal Maximum) and warmer still 100,000 years ago (the Eemian Thermal Maximum). Before that, to find it hotter still, you have to go back millions of years to the time when North & South America were joining together and there was no Arctic Sea Ice. But one difficulty in a definitive ruling about how hot these periods were relative to today is calibrating those proxy data with instrument data. The evidence is pointing to today being hotter than the Holocene Maximum but not as hot as the Eemian, athough we soon would be if we allow AGW to run its course. And the present warming is sudden relative to the arrival of those earlier warm periods.
As for the thermal effect of solar panels. The panels must surely absorb more solar energy than the land without the panels. And a portion of that extra heating will replace fossil fuel use. As fossil fuel use results in higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that portion of extra heating by the panels results in an annual reduction in warming at least equal to that portion of extra heating. So after 10 years, the CO2 from the fossil fuels would have beeen warming the planet 10x more than the extra heating.
Mother Nature will surely take care of the planet in the long run. But the mass extinction humanity is generating in the meantime will be very destructive, for humanity as well as for the natural world.
-
Eclectic at 18:18 PM on 12 April 2019Models are unreliable
"CommonSense" @1099 :
<Well, I don't have the credentials of many of you ... >
Actually, the word you meant was credibility.
Gain some credibility by citing the evidence that "temps were the same or higher in the 19th century". Your other claims are similarly bizarre, and seem to be based on religion rather than science. Or you are simply jesting.
-
TVC15 at 17:44 PM on 12 April 2019Climate's changed before
Hi Again,
I'm not sure how to respond to these types of denalist claims.
So how does one parse out the individual influences of the sun, CO2, water, and now "sulphate aerosols"?
-
CommonSense17589 at 15:30 PM on 12 April 2019Models are unreliable
Well, I don't have the credentials of many of you, but I do have some understanding of statistics, modeling, and the like. I also understand that if you take a graph of temps from any small period of time, (remembering that we could be dealing with a couple of billion years, at least, that you can pretty much get any trend you want, if you only look at a few hundred of those years. I also often hear thing like 'this is the hottest year since e.g.,1898, which leads me to ask the question about how we have suddenly caused a cataclysm, yet the temps were the same or higher in the 19th century (before the proliferation of the internal combustion engine) Lastly, I know that solar panels generate lots of heat, so why does anyone think that having 100x the number (or more) will somehow reduce the average temperature of 'anywhere'. Somehow, I think that Mother Nature will take care of the planet just fine, while we waste our time trying to justify a few degrees here and there, when I doubt that we could have done anything to prevent (or help) any of the Ice Ages . . . let's think a little more long term, rather than just a few hundred years . . . then maybe wecan accomplish something productive.
Moderator Response:[DB] "yet the temps were the same or higher in the 19th century (before the proliferation of the internal combustion engine)"
There's no evidence of that. Please use evidence for claims instead of making things up.
-
scaddenp at 10:45 AM on 12 April 20192015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
curiousd - in my understanding, the effect of forcing change is usually interested in the change in radiation at the surface. This must produce a temperature change on the surface in accordance with S-B to satisfy 1st law. However, the energy lost from that heated surface will be mix of radiation, evoration and convection. Ultimately though, at TOA, these convert to radiative losses. While the conventional energy balances figures show atmospheric convection etc , they dont show the energy associated with ocean systems. Not immediately apparent to me why not.
-
scaddenp at 07:38 AM on 12 April 2019Does providing information on geoengineering reduce climate polarization?
"That geoengineering is an anethma to climate activists is hardly a secret"
It is? I think that should read "some climate activists". I hear increasing talk of requiring more geoengineering than CO2 reduction because we are not doing it fast enough.
Can you point to me any geoengineering scheme which is a ""get out of jail free" card? All that I have seen about CDR or SRM involve large costs and various SRM schemes (eg sulphate aerosols) have significant enviromental risks as well.
I'd be all for geoengineering provided is a/ safe and b/ more cost-effective than emission reduction.
-
bricoyle at 04:46 AM on 12 April 2019Does providing information on geoengineering reduce climate polarization?
This article misinterprets Kahan's work. It's four years old, but the subject is more important than ever.
Kahan studies polarization that forms around scientific issues, particularly those that evince scientific consensus. He does research on public response to vacines, evolution, and more.
Skuce critized Kahan's study for the type of geoengineering information it presented: giant scrubber filters, organics to accelerate ocean CO2 absorbtion, reflectors that "could be turned on and off" to reduce solar heating. Skuce is correct that these are very expensive and require massive deployment, which isn't stated in Kahan's material. For that reason, Skuce claims subjects were misled to believe geoengineering was an affordable option.
Kahan did not describe the most likely to be deployed technology, stratospheric geoengineering. That is "affordable" and far easier to understand. Kahan didn't use it because he wanted to emphasize a human ingenuity "dimension". Many who study the public's response to climate change posit that its mass scale and global impact make people anxious and unable to respond. The human agency implied by clever technology might mitigate that.
But Kahan also finds that people shape their opinions about global warming in response to what others believe. For example, Republicans were much less skeptical about it near the end of the G.W. Bush administration, when prominant party leaders expessed strong agreement with climate change consensus. Republicans become strongly opposed, however, when they recall that Gore is a leading global warming activist, and that President Obama pulled together the Paris agreement.
That geoengineering is an anethma to climate activists is hardly a secret. That it could temporarily delay global warming acceleration is something many activists want to avoid discussing. Instead they jump to censor it, sometimes stating that human technology caused global warming, so deploying more technology to solve it is illogical. Most would not object to having complex medical technology treat themselves or a loved one, even though cancer may be caused by technological byproducts.
This censorship is tacitly, if not manifestly, understood by many climate change skeptics. Hence attractive geoengineering information demonstrates their ideological opponents aren't morally superior, because they repress an important solution to a great crisis. As preceding comments show, some activists put their intentions clearly: they don't want geoengineering discussed, because it's a "get out of jail free" card. They want to corner skeptics, humble them into assention, and talk about geoengineering may defuse that.
Unfortunately, human nature doesn't work like that. When people are cornered, they fight.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
-
Xulonn at 01:59 AM on 12 April 2019Why results from the next generation of climate models matter
I follow CMIP and IPCC developments with great interest, and my daily Skeptical Science emails like the one that linked to this article are greatly appreciated.
Science and science reporting websites and web pages are targeted at varying levels of reader technical expertise. Good, accurate information is always right at the tip of your fingers via Google and other internet search engines, although clever folks in AGW/CC denialist and anti-scientist websites can overwhelm and bury actual peer-reviewed science and legitimate science reporting under mountains of clever and persuasive b.s.
Websites like this John Cook project - Skeptical Science - have for me replaced Science News Magazine, my favorite back in the 1980's and 1990's. Back then, I worked in sales and tech support for a company that developed and sold early examples of scientific software programmed to work on MS-DOS PC's. Science News was our most effective advertising venue, because at the time, it was the most read multidisciplinary scientific news magazine.
Science News and Skeptical Science both publish short informational articles that allow one to keep up with current scientific research and news - small bits of knowledge and accurate summaries to keep us informed and provide incentive for further reading.
It is best to look at climate science as a continuous endeavor that produces periodic reports and summaries - and no endpoint. Each report here at Skeptical Science is just another milestone as the work continues. Scientific papers and reports - in this case, about climate science - are simply more pieces of a never-finished puzzle that can be seen as an evolving and clearly recognizable threat to human civilization.
-
Xulonn at 01:54 AM on 12 April 2019Why results from the next generation of climate models matter
@william - To find out would be as easy as an 8th grade science assignment... LINK.
Within 30 seconds, I discovered that there are ongoing detailed discussions of aerosols and constraints on how to to incorporate them in CMIP6. (Searchng fo aerosols and CMIP5 also yields impressive results on the massive amount of research and ongoing discussion about the role of aerosols vs AGW/CC in the current report.)
Many people "wonder" about and ask questions about science at public internet forums and news sites, which is not the best approach. Robust and comprehensive free scientific information is readily availble on the internet.
-
Turco at 00:47 AM on 12 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
As someone who is generally opposed to government mandates and taxes I find the news that renewables are becoming cheaper an excellent development . If wind and solar power do indeed underbid fossil fuels we will see gradual adoption of renewable energy without government interference. Win/win for pretty much everyone
-
michael sweet at 21:31 PM on 11 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thjinkingman:
I cannot find your calculation on the link you provided. Please link to the page where it exists.
-
william5331 at 14:42 PM on 11 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
All the comples psycho-babble doesn't negate the simple fact that if the politicians depend for the financing of their next election by vested interests, they will do their bidding. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. It really is a simple as that.
-
scaddenp at 13:31 PM on 11 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
This analysis for Minnesota putting grid storage options cheaper than gas peakers by 2023 if not earlier.
"Compared to a simple-cycle gas-fired peaking plant, storage was more cost-effective at meeting Minnesota’s capacity needs beyond 2022."
Figure on Pg 38 shows Solar + storage is already cheaper than gas peaker.
I suspect however that regional factors are important - availability of wind, solar, existance of conventional hydro etc.
-
michael sweet at 12:32 PM on 11 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman,
And yet as I have already stated, wind and solar underbids gas plants. Perhaps if you analyzed the actual bids you could provide more understanding.
I am not surprised that you can generate very high cost estimates for renewable energy using unrealistic parameters. For starters, renewable energy does not require 5% spinning reserve and that figure should be completely removed from your calculations. Solar complements wind since it is usually windier at night and sunnier during the day. Wind and solar combinations are cheaper than either alone.
Your calculation is a fake product developed by the fossil and nuclear industries to fool the uninformed. Please provide a peer reviewed citation to support your wild claims.
From the site you linked:
"Renewables such as wind and solar now account for the majority share of new electricity generation capacity being built globally." and
"Beyond policy goals, the growth of renewables is supported by their improving cost outlook. According to Lazard’s year-end 2017 estimate, levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for utility-scale renewable electricity continues to fall, averaging $45 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for unsubsidized wind power and $45 to $50 per MWh for utility-scale solar, compared to approximately $60 per MWh for combined-cycle natural gas." and
"As technology costs fall and environmental concerns grow, renewable-energy systems offer more and more opportunities for incumbents and new entrants alike."
These quotes hardly support your wild claims.
Jacobson 2018 and Connolly 2015 describe cost effective renewable energy systems that suppply all power for the economy.
Coal pollution alone kills over 10,000 people in the USA alone every year and results in over $40 billion in helath care costs. Switching to renewable energy would save all those lives and the cost of the hospitalizations. You and I are the ones who pay for that hospital care.
Why would you choose to continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry by paying for all those health care costs (not to mention the people they kill)?
-
curiousd at 11:48 AM on 11 April 20192015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
I have been reading the new work by Laliberte, that analyzes the earths atmosphere as a heat engine and predicts fewer but more violent storms.
This brought to mind that there a heat engine aspect to textbook analysis of Global Warming I have never quite understood. Consider the standard treatment of the Earth with no GHG. One knows the flux incident on the Earth from the Sun and considers the earth as having no GHG but an albedo of about 0.3. The Earth and Sun are clearly in themal balance in this case and the average Earth temperature comes out about 254 K.
In all textbooks I have read, one assumes that, even with an atmosphere, there must be thermal balance between the Earth and the Sun. Then if there is some forcing by - say - a burst of methane, eventually the Earth reacts to that forcing F by attaining a corresponding increase in temperature at the Earth's surface.
But consider the First Law of Thermodynamics: If the Earth's intermal energy is U then U2 - U1 = F. But the new internal energy U2 could have a mechanica component. Say the forcing F is applied; then concieveably U2 = U2(T) + U2(mechanical) --I could apply heat to a container of water and not only incrrease the temperature but also produce a convective flow in addition.
Perhaps one could argue that the forcing acts adiabatically on the water molecules in the atmosphere so that U2(mechanical) is small. But I have never seen this covered in any text to date; the assumption is always made that all the forcing goes into a temperature increase.
As far as Climate Change is concerned, the U2(mechanical) term could be as or more damaging as if the entire U2 -U1 were thermal.
Comments?
-
ThinkingMan at 09:19 AM on 11 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
The prior post discussed why reliable service needs to be considered when selecting sources for electricity. This post discusses the cost of reliable service. Because readers appear to value reasoning, how costs were arrived at is explained. Then, the cost estimates are shown.
At present and for the next several years, the lowest cost way to structure reliable service around wind turbines is to supplement them with natural gas fired generators. The latter have lower capital requirements, life cycle costs, technical risks and operating risks than pumped storage, grid scale battery storage and other storage systems. For more information go to https://www.mckinsey.com/search?q=renewable%20electricity . This web site has numerous articles providing insights into conventional and clean electricity systems. McKinsey is a well-respected consulting company.
Thus, for this post, wind turbines are combined with natural gas fired generators into an integrated, coherent operating unit that supplies a steady flow of electricity every minute of every hour, every hour of every day and every day of a year. A steady flow system is easier to design and to discuss. Furthermore, a large fraction of the grid’s need is steady. All equipment is assumed to be new and dedicated to the unit. Again, this simplifies discussion.
The mix of generating capacity is: Every 100 units of rated wind turbine capacity is supplemented with 50 units of cycling, dispatchable gas fired capacity plus 5 units of gas fired spinning reserves. Cycling, dispatchable gas fired capacity is similar to “gas peaker” capacity (the green line) in the first graph in the SkepticalScience article that started this discussion.
The 100/50/5 mix suffices to make big points. Optimization is not necessary. Nor is optimization appropriate here because optimization is site specific. In Texas, this mix will supply about 5,250,000 MWh of reliable electricity per 1000 MW of rated wind turbine capacity. Wind’s share is 61%. Cycling reserves contribute 29%, and spinning reserves contribute 10%.
In New England, it will supply about 4,800,000 MWh. The respective shares are 49%, 43% and 8%.
A conventional choice for baseload power is a combined cycled combustion turbine fueled with natural gas (CCGT). Per unit of electricity, its CO2 emissions are about half that of a coal fired generator. Its full production costs (capital charges + operating costs) are also lower than coal fired generators. So, this post compares CCGT costs with the reliable wind unit. CCGT fit into the “gas baseload” category (light brown line) on the graph.
The graph supports the main, challenged, point of my initial post. The point is: Total production costs for reliable electricity service structured around wind turbines substantially exceed costs for a baseload gas generator. Reliable costs for the former are around $90 per MWh, 1.65x the latter. This is based on TX experience with wind. In New England, reliable cost is In New England, the figures are $112 and 2x.
The $90 and $112 estimates are based on 2018 values eyeballed off the graph. Eyeballed values suffice for this discussion. The value for electricity sourced from a gas peaker is $205/MWh, wind turbines $40 and gas baseload (proxy for spinning reserves) $55. The reference point is the center of each line. The values by generator were weighted by each generator’s share of system energy to calculate the reliable wind figure. The shares for TX are .29 for cycling reserves, .61 for wind and .1 for spinning reserves. The arithmetic for TX is: $90 = (.29 * $205 + .61 * $40 + .1 * $55). The shares for New England are respectively, .43, .49 and .08. The arithmetic for New England is: $112 = (.43 * $205 + .49 * $40 + .08 * $55).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:59 AM on 11 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
nigelj,
The opening statement of Sunspot's comment @22 is contradicted by the content of the 3rd para. of that comment. That was what prompted me to not accept the opening statement of the comment.
-
nigelj at 06:43 AM on 11 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
OPOF @26, yes the probabilities of problems has only got worse. And will continue to get worse if we do nothing.
I do think the realclimate.org article on worst case scenarious is good science overall. It's a sober, solid risk assessment in most ways. Some people get a little carried away with climate risks and have made big exaggerated claims about imminent human extinction, imminent methane bombs etc. The denialists use this to then discredit global warming theory and the whole scientific extablishment by association.
Having said that, the realclimate article struck me as too conservative in some ways. Essentially their theory is there are a number of dangerous tipping points that could lead to rapid change including relatively sudden methane releases, amoc slowdown, thwaites glacier collapsing, but these are all very unlikely, things will be slower. Ok I accept this, but if the experts are wrong about even one of these tipping points it could be catastrophic. With so many potential climate problems the chance of an underestimate increases. I hope I dont sound contradictory.
I agree Sunspot was sending very mixed messages, which I initially found frustrating and confusing. He's not the first to do this. However he clarified his point @22 in the first paragraph, and that was good enough for me.
-
william5331 at 05:55 AM on 11 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
As Attenborough says in his latest program, since we first went into space 50 years ago, the population of the world has more than doubled. We are in the last phase of an exponential growt curve. Exponential curves are not bell curves with a smooth rise and then smooth decline. In the real world they rise and then go vertical......straight down. It may already be too late with our friend Trump giving the final nudge over the edge of the cliff. Even with Bernie we my not have been able to save ourselves from our sorry selves. At least we would have had a chance.
-
michael sweet at 18:30 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Turco:
It sesems to me that one of the important reasons more renewable energy is not being built yet is institutional inertia.
It takes many years to plan, get approval and build a new fossil fuel plant. Nuclear takes even longer. Renewable energy has only been the cheapest option in most areas for 2 or 3 years. Plants planned 5 years ago assumed that renewable energy would be more expensive.
No-one anticipated that renewable energy would drop in price so fast. With the new reality that renewable is cheaper many more renewable plants are being planned and built. China and India are proving more flexible than the USA.
In addition the utilities have to learn how to use large amounts of renewable energy. Producers of fossil fuels faslsely argue that large amounts of renewable is unreliable. Utilities have to see renewable implemented before they plan large amounts of renewable energy. See Thinkingman's argument.
Before countries tried it planners thought over 20% of renewable energy would be hard to regulate. Now they know that they can implement renewable energy without supply issues. Gas peaker plants, already built and currently supplying most peak power, can be used to supply all back up power for renewables on calm nights. In the future renewable energy will be stored so the fossil plants are no longer needed.
-
scaddenp at 13:28 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Yes, I cant figure out fracking either. Income flows seems to be hiding underying lack of profitability. Investors must be seeing something I cannot. I hope so because given the amount of money invested, an industry crash could be next financial crisis.
-
michael sweet at 12:15 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Scaddenp,
In additon to your points, it is relevant to keep in mind that the price of gas will go up in the future. Since fossil fuels are limited in supply all fossil fuels will go up over the long term. The sun and wind will always be free.
The question is will prices go up in a few years or in a few decades?
Fracking currently produces a very large amount of cheap gas (and oil) in the USA. The fracking industry loses billions of dollars every year. The fracking industry has never had a money making year. It appears to me that the fracking industry is a giant Ponzi scheme waiting for investors to figure out that they have been had. When investors wise up fracking will stop and prices will substantially increase.
Pray that the collapse of fracking will not knock off the economy too.
-
michael sweet at 12:02 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman,
And yet, as I pointed out before, wind and solar underbid fossil fuels and nuclear. Newbuild wind and solar are cheaper than just running coal and nuclear power plants. New gas is more expensive than new wind and solar. Scaddenp has demonstrated that when wind is built the cost of electricity goes down.
Your point about Germany is interesting. I was not aware that we were discussing what wind and solar used to cost, I thought we were discussing what it costs to build wind and solar today. Wind and solar are much cheaper today than they were 5-10 years ago.
Yesterday I was looking at the cost of a solar system for a boat. The cost of the panels was astonishing it was so low. I purchased a similar system 25 years ago and the panels were most of the cost. Today the panels are only about 1/3 of the cost.
Even in Germany, the wholesale price of electricity has declined as they built out renewable energy. Taxes account for the higher prices paid by households.
Your claims about South Australia electricity costs are simply false and easily Goggled. You need to raise your game if you expect anyone to believe your wild claims.
Prev 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 Next
