Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 Next
Comments 28251 to 28300:
-
Tom Curtis at 13:32 PM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Michael Fitzgerald @60, here are the important temperatures for gases that are currently significant, or have in the past been significant in the Earth's atmosphere. Of these, methane and ammonia were major players (along with nitrogen and CO2) prior to the evolution of photosynthesis approximately 2.4 billion years ago. Neither can survive long in an oxidizing atmosphere, so they have been bit players since then. In the list below, I have distinguished greenhouse gases by bolding them, and underlined the group of gases including the two major components of the Earth's current atmosphere.
Molecule Freezing Point, Boiling/sublimation point
Helium NA, 4.15 K
Hydrogen 13.95 K, 20.15 K
Nitrogen 63.15 K, 77.15 K
Argon 83.75, 87.35 K
Oxygen 54.35 K, 90.15 K
Methane 91.15 K, 111.65 K
NO2 182.29 K, 184.67 K
CO2 194.65 K, 194.65 K
Ammonia 195.42 K, 237.65 K
H2O 273.15 K, 373.15 K
Considering an Earth with a modern atmosphere, and of a similar age to the Earth, but which existed far from any star, the total energy at the surface would be a very evenly distrubuted 0.1 W/m^2, generating a surface temperature of approximately 36 K. That is sufficient to "boil" Helium and Hydrogen, but no other of the gases that constitute the Earth's atmosphere. So, at that temperature the Earth would be a frozen wasteland with a very thin atmosphere of helium and hydrogen, with hydrogen being the largest component. Importantly, because the atmosphere would be so thin, and because there would be no liquids on the surface of the Earth, the formula for the Earth's average temperature would be:
(((Geothermal + (TSI*(1 - albedo))/2)/σ)^0.25 + (geothermal/σ)^0.25)/2
This formula is used because the lack of heat transfer means daytime temperatures would become much hotter night time temperatures, thereby emiting much more energy to space. The result averages out to a lower temperature than that derived using the more common formula (which assumes exactly equal temperatures across the entire globe). The formula will not be perfectly accurate, but will generate a reasonable estimate. The more common formula is also only approximate, slightly overestimating expected temperatures (because there is some temperature variation between night and day, summer and winter and across geographical divisions).
Further, at absolute zero (or 36 K), the Earth's albedo would not be 0.3. Rather, it would be entirely covered by ice and snow, giving it an albedo between 0.6 and 0.9 (depending on the purity of the snow). In my estimates discussed below I shall use the more conservative figure of 0.6.
Using that formula and estimated albedo, we can determine a no feedback estimate of global temperatures. That is, we can determine the final global mean temperature if you really started at absolute zero, and gradually increased TSI up to 1360 W/m^2 (the current best estimate of its value). That temperature turns out to be 150 K. That is, it turns out to be too low to sublimate CO2, let alone to melt ice. Indeed, even with an albedo of 0.3, and with more or less equal temperatures across the globe, the global mean temperature would be around 255 K, not enough to allow unfrozen water at the equator. Given the importance of water in heat transport, and given the importance of the greenhouse effect in equalizing temperatures at the poles (the polar amplification effect), the temperature would in fact be less than that.
Given this we see the decietfulness of CO2isnotevil's challenge. By setting the albedo at 0.3, he has already included all albedo feedbacks in his calculation of the "no feedback" temperature response (255 K). Indeed, he has also included the surface heat transfer feedbacks as well, by using the standard formula. If he is going to include those in the base calculation, he needs to exclude them from the Climate Sensitivity Parameter (λ), reducing it from 0.8 to about 0.5 (ie, twice the planck response). Worse, by framing it in terms of energy in an the TOA, he also excludes any greenhouse effect (forcing or feedback) from the calculation. So, his challenge is for us to find the albedo and greenhouse feedbacks in an equation that excludes them by design.
We also see a fundamental problem with your framing of his challenge. If we indeed started with a cool Earth, and gradually turned up the heat we would still be in a snowball Earth. The same conditions which give us our currently very livable Earth are consistent with one entirely frozen depending on whether you start with cold conditions and warm up, or with warm conditions and cool down.
As it turns out, cooling down from a warm condition, if we reduce the atmospheric greenhouse effect by just 22 W/m^2, the Earth's temperature will cool by 21 C. That estimate excludes any growth of ice sheets, which if allowed would allow the temperatures to plummet even further. Those results mean that averaged over the last 22 W/m^2 of warming, λ = 0.95.
Moderator Response:[PS] Numerous people on numerous forums have tried to explain physics to George White over years including here. I doubt further efforts will be effective.
-
chriskoz at 13:02 PM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #28
Climate change: NSW Farmers Association changes policy, calls for fossil fuels transition
Of particular note, apart from the fact that ruling NLP party in Australia, with science denying PM Tony Abbott, are becoming increasingly alienated from reality, is this particular passage:
The NSW Farmers Association ended its annual conference [...] by voting to remove clauses in its official policy that had called [...] "to explore the scientific veracity and soundness of claims that carbon is a pollutant" and to investigate "whether the activities of mankind are responsible for causing any change" [...] The rejected clauses – inserted between 2008 and 2011 – were "archaic" and the strong support for their replacement "shows farmers really are the forefront of climate change and really care"
Interesting that the denying clauses are as new as 2008, when the denial movement started at the leading to COP 2009. The abolishment of this dnial among farmers is very welcome. Note that this region of NSW hold strong support for National Party which is the ruling party. Due to the changes going on here, I expect the ruling party to change their stance or face diminishing support at the next election.
-
Stephen Leahy at 12:30 PM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
CBD agree on US coal. As my article notes shutting down stranded assests will require $ compensation. A carbon tax could fund the buy outs unless the pollution tax is very high making it uneconomic.
Overall a significant carbon tax would help enormously in reducing amounts of new fossil fuel burning stuff being built. Sadly we need that tax yesterday.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:18 AM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
KR,
Perhaps the math will help you see the nature of this problem more clearly. Consider that the Earth from space looks like a gray body whose temperature is the surface temperature and whose emissivity is 240 W/m^2 / 390 W/m^2 = 0.62. From this, we can readily quantify the planets behavior as follows:
If P is the planet's emissions, T is the surface temperature, ε is the effective emissivity of a gray body model of the planet and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67E-8), express P as,
1) P = εσT^4
and quantify the LTE sensitivity as a function of state, λ(P), as the change in T consequential to a change in P. We can do this because the definition of the steady state is when the planet emissions P are equal to the net power arriving from the Sun, thus incremental P conforms to the definition of forcing.
2) λ(P) = dT/dP
Solving 1) for T and differentiating, we get,
3) T = (P/(εσ))^0.25
4) u = (P/(εσ))^0.5
5) T = u^0.5
6) dT/dP = .5/u^.5 * du/dP
7) dT/dP = .5/u^.5 * .5/u * 1/(εσ) = λ(P)
8) λ(P) = (P^-0.75 * (εσ)^-0.25) / 4For ε = 0.62 and P = 240 W/m^2, λ(P) = 0.3, which is the slope of the SB curve at 255K.
Integrating dT/dP (the sensitivity function λ(P)) from P = 0 to 240 W/m^2 results in T = 288K, which is the expected average temperature of the surface at 240 W/m^2 of input power. The definite integral is the value of 3) at P = 240 W/m^2 since the integral of 8) is 3) and T(P) is 0 when P = 0. While this sensitivity function is relative to input power, it can also be expressed as a function of equivalent surface temperature, T.
9) λ(T) = T^-3 / (4εσ)
At T = 288K, λ(T) has the same value as λ(P) at P = 240 W/m^2. These formulations for λ(P) and λ(T) are exact for any gray body at any emissivity and applying this model to the Earth is consistent with all measured averages, albeit with a sensitivity lower than expected. The only way to morph this behavior is to make ε a function of P or T, which we know to be the case anyway, as increasing GHG's will decrease ε. Up to about 233K (for KR's hypothetical that feedback kicks in at -40C), ε = 1 and gradually decreases until ε = .62 at 288K. If ε is a function of P, and we know that feedback can only directly affect ε, so a change in ε is applied to all P, not just the incremental P.
The sensitivity as a function of state can be be rewritten as one component dependent on P, λP(P), times a dimensionless component dependent on ε, λε(ε), such that λε(ε) = 1 at ε = 1.
10) λ(P, ε) = λP(P) * λε(ε)
11) λP(P) = (P^-0.75 * σ^-0.25) / 4
12) λε(ε) = ε^-0.25At the current steady state when ε = 0.62 and P = 240 W/m^2, λε(ε) = 1.13 and λP(P) = 0.266 whose product λ(P, ε) = 0.3. For λ(P, ε) = 0.8 keeping P constant, the required λε(ε) is 1.13*(0.8/0.3) = 3.01. The required ε to achieve this is about 0.012 which at 390 W/m^2 of surface emissions results in 4.7 W/m^2 of emissions by the planet, which is obviously wrong as 240 W/m^2 are required. Splitting λ(T) into a temperature component and a dimensionless component dependent on the emissivity leads to a slightly different impossible result.
What this tells us is that a sensitivity λ(P, ε) = 0.8C per W/m^2 is in conflict with the emissivity of the planet, ε and the power emitted by the planet, P. Either the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't apply to the climate or the sensitivity is not 0.8C per W/m^2.
Presumably, this analysis will not convince you that a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 is impossible, so what will? Can you supply mathematical and physics proof that the SB Law is irrelevant to how the climate behaves?
Moderator Response:[PS] Are you or are you not George White?
[PS] I find it hard to believe there are two people in the world going for this nonsense and I think we can conclude that "Michael" is actually George still trying to flog his unphysical maths. Please do not respond.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:02 AM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
KR, re #57
Thank you, this is what I was asking from you. FYI, the 170K value came from either you or Tom, so since you don't remember saying this, it must have come from Tom. But lets go with your suggestion that feedbacks don't kick in until -40C. The first 167 W/m^2 get us to -40C (233K) leaving 73 W/m^2 to get to 288K. If we assume a sensitivity of 0.75 for the remaining 73 W/m^2, we get to 288K.
There's still a problem with this. If the increase in sensitivity is consequential to an increase in feedback, all of the accumulated W/m^2 of forcing are subject to the same new feedback influences and you should expect a large change in temperature as the feedback kicks in and is applied to the accumulated W/m^2 and a smaller change thereafter as only the incremental W/m^2 matters as long as feedback remains constant. If we assume a step change in feedback at 40C that results in increasing the sensitivity from 0.35 to 0.75 the first 167 W/m^2 now acts like 167*.75/.35 = 358 W/m^2 and the temperature jumps to 281.8K (48.8C per W/m^2), thereafter to increase by 0.75C per W/m^2, resulting in a final temperature of 336.6K which is obviously too high. How can you modify your quantification of sensitivity to account for this?
-
Stephen Baines at 08:31 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
ubrew 12. Boyce and colleagues have a new analysis that tries to address the many concerns posed by responses to the orginal paper (that were published in Nature at the same time). The new paper is a lot more equivocal about the scale of the change, while still suggesting declines in biomass are common at low latitudes. Changes in upwelling and ventilation due to stratification are built into the advanced earth system models, but I don't believe they come anywhere near to explaining a 40 % decline in phytoplankton biomass over the last century.
I probably should read up more systematically on this line of research and see if I can find a good summary, or draw up one myself. I know there has been some modeling work to try to make sense of the problem, but my sense is that noone understands it very well right now.
It's worth noting that phytoplankton biomass per se is not an important reservoir of carbon, accounting for only 0.5% of what is in the atmosphere according to the IPCC. Decreases in biomass could affect the biological pump, that removes atmospheric CO2 to deep waters over centory time scales. It could also reflect a more efficient biological pump. A chicken-egg situation.
-
scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
ubrew12 - my understanding from comment at RealClimate is that some AR5 models include carbon cycle feedbacks. However, the feedbacks are very slow and not likely to have much impact pre-2100.
-
ubrew12 at 04:12 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
I read a few years ago that ocean phytoplankton populations are down 40% in the last half century, to quote "with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet's carbon cycle... rising sea surface temperatures are to blame". This would also act as a 'source' of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels, and would likely intensify throughout this century. Does anyone know: Is this effect accounted for in the IPCC computer models?
-
CBDunkerson at 03:57 AM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Thanks Stephen. The 'more efficient replacement' idea seems plausible. The whole 'clean coal via carbon capture' concept often involved the idea of shutting down 'dirty' coal plants to replace them with 'clean' ones... which could, theoretically, mean a decrease in total carbon commitment. Of course, we hear a lot less about this (in the US anyway) now that even the dirtiest, least regulated, coal plants are more expensive than natural gas and sometimes wind/solar.
That said, I continue to be optimistic that many of the 'carbon commitments' being built today will end up as 'stranded assets' that get shut down early rather than reaching their full 'pollution potential'. Indeed, it seems likely to me that there will never be another new coal plant built in the US... it has just become too obvious that they will not be able to make a profit.
-
witsend at 03:50 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
"...the data show that trees are dying more quickly...". Yes, yes they are. They aren't just dying prematurely in the Amazon, they are dying everywhere around the world, from absorbing toxic pollution. The droughts, heat, violent storms, insects, disease and fungus push formerly resilient trees over the edge. Scientists in China recently predicted a global "massacre" of forests due to pollution. short film "The Silent War on Trees"
-
donaldinks at 03:05 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
"If you want a pessimistic view,"
... I highly recommend Clive Hamilton's work entitled:
"Requiem for a Species".
http://clivehamilton.com/books/requiem-for-a-species/ -
Andy Skuce at 01:56 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
wili, I'm not sure, I need to understand the committed emissions work better.
i will note, however, that the published socio-economic model underlying RCP2.6 acknowledges that we will overshoot emissions in coming decades. The model deals with this by assuming negative human emissions by means of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in the latter half of the century.
If you want a pessimistic view, read this piece at Vox by Brad Plumer, which talks about 2000+ proposed coal plants.
-
John Hartz at 01:18 AM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Recommended supplementary reading:
Renewables outpace nuclear in economies making up 45 percent of world population: report by Aaron Sheldrick, Reuters, July 15, 2015
-
KR at 00:44 AM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Michael Fitzgerald - In deference to the moderators, I will keep this reasonably short. But I will make the comment, primarily for the benefit of other readers who might find this puzzling.
- In the range between a zero atmosphere 255K Earth and actual conditions, there are multiple non-linearities such as the presence of water vapor - attempting a linear extrapolation (as George White does) from the thought experiment is a fools game.
- GW's hurricane comments are utterly red herrings, as I pointed out earlier.
- The energy balance at TOA is a boundary condition - surface temperatures are a product of TOA energy conservation and the atmosphere. Jumping back and forth as GW does between surface and TOA temps, and expecting the scalars from one to apply to the other, is nonsense.
GW's claims are complicated BS - for a more complete discussion of why, read the threads here, here and here, where his very basic errors were pointed out by many people (in comments that were ignored on his part). If you are actually interested in the science you can do far better than uncritically following an unpublished blogger who is making up their own (unrealistic and silly) physics.
GW plays Galileo, thinking that he's overturned all the last 150 years of climate science, when his (unpublished and unreviewed) claims add up to claiming that 2+2=5, and why doesn't everyone recognize that? The 'Galileo gambit' only works if you are correct. He is not.
---
For anyone truly interested in the science basics, I suggest starting with the RealClimate summary here, and Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming history (with lots of primary references) here. In the meantime, Michael, I will ignore further posts from you until/unless they actually intersect with real physics.
-
Stephen Leahy at 00:01 AM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
JH Apologies for the delay in replying:
TomR @5, CBDunkerson @9, Rob Honeycutt @10 I see the confusion this phrase might cause:
“By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again unless they’re either replacements for old ones or are carbon neutral?
To be perfectly honest I can't remember why "replacements" is in there — I wrote the original piece nearly a year ago. It has been read by the authors of the paper and many others and this is the first time it's come up.
I may have meant replacements of existing ones before the projected end of spanlife. i.e. an existing 20 year old coal plant replaced by a more effecient one to complete its end of life of 20 years.
If that's the case, probably shouldn't have mentioned it. I'd have to re-read the original studies and my mountain of notes to be sure. I don't have time to do that right now.
But thanks for pointing it and should I do another version I will definitely delete or explain the reference. That said, I think the topic of carbon commitments is a very important 'story' to tell and needs much broader airing amongst decision makers and the public.
-
John Hartz at 23:31 PM on 16 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Moderation Comment:
From here on out, please avoid the temptation to respond to Michael Fitzgerald.
-
MA Rodger at 19:06 PM on 16 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Michael Fitzgerald @53.
Thank you for this comment @53. Unlike previous offerings, it can be read through and the meaning gleaned in one reading.
170K? "Someone said". This is a bit tenuous. It sounds like somebody is adopting an arbitrary "at -100ºC". But what if it was effectively only -40ºC?
Your basic thesis here is that if ECS=3ºC, feedback has to be contributing two-times the warming of the original forcing. (I note you inflate this to 3.3x but I'm pretty sure that is wrong & let's tackle one thing at a time.) So, very very simplisitically, if there is 150Wm-2 of forcing but the planet has 239Wm-2 of forced warming, at a ratio of 2:1, dropping that level of external forcing we would run out of feedback by 239-(150/2)=164Wm-2=(from Stefan-Botlzmann)232K=-42ºC.
Of course, once the mechanisms that actually create the feedbacks are considered, the simplistic use of a 2:1 ratio will (and the ballpark -40ºC may) prove complete pants. I think it will also demonstrate how much of a theoretical thought experiment it is that you are pursuing.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 13:18 PM on 16 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Unless of course said position is lacking merit and has already been considered and found to not deserve further consideration. Then continued repetition will obviously lead to more pointed comments.
-
GeoffThomas at 12:59 PM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
I agree with the moderator on jvd particularly noting post 31, thanks Tom, I see Jvd and many other Nuclear exremeists on http://www.energybusinessnews.com.au and it makes it an unpleasant site as they interpret every article and every post on the articles as requiring their strident answer, - I just don't go there anymore.
Years ago we were talking of virtual power stations, - all forms of generation co-operating to get the best power but focussing on just one prevents that.
And btw, I notice that wave and tidal generation is making some big strides so will be able to be added to the mix more and more and Tidal is interesting in that it can be predicted thousands of years ahead.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
Dcrickett at 12:05 PM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
I worked in nuclear power engineering and construction for several years back in the 1980's. I was flabbergasted at the costs imposed by excessive requirements of the various codes, and positively impressed with the QA processes. But my gut feeling was (and is) that it was the "Operation Independence" pushed by the government (especially President Nixon) to hurriedly build Nuclear, full-speed-ahead-damn-the-torpedoes, that did irrepairable damage. Arrogance resulted. And the cost-plus contracts that rewarded sloppy inefficiency. Also damaging was the attitude that there was so much in way of safety factors, redundancy etc that there could be no problems... and severe problems came along anyway. Yikes!
Nuclear is a brittle technology. Even so, most problems resulted not from inadequate safety etc factors but from failure to provide for what caused the problems. Like Baldur's mother, told that her son could only be killed by a wood-tipped spear, got him blessed by the spirit of every kind of tree and shrub that grows upon the face of the Earth. So Baldur was killed by the evil Loki with a spear tipped with mistletoe, a parasitic shrub that grows on trees and not on the face of the Earth.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:04 AM on 16 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
To All,
I really wish you all would stick to the science. One thing you can learn from co2isnotevil's posts is that he doesn't constantly berate his opponents for having an opposing position, only attacks the position itself and usually quite effectively. Constantly berating those with opposing positions only makes you appear insecure about yours which only serves to weaken your case.
Michael
Moderator Response:[JH] Off-topic and insulting.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:03 AM on 16 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
KR,
Actually, it was his post here (#35.1) that inspired my question.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/climate-scientists-more-scared-of-an-inquiry-into-the-science-than-they-are-of-climate-change/
Based on your denial that these questions even have answers, co2isnotevil appears right and the answers clearly dispute the accepted sensitivity, and this scares many who believe otherwise. I'm also a physicist and his descriptions of the underlying physics are spot on. The climate is certainly complex, but in the final analysis, its macroscopic behavior must still obey the laws of physics. The many inconsistencies pointed out in the threads you referenced is astonishing, especially how so many laws of physics must be violated to support a high sensitivity. I still have trouble believing how so many smart people can be so wrong in so many ways about something so important, but the evidence presented is powerfully compelling.One piece of evidence is a plot of monthly average surface temperatures vs. monthly average emissions by the planet, extracted from decades of satellite measurements, where the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is nearly an ideal gray body from space with an emissivity of 0.62 and answers the question about whether an ideal gray body model is sufficient for modeling climate change or at least bounding the sensitivity. The theoretical range of the sensitivity for an ideal gray body model of Earth is in the range of 0.2 – 0.3 and spans most of the estimates from the so called 'consensus of skeptics' and is far from the 0.4 – 1.2 range asserted by the 'IPCC consensus'. There's no room for compromise where both sides can say they were right and that's part of the problem. I predict that a sensitivity significantly less than the accepted lower limit of 0.4 must inevitably be accepted, and when it is, climate science will be disrupted in a way that no field of science has ever experienced and it will be both interesting and scary to watch with many far reaching repercussions.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:01 AM on 16 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
MA Rodger, #52
I never denied anything about snowball Earth. Of course I understand the evidence that suggests it may have occurred as many as 3 times, the most recent about 500-800 million years ago and others going back billions of years. All I did was offer a possible hypothesis for why they might arise and why they don't persist, which as far as I'm concerned, anything anyone says about this, published or not, can only be speculative, especially given the how much the Sun, orbit, surface and atmosphere has changed over billions of years.
If you know of a reasonable quantification for the sensitivity as a function of temperature, please tell me what it is. This is what I've been asking for all along, yet nothing has been forthcoming except arguments that it doesn't apply because feedbacks change as a function of temperature. I completely agree that feedbacks change, but it's completely quantifiable by starting with the slope of SB and increase it when positive feedback arises and decrease it when negative feedback arises. The problem is that there's no version of this form that can lead to a monotonic temperature increase that ends up at a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 @ 288K. BTW, its perfectly OK to say that the feedback is so negative along the way, that no temperature increase occurs as the input energy increases, but I can't conceive of any negative feedback with this much effect and that can persist over a wide enough range of input power to end up requiring a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 at 288K, plus there's the T^4 issue to deal with. Denying that the test applies only weakens your case for a high sensitivity.
The 170K comes from something someone said about no GHG effect below this temperature. This means that there is no atmospheric CO2, water vapor, or clouds, thus no feedback. If you can quantify a feedback mechanism below 170K, please tell me what it is, but if its positive feedback, it only makes it more difficult to arrive at a function that ends up at 0.8C per W/m^2 @ 288K.
-
bozzza at 10:57 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
@41 and 42, this all comes under the year 11 economics concepts of the problems to do with government intervention into the market place. The more they intervene the more difficult it is to extract themselves.
Government Intervention makes the so-called free-market less efficient: thus picking fossil fuels as the 'winner' all those years ago gave it economies of scale and ,as Bill Gates would say, "Automation of an inefficient process simply increases that inefficiency."
Markets are meant to be robust is another dictum learnt in year 11 economics-> lending the idea that the more governments intervene the harder it is to extract themselves as economies build thmeselves around the initial intervention. If we add the witches wand of Hollywood into the mix we can almost guarantee Americas inability to move away from Nuclear Power due to real-politik which means, of course, it's just not possible from the highest degree of probability at the nuts and bolts level.
People vote and this too counts as government intervention.. it is of course a chicken and egg thing!
-
wili at 10:12 AM on 16 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
So what does this mean for the 2018 'hard deadline' for any more production of ff-using devices, vehicles, homes, buildings, and plants just reported on?
-
michael sweet at 09:50 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Tom,
I have not been impressed with the material on Brave New Climate in the past.
That said, if SkS had any nuclear thread everyone could post links to the data they thought supported their side and it would all be in one place. Currently we will have to repeat all the posts from the same discussion a month ago again with JvD, since they were posted on a weekly thread and are hard to find (and reargue all the material that JvD posted years ago). Any nuclear thread would allow the data to be consolidated in one place so that we could refer to that thread for all nuclear questions.
I agree that reposting your linked article would be a simple way to get an OP.
Moderator Response:[DB] User JvD had been banned for multiple and repetitive violations of this site's Comments Policy, including sloganeering and inflammatory, to name a few. Since his return in another User ID form (Joris van Dorp) is also a violation (sock puppet), his current User posting rights have been rescinded.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:45 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Adding to my comment @41, what might be even better is if Barry Brooks and Dana(?) cowrote an introduction to the topic covering the areas of agreement with each then writing a seperate continuation arguing their respective points of view (ie, that nuclear must be a substantial part of a zero carbon energy mix for Brooks; and that nuclear a zero carbon energy mix can be achieved, and should be achieved with no new construction of nuclear power plants - which I take it is Dana's position.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:39 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
michael sweet @40:
"Nuclear has not been demonized, it is uneconomic."
I think it is fairer to say that nuclear has been demonized, but it is also uneconomic. In particular, US reactors built before the Three Mile Island incident (and hence before the dislike of nuclear had any political teeth) were also uneconomic relative to coal in the US.
It may fairly be argued that that is only because it was competing against coal that did not include the social cost; and which could be dug out of the ground cheaply and abundantly with minimal transport costs (and again ignoring considerable social costs). But that also is the cost benchmark solar and wind are expected to exceed, and are on the cusp of exceeding (are exceeding in some cases).
"If you really think that nuclear is worth while, write an OP to support your argument."
It may be worthwhile extending that invitation to Barry Brooks of BraveNewClimate to write that post. If nothing else, he may permit the reposting post to which I directly linked, although it would be better if he fleshed out his arguments. I suspect he would be more than happy to take up the invitation. I am sure this could be made agreeable to the members of the SkS team who strongly disagree with nukes (of which there are at least a few) by noting it would provide a location where discussion of nuclear is on topic, and can be matched by an OP providing the counter argument (giving two locations for such discussion).
-
michael sweet at 05:19 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Joris,
Back to SkS for one thread and already the moderator has had to warn you twice. You win no friends for your pet cause when you violate the comments policy.
It is invariably a waste of time to argue Nuclear power in an unrelated thread. That argument has been made many times, you have added nothing new here (I have made this post at least twice in 2015).
If you really think that nuclear is worth while, write an OP to support your argument. Send it to SkS with suitable peer-reviewed data (links to white papers from the nuclear industry are generally not good enough) I have made this suggestion to at least 3 other nuclear supporters but none of them think the argument in support of nuclear is strong enough to warrent the time to write the post. tThis makes me think that even the supporters of nuclear know in their hearts that nuclear cannot be supported. Go ahead, write the op and show I am wrong.
Your posts that bring up old, debunked nuclear arguments like battery storage of renewable power and the "demonization" of nuclear power do you no credit. They make nuclear look worse.
Nuclear has not been demonized, it is uneconomic. The reactors currently being built in the US are 2 years behind schedule and close to double their budget. Georgia taxpayers are paying for power they may never receive. Norway is ten years behind schedule. 3 in four nuclear reactors worldwide are way behind schedule and grossly over budget— and most of the ones that are not behind schedule had no data available.
In the midwest they are getting ready to shut down existing nuclear plants because they cannot compete with wind. How could they afford a new nuclear plant?
In Florida, where I live, we are paying $1.5 billion for a reactor that never broke ground and another $5 billion for a failed upgrade on another reactor. In California, where I used to live, the San Onofre power plant was shut down after a failed upgrade, billions more in losses. You cite future costs from estimations by the same engineers who are 10 years behind in Norway and designed the failed San Onofre upgrade. I certainly trust their estimates--not!!! Nuclear is uneconomic.
We always have to rehash everything when you show up because nuclear supporters cannot be bothered to write an op suporting nuclear. Nuclear should be banned from all other threads until an op is writen so that we do not have to rewrite everything every three months.
-
CBDunkerson at 04:33 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Andy Skuce, there will certainly be a limit to intermittent power penetration without storage and/or long distance transmission... but there is no reason that the remainder has to be made up by fossil fuels. There are many countries with large hydro power resources which could be linked to neighboring countries with wind/solar power to provide stable electricity at lower prices. We can see this currently with Denmarks >40% wind power working symbiotically with hydro power in Norway and Sweden. The same could be done with nuclear, but only France really has high enough nuclear penetration to make it feasible (that is, trading their stable baseload for lower cost wind/solar from neighbors).
Thus, it seems plausible to me that most of Europe, and many other places around the world, could completely decarbonize without needing electrical storage... and again, all indications are that the current free-fall in battery storage costs will continue and make large scale grid storage economically feasible soon. Ergo, lots of reason to think that we could see rapid decarbonization, driven purely by economics, in the coming decades.
-
Andy Skuce at 03:33 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
I largely agree with Joris that opposition to nuclear power on the grounds of safety is unfortunate and that nuclear fear has been exaggerated. Nevertheless, nuclear fear is a global reality and not one that will go away very easily, certainly not by mocking people who are scared of anything radioactive nor, sadly, by lecturing them on the facts of death counts at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima.
My guess is that many, maybe most, people now have a natural disgust reaction when it comes to nuclear power and that no amount of argument will persuade them otherwise. It's a bit like Americans with their gun culture or my aversion to eating dog. You could tell me how tasty and nutritious dog meat is and that it can be provided without cruelty, but I'm not going to listen to a word you say.
Public rejection of nuclear power is a sad reality and unless the nuclear industry and its friends can find a better way of changing people's minds, it is not going to become a major player in the future. Nuclear proponents are often proud of their hard-headed approach to facts, but they seem to be in denial of the reality that greatly increasing nuclear power in almost any country is going to run into determined public resistance that won't be overcome for a generation or more.
Some of the most strident anti-nuclear sentiment I have encountered is in France, which benefits from cheap(ish), carbon-free electricity, produced for decades without a major accident. In the same country, an estimated 40,000 die every year from diesel pollution.
-
Andy Skuce at 03:01 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
While it is true that countries like Denmark sometimes get >100% of their energy from intermittent renewables, they can only do this because they are part of a larger grid that includes coal, gas, bioenergy, nuclear and hydroelectricity. If we are looking at the maximum feasible penetration of solar and wind, I am (mostly) persuaded by Jesse Jenkins' argument that within a grid, the maximum penetration of intermiitents is going to be about 40%. Of course, this would not apply if there were a cheap electricity storage technology.
A place worth watching for renewables penetration is Hawaii. With abundant solar, wind and geothermal potential and with current diesel-powered electricity selling at 31cents per kwh (and a legislated mandate to go 100% renewable), this is a place to watch. Or, rather, places to watch since every island has its own grid.
-
wili at 02:09 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
The discussions seems to be getting sidetracked, as happens often in other forums, into another tired, hackneyed discussion about nukes vs renewables.
This paper is important enough, it seems to me, to discuss it's specific claims and take these side-debates elsewhere.
Particularly, I would like to know how Andy Skuce's excellent article just posted on this site intersects with the above study. I assume that it would move the "Hard Deadline" date from 2018 to some even earlier date, but I'm not sure how much earlier. 2017? 2016? Now? Last year? Three decades ago??...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:00 AM on 16 July 2015There is no consensus
britty5096... Are you looking at the correct tab? The advanced tab specifically states that it's a survey of research papers.
-
Joris van Dorp at 01:30 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
CBD, the subsidies report I linked considers both "consumer support" subsidies and production support subsidies, which makes it a little complicated to understand exactly how much money goes to subsidise production, which is what should concern us if we want to evaluate the competitive performance of different energy technologies.
For example, the report considers the fact that oil consumers in many oil exporting countries buy oil products at the domestic cost of production (as opposed to the international market price, which can be several times higher in many cases) as a 'consumption subsidy', and lumps this huge figure (about 400 billion/a) together with actual production subsidies, somewhat obscuring the effective production tax/subsidy situation.
Moreover, both these "consumption subsidies" and tax revenues are highest by far for oil products. This follows logically from the fact that oil products are heavily taxed in most OECD countries, while they are sold at the cost of production in most oil exporting countries.
Ignoring so-called 'consumption subsidies' for oil, the 8 to 1 figure for the ratio between tax revenues and production subsidies (~800 billion to ~100) billion is in fact concluded by this report. The report does not show that coal or gas generally recieve more subsidies than they yield in tax revenues, contrary to your claim above. In fact, the report explicitly states that total coal production subsidies are only 3 billion, on page 5. I assume you are aware that this is virtually nothing when considering the massive amount of electricity provided by coal.
Concerning your PPA figures for recent utility solar in the USA, I have also seen these figures. AFAIK, no details have been provided about the base investment cost. If the solar resource of these projects offers 1700 full load hours of insolation equivalent, if the PPA prices are constant prices, and if the discount factor is 8%, then a PPA price of 0.0553 $/kWh implies a total lifecyle cost of at most 1$/W in present value money, to break even over a 20 year PPA lifetime. This would be very cheap for utility solar. Certainly it is far cheaper than estimates for utility solar from recent literature. It would be good to know how such a low lifecycle cost was achieved.
Of course, none of this is to say that solar is competitive with FF or nuclear. Even if the 0.0553 is in fact fully unsubsidised (which requires more detailed information on the project finances) then this price only matters during times when the sun is shining. Outside of those hours, the value of these solar plants is zero, since they are not dispatcheable. As such, they are only competitive with FF when the sun shines. That makes solar (or wind) power usefull only as a fuel saving technology for traditional fossil fuel power generation. The fuel cost of coal power is about 3 ct/kWh, so the PPA of solar would have to drop to below 3 ct/kWh to be a competitive fuel saving measure paired with a coal power plant.
-
KR at 01:14 AM on 16 July 2015There is no consensus
britty5096 - Keep in mind that "unpopular opinions" are absolutely not "null results", but rather the very points that will be noted, especially if they are supported by the evidence.
And the survey (not poll) of abstracts shows very very few items expressing the 'skeptical' "unpopular opinions", and almost none (personally, I can't think of any) that have held up to scrutiny against the evidence.
-
KR at 01:09 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Joris van Dorp - "...how solar or wind can ever be cheaper than nuclear on a cloudy, windless day?"
Because in reality we aren't talking about single solar or wind stations, but rather networked systems extending over geographic areas. And as demonstrated by Archer et al 2007, Supplying Baseload Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Wind Farms, connecting even as few as 20 wind stations in the US MidWest results in a dependable baseload capacity of 33% average power, as weather systems won't cover all of the locations at once. Adding solar to the mix would greatly increase the available percentage, as would extending the geographic region considered.
Overall the papers I've seen indicate that some overcapacity, rather than storage/buffering, is more economic in renewables with current technology. And for the small percent of the time that fossil backup is required, the carbon emissions for that backup amount to only a few percent of the emissions required without renewables.
At this point wind energy is one of the cheapest additions to energy portfolios, with utilities increasing their contract purchases accordingly.
Nuclear power is certainly an option, and IMO needs to be part of the energy mix - but it's rather expensive (for many reasons), requires very long lead/build times, and notably comes in quite large (as in not incremental) chunks, making it hard to plan for and finance.
-
britty5096 at 01:08 AM on 16 July 2015There is no consensus
Skeptical Science:
Thank you for this. I would also count myself among those who agree that climate change is impacted by human activities. But can you please consider changing your summary of it to more accurately reflect what the study's abstract says? Firstly, this is not a poll of scientists, but a poll of published scientific papers (so there is probably a lot of representation from a handful of prolific scientists). Also, it says that "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position", and 97% of the abstracts that expressed a position endorsed AGW. In total, only 33% of all abstracts (not scientists) explicitly endorsed AGW. Furthermore, there is often a bias against null findings in any field, which encourages "exciting" results to be published while null findings (especially unpopular opinions) may be suppressed by peer reviewers, journal editors, or lack of funding. So really, if you want to rephrase it, it should say "97% of published abstracts that stated a position on AGW agreed with it".
-
ryland at 00:48 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
JvD It will be interesting to see if in the fullness of time, concerns on effects of wind turbines on the human brain are substantiated or not. if they are substantiated and that may well not be the case, wind turbines may have to deal with concerns from the public just as the nuclear industry has had to do. A piece in The Australian states:
"There has been a report from the National Metrology Institute of Germany that concludes exposure to infrasound below the range of hearing could stimulate parts of the brain that warn of danger. It finds that humans can hear sounds lower than had been assumed and the mechanisms of sound perception are much more complex than previously thought.
The researchers do not claim the results are definitive regarding wind turbines and health impacts, and say more work is needed.
But the research builds on recent work in Japan and Iran — and investigations by NASA dating back to the 1980s — that suggests the health science of wind energy is far from decided and would benefit from further inquiry"
-
Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
JvD @28:
"the fact that fear of nuclear is universal does not follow from nuclear's performance in terms of safety and environmental effects. Coal based power has killed millions of people, and still kills more people every day, globally, than nuclear has killed in its entire existance."
That establishes only that the risks of coal powered are under appreciated. Not that the risks of nuclear have been overestimated. Of course, it is very probably that those risks have been overestimated by a sizable number of people - but those people have had little influence on regulations. It is therefore entirely uncertain that overdesign of safety features has needlessly increased the cost of nuclear power. Given a priori assumptions about the efficiencies of government, it likely that it has been both overregulated in some aspects and under regulated in others (as chernobyl and fukushima demonstrate).
-
Tom Curtis at 00:14 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
JvD @23, I have no intrinsic objection to nuclear power. Indeed, I am happy enough with it that I used to stor a sample of uranium ore in my bedroom as a teen, and still consider it short sighted and stupid that Australia persists in operating diesel/electric rather than nuclear submarines. Having said that:
1) Nuclear power as the primary power supply can only be an intermediate term solution as, if it is considered a long term solution, economic growth will result in waste heat becoming as bad a global forcing as CO2 is currently (and a much worse regional forcing);
2) Given (1), to the extent that we can solve the need for carbon free energy using renewables, that is a step in the right direction;
3) There is no inprinciple reason why renewables cannot supply all our energy needs, even if populations grow to double their current levels, world economic growth continues unabated, and third world per capita GDP catches up with the future levels of western per capita GDP. However, the use of nuclear power, particularly over the next 50 odd years may substantially reduce the cost of going to a carbon free economy;
4) I do not need to determine whether or not a nuclear/renewable mix or a pure renewable strategy will be most cost effective. Rather, we need to ensure there is an appropriate price on carbon and let investors sort it out; but
5) For whatever reasons (rational or irrational), nuclear power is a hard sell in some societies. At the same time for reasons entirely irrational, effective action on AGW is a hard sell in nearly all societies. I do not think it is good policy to shackle the later to the former. Doing so generates a substantial risk that we do not undertake effective action on climate change. It may have the payoff of making available a cheaper mitigation strategy but only at the substantial risk of having no mitigation strategy.
Points (4) and (5) are the key points IMO. I have absolutely no problem with people inclined to do so promoting the use of nuclear power. As a political policy, I would by likely to vote for it given reasonable confidence of certain safe guards (mostly relating to waste disposal). I know that those safegaurds are technically feasible, and probably quite cheap to impliment. But I strenuously object to people attempting to coopt concern for AGW as a mechanism to generate support for nuclear power. (I have similar, but even stronger objections to coopting concern about AGW to push for negative population growth and/or negative economic growth policies by people who think those are intrinsically desirable in any event.)
I want to see support for action agains AGW across all parties, whether green, socialist, centrist or conservative. I am not going to tie support for that action to any secondary issue when they are not essential to solving AGW, even if they would be helpful.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:05 AM on 16 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
JvD, the report you link shows that ~94% of those tax revenues come from oil. Conversely, oil accounts for less than 5% of global electricity generation. Basically... you are using gasoline tax revenues, which have nothing to do with electricity generation, to argue that fossil fuel electricity generation is not more expensive when subsidies are removed. Clearly false. The report also shows that ~46% of fossil fuel subsidies go to coal and natural gas, which are primarily used for electricity generation. Rounding that up we could say that roughly half of fossil fuel subsidies go towards electricity generation... while only ~6% of fossil fuel tax revenues come from electricity generation... and suddenly your 'eight times' is going in the opposite direction. That is, fossil fuel electricity generation gets about eight times as much subsidy support as it generates in tax revenues... based on your chosen data.
Your other claims are similarly flawed. Many countries have been able to install massive amounts of renewable electricity generation (up to 100%) without any storage or long-distance transmission. These things will certainly be required in many countries, but not until the transition to renewable electricity is well underway (say ~50% of electricity generation)... by which point even the combined costs of renewable power and improved grids are expected to be significantly lower than fossil fuels.
As to solar getting 75% subsidies in the US. Not even close. It's a 30% investment tax credit (dropping to 10% at the end of next year). At either $0.0387/kWh (with subsidies), or $0.0553/kWh (without), the lowest solar PPA prices in the US are now both lower than the national average price. That's more than 'competitive'. Indeed, the subsidized price is lower than any other power generation in the country... except the cheapest wind farms.
-
Joris van Dorp at 23:58 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
To the moderator,
It is no controversy that adding electricity storage to solar or wind adds at leasts 10 to 20 ct/kWh, making it grossly uncompetitive even with FF having fully internalised costs.
http://www.sandia.gov/ess/docs/other/Grid_Energy_Storage_Dec_2013.pdf
By the way, you can always just ask for a source for anything I claim. I never write anything not backed-up by solid evidence. I don't have time for such nonsense. I'll give evidence for all my claims freely, if asked. No need for threats! :)
Moderator Response:[JH] If have neither the time nor inclination to document the sources of your statements, then this website is not for you.
-
Joris van Dorp at 23:42 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
@CBD: the fact that fear of nuclear is universal does not follow from nuclear's performance in terms of safety and environmental effects. Coal based power has killed millions of people, and still kills more people every day, globally, than nuclear has killed in its entire existance.
My point is that the extraordinary fear of nuclear power is an irrational barrier to having nuclear solve AGW efficiently, which scientists should have spent some time removing in decades past. Instead, scientists have devoted all their attention to urging co2 emission reductions. In the upcoming climate talks in Paris, the focus will again be entirely on agreeing on reduction of global co2 emissions. No effort will be spent on agreeing to reduce global antinuclearism. I think this way of approaching climate policy has failed in the past and it will continue to fail in Paris and beyond.
You repeat that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear. Could you explain briefly how solar or wind can ever be cheaper than nuclear on a cloudy, windless day?
-
Joris van Dorp at 23:16 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
CBD: "If even just the overt subsidies, to say nothing of the massive 'external costs' from their health and environmental effects, were withdrawn fossil fuels could not compete with solar and wind power now."
That is incorrect. Fossil fuel tax revenues dwarf fossil fuel pre-tax subsidies in a ratio of 8 to 1.
http://www.oecd.org/env/49090716.pdf
In other words, fossil fuel usage brings in eight times as much tax revenue (in OECD countries) as it takes in subsidies. It is only the external costs (mostly climate impact costs) which can push the cost of fossil fuel energy above the cost of unbuffered(!) solar and wind power.
That said, buffered wind and solar power (buffered as in: made fully dispatcheable by adding electricity storage and long-distance transmission) is still far more expensive than unmitigated FF, even including FF external costs. That is a serious issue not to be ignored. It implies that relying on solar or wind to replace global FF use will require their permanent financial subsidies, globally, so better make sure the money for that is made available - globally - if we intend to go that route.
Finally, recent record-breaking PPA's for solar and wind in the US still benefit from exorbitant tax benefits and subsidies, equivalent to up to 75% of their base cost, so these impressively low PPA's do not nearly imply that solar or wind are competitive with FF.
Moderator Response:[JH] Youcontinue to make unsubstantiated global asertions, e.g.,
That said, buffered wind and solar power (buffered as in: made fully dispatcheable by adding electricity storage and long-distance transmission) is still far more expensive than unmitigated FF, even including FF external costs.
Unsubstantiated global assertions such as the above are nothing more than sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please cease and desist immediately.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
wili at 23:11 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Are there any proposed bills in any government body anywhere in the world calling for a halt to all production of ff-burning machines, vehicles, buildings and plants by the year 2018?
-
CBDunkerson at 23:10 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
JvD, yes the high cost of nuclear power is largely due to safety measures... which are required due to fear of meltdowns... which exists because the nuclear power industry cut corners and continued using outdated plant designs (e.g. Chernobyl) and old reactors (e.g. Fukushima) long after they should have been abandoned.
However, the only thing that matters is that they are expensive. Why that is the case would only be relevant if there were some realistic way of changing it in the immediate future... which there isn't. Yep, without Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima the whole world would very likely be running on relatively cheap nuclear power by now. But that isn't the reality we live in. Every time nuclear power could have really started to take off and become competitive there has been a disaster and the technology has instead fallen further behind.
Now that it has reached the point that wind and solar are both cheaper than nuclear there is no chance that current commercial nuclear power designs will ever become a major contributor. None. Maybe some new technological breakthru will make some form of nuclear financially viable again in the future, but until then nuclear isn't going anywhere.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:48 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Tom Curtis, I disagree that 'we have not seen any major turnaround in the US'. US CO2 emissions per capita peaked at 22.51 metric tons in 1973 and were down to 16.3 in 2012. Yes, that is still higher than most countries (though not Australia), but a 28% reduction (most of it in the past several years) seems like a "major turnaround" to me. Similarly, total US CO2 emissions peaked at 5.928 billion metric tons in 2007 and were down to 5.181 billion in 2012... a 13% reduction in five years.
The world record for lowest cost solar power purchase agreement has been broken twice in the past month... both for new plants in the US southwest. Wind and solar power generation have tripled in the US since Obama became president. Average fuel efficiency of US vehicles is rising rapidly. Et cetera. There are a lot of different indicators showing that the United States has turned the corner on carbon pollution. Certainly still a long way to go, but the US has been heading in the right direction for several years now.
As to when we will see a global transition... I don't think it will have as much to do with the '100th monkey' as with the financiers. At this point, the only reason fossil fuels are still hanging on is that they've got powerful financial lobbies behind them. If even just the overt subsidies, to say nothing of the massive 'external costs' from their health and environmental effects, were withdrawn fossil fuels could not compete with solar and wind power now. By 2020 they won't be able to compete even with the benefit of subsidies. That situation is not sustainable. The political favor which is propping up the fossil fuel industry is purchased via campaign contributions and lobbiests. As fossil fuel profits continue to get squeezed (as oil profits are currently being squeezed like never before) the money available to buy that political favor will decline... just as the money available for wind and solar companies to do the same increases. Renewables have already started to receive some of the favorable treatment previously enjoyed by fossil fuels. That will only snowball as each benefit to renewables pushes fossil fuels further and further behind. In the end, I expect a rapid collapse of fossil fuel financial and political influence. At which point, the misinformation campaign will also stop and the '100th monkey' will realize that they believed in global warming all along... because the people telling them what to think will then be getting their money from 'big renewable'. No way we aren't in the midst of full scale global conversion to renewable power before 2030 unless some major new technological breakthru comes along with a less expensive alternative.
-
Joris van Dorp at 22:03 PM on 15 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Tom, are you suggesting that solar and wind power are more likely to eliminate global coal burning than nuclear power, and hence that scientists have been right to focus on the need to reduce co2 emissions rather than the need to remove irrational barriers to nuclear deployment?
I'm not sure I understand what overarching point you are trying to make here.
Concerning wind in Europe, it is clear that onshore wind in Europe tends to be costly, not so much due to the cost of the technology itself, but due to the cost of NIMBY and the high cost of land, which is getting worse because many of the best locations have already been tapped. But yes, there has been a kind of 'demonisation' of onshore wind energy growing in Europe. The concern is not so much the result of a misunderstanding of safety issues as with nuclear (although there have been a few horrific fatalities in the wind industry in recent years, which briefly made headlines), as it is the high cost of subsidies, the spoilage of views, the bird and bat mortality, the emerging issue of the financial and environmental cost of the additional powerlines needed, and the particular noise polution caused by the turbines. A number of European countries have recently shut down subsidies for onshore wind for this reason. All in all, I don't think it is difficult to understand why onshore wind is a bit more expensive in Europa than in the Asian pacific region. It's probably not about irrational demonisation as is the case with nuclear.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please tone down the rhetoric and avoid unsustantiated global assertions.
-
MA Rodger at 21:59 PM on 15 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Michael Fitzgerald @47.
I concur with your first sentence. However, addressing these three logical outcomes from your '239-Steps' test is made difficult by your apparent denial of the snowball Earth mechanism ('apparent' in that I am left to interpret the moderation "(snip)" @47).
And in addition to that apparent difficulty, I do not concur with your second sentence. Why do you write that I "seem to believe that no reasonably supportable function consistent with a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 at an average surface temperature of 288K exists."? My comment @40 surely suggests the exact opposite.
In the round, your comment @47 simply re-states your problematical 239-Steps test in a different form. I'm not sure how that would be any help to 'man nor beast'.
Within all your inconsequential/nonsensical blather @47, I note you tell us "170K ... below which the feedback is zero". On what do you base that assertion?
Prev 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 Next
