Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 Next
Comments 43951 to 44000:
-
Chris G at 09:25 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
DSL, I only read a couple of the responses, but yeah, it seems that in addition to the need to avoid confirmation bias, there is a complementary need to avoid dis-conformation(?) bias, the bias against understanding an argument correctly the conclusion is contrary to existing beliefs.
I read them and I think, "You are arguing with something that was not said."
-
Tom Curtis at 09:23 AM on 29 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
scaddenp @227, it is incorrect to think of the water vapour feedback as a singular factor. To illustrate this, consider the procedure for estimating the planck response plus water vapour feedback using Modtran. I will do so just using the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere with no clouds for illustrative purposes. To do it properly, you should do it for a representative sample of environmental and cloud conditions, and take a weighted average, something it is not strictly possible to do with the University of Chicago Modtran model due to the limited number of environmental conditions specified. Bearing that caveatte in mind, however, we proceed as follows:
- We determine the upward IR flux at 280 ppmv with all other values unadjusted (260.02 W/m^2).
- We increase the CO2 concentration to 560 ppmv, thereby reducing the upward upward IR flux.
- We increase the temperature offset until the upward IR flux again matches the initial value (Offset of 0.86 C required.) That represents the Planck response.
- We increase the water vapor scale to equal ((288 plus offset)/288)^4 to allow for the increased water vapour pressure at the higher temperature (1.012 scale factor).
- We again increase the temperature offset to restore the upward IR flux to the original value (Offset of 0.96 C required). This represents the increased water vapour pressure due to the initial water vapour response.
- You repeat step five until the value stabilizes. You have now calculated the Planck response plus the water vapour feedback to the Planck response.
Now, at this stage we may want to calculate the snow albedo feedback to the Planck response plus WV feedback to the Planck response. That will again increase the offset temperature required, which will inturn result in another round of WV responses, and a further reduction in snow cover and so on.
It is because feedbacks iterate like this that it is not correct to talk about the WV feedback as a singular factor. Supose, for example, that the total cloud feedback were slightly negative rather than (as is more likely) positive. Then the total WV feedback will be less. On the other hand, if the snow albedo feedback is stronger than expected (as is known from observation), that will result in a stronger WV feedback.
Because feedbacks interact in this way, I think it is conceptually better to determine the Planck response, and then determine the feedback factors as a group to the extent that is possible.
-
Geoff Hughes at 08:43 AM on 29 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
I would like to share this good news on my blog, but I do not find the base year(s) for the changes in the tables. Without a base, I do not know what I am reporting. Could you clarify, please?
-
william5331 at 05:53 AM on 29 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
I wonder if this very laudable system wouldn't be even more effective if the dividend was given to every registered tax payer rather than to everyone that is currently paying taxes. In other words, simply deposited into every adult's bank account or credit card rather than given as a tax deduction. So many people are out of work through no fault of their own and they would spend every cent of the sum instantly to the benefit of the whole economy. It would be a welfare subsidy paid for by fossil fuel or the much discussed negative tax which may become necessary as the luddite effect bites deeper and deeper (everything manufactured by machines with the profits going to the owners of the machines and no more service jobs {politicians, prostitutes etc} available.
-
DSL at 02:10 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
The interactive comments are highly entertaining. There should be a separate post just on those comments.
-
Esop at 02:00 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
This sounds like a very, very interesting paper. Looking forward to seeing the comments from the various authors that are being "audited" as well. Great work!
-
citizenschallenge at 01:51 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Interesting - perhaps one lesson is to accept the notion that:
"We need each other to keep our selves honest."
-
Chris G at 01:29 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
I suppose it depends on the mentality of the person. Some get confused by conflicting information. Personally, I tend to withhold judgement until I have heard a differing opinion; it doesn't matter if it is climate change or an argument between two children.
-
Chris G at 01:25 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Somewhat on the topic of how we know what we think we know, this was something interesting I came across recently.
Changing Minds About Climate Change Policy Can Be Done -- Sometimes
-
chriskoz at 23:43 PM on 28 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
To the whole SkS team, you have to check This panel discussion about science denial. Four experts talk about the anti-science of climate change, tobacco link to cancer, gun control and healthcare.
The most interesting is the moment at 44:00, when a question comes what to do to fight the science denial, Mike Mann quickly replies saying that SkS is na excellent site and their presentation of scientific arguments debunking denial taking points is the best and should be "the model for all of those other issues". That comment should make us, espetially the authors, proud.
-
chriskoz at 21:13 PM on 28 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
This latest study Anthropogenic aerosol forcing of Atlantic tropical storms apparently established the link between aerosols and Cyclones on Atlantic. Apears to be the first of its kind. I don't have full access to check and form my opinion. Earlier studies, e.g. Mann 2006 explored the correlation of Atlantic Cyclones and AMO but did not talk about aerosols. Would be interesting to analyse it. On the surface it does not look good, because it vindicates the "Faustian bargain" which is like giving more heroine to a drug addict.
-
JasonB at 20:49 PM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone @ 42,
1, What is the makeup of renewables, for example how much of this increase is from existing Hydro etc
I don't have time to look this up for you right now, but from memory the majority of the recent increase is from wind and solar. Perhaps you could try searching yourself? It didn't take me long to find that report.
It might be educational to see if you can find the reports I mentioned above, showing that wholesale electricity prices actually dropped due to wind and solar penetration. In fact, wholesale prices have actually gone negative multiple times now, because they would rather pay you to take their power than have to shut down the wind turbines when they're producing too much.
2, They are talking about name plate capacity and not how much energy was produced. Do you know what the actual production figures are?
The figures I quoted were energy production figures, not nameplate capacity. It clearly says "Electricity generation by fuel type Terawatt-hours". TWh is a unit of energy, not of power (which nameplate capacity is). Renewables were responsible for more energy generation than gas and liquids, and over half as much as the total for brown coal.
BTW, everyone familiar with the topic already knows the difference between nameplate capacity and actual production. What actually matters is the levellised cost of production, not how "efficient" it is. (For example, a cheap solar PV that only achieves 12% efficiency but costs half as much per peak Watt as a high-end system that achieves 18.5% efficiency is a better deal provided you have enough roof space to meet your generation requirements, which shouldn't be a problem with the cheaper system if you're living in a house, for example.) Wind is already cheaper than new coal power plants even at an average efficiency of 30%.
-
scaddenp at 14:55 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Also, just looking at the change in temperature from increased CO2 isnt that meaningful. You cannot change temperature without also invoking the water vapour feedback. Calculating the other feedbacks is complex (hence the range in estimates for climate sensitivity) but Planck feedback plus water vapour feedback should be the baseline for considering the effects on increased CO2.
-
scaddenp at 14:48 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Australia and US are different. Australia must have one the best resources of solar power (eg CSP) around. If Germany can make such a difference with their poor solar resources, Australia should be able to massively more.
-
KR at 14:38 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Addendum to this post: The Budischack paper did not incorporate demand management, which is an ongoing development in many markets (I have begun to receive indications from my power company regarding networked thermostats for distributed demand management already), nor sharing arrangements with neighboring power grids - I expect that incorporating those will reduce fossil fuel contributions even more, perhaps to the the level of zero.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:37 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
stealth @224, given that it is the Top Of Atmosphere radiative forcing that we are discussing, the proper comparison is not with the back radiation (which is of secondary importance) but with the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). Granted that 1.3 W/m^2 is just 0.5% of the OLR, but then, just 0.5% of the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) is 7 C. Percentages without perspective are not very informative here.
To calculate the temperature impact of a given radiative forcing prior to any feedbacks, you must recognize that a positive radiative forcing represents a reduction in the OLR. In order to restore the TOA energy balance, and assuming no feedbacks, the OLR must be restored to its original value. That requires an increase in the effective temperature of radiation to space. Assume that 240 W/m^2 OLR is required for the energy balance, then the effective temperature or radiation to space must be (240/(5.67x10^-8))^0.125, or 255 K. A radiative forcing of 1.3 W/m^2 then, reduces the effective temperature to 254.7. Consequently a 0.3 K increase, ignoring feedbacks, is required to restore radiative balance.
For the full 3.7 W/m^2 from a doubling of CO2, the reduction in effective temperature is 1 K, and hence a 1 K increase is required to restore radiative balance, ignoring feedbacks. Finally, because atmospheric temperatures within the troposphere are locked together by convection so as to follow the lapse rate, any change in temperature at the top or middle of the troposphere the results for the need to restore radiative feedback will result in a change in surface temperature of the same size. After that occurs, the increase in back radiation will be larger than the radiative forcing, but the energy balance at equilibrium will still be neutral because heat transfer from the surface by convection and latent heat will increase to make up the difference.
Finally, the most recent surface and TOA energy balance diagram is from Stevens et al 2012:
-
KR at 14:33 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Donthaveone - An Argument from Incredulity is not a refutation. Read the linked paper, read the Archer and Jacobson 2007 article as well. When you actually run the numbers for observed weather, for distributed generation sites (even if you only use inland wind, which will have a lower capacity factor than mixed generation), doing the work shows that renewables can provide baseload, and can do so less expensively than fossil fuels if you actually account for external costs (pollution, toxins, warming, etc.).
One of the largest errors made in this discussion is referring to the numbers for (as you do) single stations - distributed sites have much higher capacity. Storage is expensive, mind you - I find the Budishcack et al 2013 very interesting in that they find excess capacity is more economical than storage.
Fossil fuel backup? Budishcack et al 2013 find that it's roughly 0.017% total capacity for the 99.90% renewable scenario. Your objection, a mix of incredulity and Common Sense fallacies, just does not hold.
-
KR at 14:17 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Stealth - It doesn't matter what the baseline is. Really. Because the baseline represents the current situation, the Holocene, the environment we have dealt with for the last 8-10 kY.
What matters is the change. The forcing deltas, the temperature deltas, the shifts in growth zone, in sea level, in heat wave frequencies, etc. Only 0.4%? Irrelevant! How much will the change affect us, what do we have to do to adapt - that is the real question.
See CO2 is just a trace gas - the baseline is comprised of multiple elements, of many components, and it simply doesn't matter what the magnitude of various components are. What matters is the change in components, in forcings, and how those changes affect us. Focusing on the scale of a change versus a baseline, without looking at how that change affects us in real terms, is a false minimization of the issue.
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 13:52 PM on 28 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
KR @33: I was questioning the ability to measure 1/10,000th of a degree. I made a math error and was off by 3 orders of magnitude -- the actual temperature change is 0.1 degrees, and I can easily see that as measureable. While I make no claims to be a statistician, I do understand the Central Limit Theorem, and I understand the difference between precision and accuracy.
I am posting and asking questions from topic to topic because questions have to stay on topic or the moderator will delete them. I have a method to my madness and I am mostly gathering data. I have to find the right thread to ask my questions to get specific data. And my questions are being answered and I have learned a little bit all ready. Many thanks to all, especially Tom Curtis!
-
smerby at 13:45 PM on 28 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
I think this research is positive step in proving that the Pacific Ocean is a bigger regulator in not only short term but longer term trends in global surface temperatures. "This climate model-based IPO cycle length is shorter than the IPO cycle length observed during the 20th century, however the reasons for this disparity are not yet clear". Does anyone have an idea on why the models are cutting short the cycle length of the IPO?
-
michael sweet at 13:29 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Here is the correct link for the above comment.
-
michael sweet at 13:26 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
This article from Clean Technica describes the current generation of power in Germany. Three counties generate over 250% of their electricity using renewables. Many ore generate over 100%. As people learn about the benefits of renewables more and more individuals and businesses are installing wind and solar. They will have hard data to compare to the model data described above in a short time.
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 13:25 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
TC @221 and KR @222: I think my back-of-the-envelop hacks with MODTRAN are close enough to your 5.35 * ln(c1/c0) equation. They both produce relatively close numbers; but I’ll use the accepted 1.36 W/m^2 for CO2 from 310 ppmv to 400 ppmv. But this 1.36 W/m^2 is only 0.4% of the total back radiation from the sky based on the IPCC AR 4 energy balance (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html). That is not very much relative to the whole earth system.
JasonB @223: LOL. I’ve been so wrong on so many things I think I would have a hard time being DK; I doubt I can have an unwarranted belief in my climate expertise, because I don’t have any (just a BS in physics).
-
michael sweet at 13:21 PM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone,
I cited a peer reviewed study modeling the cost of using renewable energy for 1/5 of the US grid, approximately 72 GW of power. It showed that renewables cost less than fossil fuels to produce at least 95% of overall power generation. They did not include hydropower because it makes it too easy to use renewables. You respond with rough approximations unsupported by calculations about a single power plant, concluding with a handwave that it will never work. Produce a peer reviewed study, or at least a coherent complete argument, to support your wild claim that renewables cannot produce power as cheaply as fossil fuels. I have supported my position, you have waved your hands and said you do not believe peer reviewed work. That is denial. Did you even read the article I cited?
This article from Clean Technica describes three German counties who generate 250% of their electricity using renewables. The list of counties who generate over 100% is long. They are working toward producing 100% of all energy used. The author states "solar and wind are now cheaper than the electricity rate for households, commercial customers, and in many cases even industrial customers – causing 30% of all German businesses to plan investments in renewable capacities." The primary barriors are political, not technical. As people see the benefits of renewables they are giving up fossil fuels.
Provide an argument to counter my real world example. No more hand waving because you have no data to support your position.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:57 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Donthaveone... I'm curious if you've read the article you're commenting on. Your last comment (@425) is contradicted by the very basis of this article. Mark and Dana are saying that renewable baseload is shown to be a viable option, thus no need for gas turbine back up.
-
Donthaveone at 12:30 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR,
I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe wind power is the answer. Wind is hopelessly in efficient as they have a low capacity factor.
Lets take a look at Hazelwood, it produces 11,770GWh with a capacity factor of 84%, this equates to approx 10,240GWh per annun. See page 12 below.
Now lets look at replacing this 10240GWh with wind, see this link below for wind farm performance, note the website is a little slow to load so patience is required :-)
http://windfarmperformance.info/?date=2013-06-13
It is actually a very good site because it allows you to look at individual farms etc, however i want you to look at the first graph (Wind Farm Capacity Factor (%)) Notice that none of the wind farms operate anywhere near 100%.
The next graph Wind Farm Output (MW) shows you just how poorly these farms perform with regard to their rated capacity.
A bit further down you will see the actual capacity factor of the farms the highest is 41.9% (2011) scroll down to the bottom and you will see two graphs on the right hand side the red line is demand and the blue line down the bottom is the wind farm output.
Now lets do some basic calculations.
Hazelwood produces 10240GWh/year or 1100 odd MW per day.
Total wind farm capacity in Australia 2680 MW with a capacity factor of about 33% which means the farms will produce on average 900MW per day which is kind of close to Hazelwood but remember we are talking about wind farms spread all over the country and this is just to replace Hazelwood we would need to build thousands upon thousands of them to replace all of current energy supplies.
Then that would still not be enough as wind farms at times produce zero power so we then need a gas turbine back up!!!! Pretty crap energy source if it is not reliable why dont we just build gas turbines only and be done with it?
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting.
-
Donthaveone at 11:20 AM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Michael sweet @35,
You call me a denier, what in fact am i denying? [-snip-]
So many responses to my questions, thanks to all but i cannot respond to all individually of course.
For the purpose of clarity (once again) the reason for the question re H2O was simply to find out if there was a legal way to stop nuclear production, maybe a better question would have been is it a popular option in the US? CBDunkerson has answered that question for me so thanks to you CB.
Jason @33,
Thanks for the link to the gov PDF it shows gas has risen by 5.6% and renewables by 28.5%, unfortunately it fails to give two details.
1, What is the makeup of renewables, for example how much of this increase is from existing Hydro etc
2, They are talking about name plate capacity and not how much energy was produced. Do you know what the actual production figures are?
Moderator Response:[RH] Moderation complaints (even sarcastic ones) are also against the rules.
-
DSL at 10:42 AM on 28 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Again, the pattern of targets is the message. These people have absolutely no interest in scientific progress or learning. They recognize that OHC is a simple and powerful (in the general public eye) counter to any of their simplistic "global warming stopped in XXXX" claims, and so they hammer at it, trying to find a way to break public confidence in it. Marcott = simple, powerful - kill it. Mann = simple, powerful - kill it. Arctic sea ice loss = simple, powerful - kill it. Transient climate response = confusing, hard to interpret - ignore it.
-
scaddenp at 10:12 AM on 28 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
tcflood - if they dont understand the role of central limits theorem in detecting small changes from average of large no. of instruments, then I doubt they will be interested in learning. However, for paper on what can be determined and to what accuracy from Argo, try Von Schuckmann and La Treon 2011.
-
tcflood at 09:48 AM on 28 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Rob Painting: I have noticed that the skeptics are making a big deal (as usual) out of any uncertainty of an average 0.09 C temperature change measurement by the Argo instruments and the issue of how to integrate the relatively new and short term data with more sparse older data. How robust are the assertions of greater depth heat increases that are being made by Levitus12 and BTK13, etc.?
-
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Carbon taxes (if they are to be effective) ARE different from other taxes in that they are avoidable. If nobody minded paying them, then they would have no effect. However, the expected behaviour is that people will choose to avoid them by moving to non-carbon generation. You create a market opportunity- "I can provide you with cheaper electricity because I use renewable/nuclear to create it". What you are really saying is that you dont want to pay more your energy - fair enough - but you energy costs are heavily subsidized. Sometimes by direct subsidies on coal in some countries and always because coal producers avoid paying the environmental cost. How do you feel about other people (eg delta dwellers in poorer countries; future generations) paying for your cheap energy?
-
Andy Skuce at 07:18 AM on 28 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
mike roddy@3: I agree that the forestry practices in BC leave much to be desired and it's depressing to see the amount of clear cutting when you overfly parts of the province or leave the main roads in places like Vancouver Island. You are correct to note that most residents of BC don't often see forestry operations up-close.
Of course, one of the biggest effects of climate change anywhere on the planet is the devastation wrought to the Lodgepole Pine forests of central BC, affecting an area the size of a medium-sized European country. See the first figure in this post.
Afforestation and deforestation make up about 5% of the GHG emissions in BC according to government numbers and they fit within the green pie slice labelled "Waste and Agriculture 11%" in the pie chart in the main article above. These emissions, like other non-combustion emissions, are not subject to the carbon tax.
-
michael sweet at 06:30 AM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
CBDunkerson,
You are correct that in the US gas is cheapest. The article describes generators in Europe where gas is much more expensive than in the US. Apparently imported coal (probably imported from the US) is cheaper there.
The international power market is complex. It is no surprise that what happens in one country is not exactly the same as what happens in another country. But if they are not building fossil fueled power plants in Europe due to competition from renewables the handwriting is on the wall. Renewables will take over when they are the cheapest form of energy. Wind is already there in many locations, including much of the USA. Once renewables are built they are very cheap to run-- no fuel costs. If fossil fuels did not receive such high subsidies renewables would already be cheaper.
-
citizenschallenge at 06:19 AM on 28 June 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Tom Curtis, you comments are too good not to share.
Hope you don't mind. Thanks for doing the heavy lifing.
I might even repost the entire article later.
~ ~ ~
Thursday, June 27, 2013
-
KR at 04:30 AM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I would like to link here to a very interesting post by michael sweet, and in particular the Budischack et al 2013 article he links.
In that paper Budishcack et al ran cost minimization estimates for 30, 90, and 99.90% baseload for a regional electrical grid using renewables. They found that at high baseload the cost economical mix includes a 3x overcapacity of generation; roughly the same percentage as Archer and Jacobson 2007 estimated, with a very small contribution of more expensive storage. Costs were estimated with a moderate externality factor for fossil fuels. Estimates were run with/without selling excess capacity for replacing gas for heating during winters, but with no other use of dumped excess generation capacity.
The simulations were run with several years of actual weather data, to see if the renewable systems simulated could manage baseload at the desired level. They found that aiming for 90%+ renewables by 2030 leads to economic savings, not costs, with each step of expansion moving towards lower costs.
I believe their results support the thesis of the opening post - that renewables can provide baseload capacity, and what's more, in a cost effective fashion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthavene... "Now this is a tax it is no different to any other tax so my question is how can applying a tax create a better environment for manufacturers?"
The fallacy you're presenting here is that you are arguing the tax is isolation of every other economic aspect. That is not how markets work. A tax does not make money just disappear. Tax revenues remain in the economy and create other benefits for a nation and its people, and the companies doing business within its borders.
What I'm saying, as JasonB echoes, is the effect for manufacturing is minimal at best compared to a wide range of other economic influences on the manufacturing sector.
Add to this the fact that the taxes being proposed are returned to taxpayers, the net effect for consumers is nearly zero (and potentially positive).
All this does is places a cost on activities that produce carbon. That will act to drive innovation to create solutions that produce less carbon. Those innovation, over time, are more likely to reduce costs for consumers, and become a net positive economic benefit.
If you are a manufacturer who can not, or will not, innovate then this spells trouble for you. If you are a manufacturer who wants to innovate, then you will view these kind of taxes as a golden opportunity.
-
sidd at 03:29 AM on 28 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Re: OHC increase estimate of 6e21J/yr
This comes from Church(2011,doi:10.1029/2011GL048794) for the period 1972-2008.
-
CBDunkerson at 02:33 AM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
michael sweet, actually right now natural gas is the cheapest source of electricity for the US as a whole. However, this is a recent development from the fracking boom and a major reason for the decline in coal power in the US. There isn't much fracking in the rest of the world yet, and natural gas is more expensive to transport than coal, so this is solely a US phenomenon at this point.
That being said, the basic formula of renewables undercutting fossil fuel prices remains the same. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal in some parts of the US and that is quickly becoming the case nationwide. Thus, we will likely see the US switching to natural gas, wind, and solar as its major power sources over the course of the next decade or two. Then, as large enough smart grids and/or energy storage infrastructure are developed natural gas will phase out and leave just renewables. All assuming disruptive new technology comes along.
-
michael sweet at 01:45 AM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
See this New York Times article that describes problems utilities are having in Europe. Apparently, cheap renewable electricity is undercutting gas generators so the gas generators are being shut down. CO2 costs are low so coal is cheaper than gas. Not many coal plants have been shut down yet. Utilities do not want to develop new fossil fuel plants because of competition from renewables. This Daily Kos article describes some retailers like IKEA and Walmart setting up electricity generation. Presumably it is cheaper to set up solar on their unused rooftops than to buy electricity at retail prices. (hat tip fxible at realclimate)
There will be major changes in electricity generation in the next decade now that wind and solar are cost competitive with fossil fuels. The question is how will these resources get developed. This peer reviewed article shows renewables (primarily wind) are cheaper than fossil fuels now to generate 30% of power (in the US Northeast) and will soon be cheaper for 100% of power generation. In their model they do not use any hydropower because "Hydropower makes the problem of high penetration renewables too easily solved, and little is available in many regions, including PJM". Long range transmission lines (not used in their model) make backup more widely available.
-
Alexandre at 23:34 PM on 27 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
These results are just great. It's news that should be spread.
-
mike roddy at 23:26 PM on 27 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
BC deserves credit, but their system has a flaw. Environment Canada came up with a new methodology to calculate emissions from logging, which resulted in about a 25% reduction in forestry emissions reported to IPCC. This allows BC to continue to clearcut, which has major consequences besides the annual 200 Mt of CO2 emissions.
Most BC residents live in the south, near the border, and look the other way about the horrible devastation of their vast forests. Clearcuts are sometimes over a mile across. The result has been increased vulnerability to fires and pests, microclimate temperature increases, and less resilience due to loss of biodiversity.
-
michael sweet at 22:41 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthavene,
You have assumed in your posts that coal generated electricity is the cheapest electricity. This is only true at present because coal is allowed to transfer much of their costs onto taxpayers for free! In the USA, thousands of people die every year from coal pollution. In Florida, where I live, I can only eat fish from lakes twice a month because of coal pollution. When less coal is burned these taxes will be decreased and all other manufactures will have lower costs since they will no longer subsidize coal.
In any case, even without a carbon tax wind is the cheapest method of generating new electricity in the USA today. Solar will soon be the second cheapest. You need to catch up on your facts. If costs of carbon go up it will spead up the change to wind and solar. That will lower electricity costs and make the USA more competitive! Please provide a peer reviewed study for your outrageous claim that a carbon tax will increase electricity costs, you have the facts backwards.
Other posters should not let deniers claim that a carbon tax will increase electircity costs. Wind is currently the cheapest source of electricity in the USA, even without counting the cost of the pollution coal releases. Decreasing carbon emmisions will lower electricity costs.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:52 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
"By the way if the EPA deem GHG's as a pollutant then do they have the power to regulate H2O as well as CO2 and i assume methane?"
There would be no point in regulating H2O on the grounds that it is a GHG, because while it is a GHG it is not a long-lived greenhouse gas. The residence time of water vapour is of the order of a week, so if we pump H20 into the atmosphere, it will just precipitate out again quite rapidly. CO2 on the other had is only removed permanently from the atmosphere ver slowly, which means that unlike H20, our CO2 emissions accumulate.
The main reason that water vapour as a GHG is increasing is because the atmosphere is warming (largely due to CO2) and a warmer atmosphere supports more moisture, which adds a positive feedback. However, even if fossil fuel emissions didn't include H20, the additional mositure supported by a warmer atmosphere would come from evaporation or transpiration instead, so it would happen anyway.
-
Dave123 at 21:28 PM on 27 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
DB@reply at 23. You list 3 references for Mazlowski saying 2016± 3. I don't think the first one May of 2006. says that. Page 6 of the slides shows a much less specific statement and I cannot find any further discussion. The other two references do list the figure.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:09 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone, as others have noted (several times now), regulating H2O emissions would not make any sense because H2O emissions have nothing to do with atmospheric levels. Humans could increase our H2O emissions one hundred fold and the total atmospheric H2O level would not change. There are these things called 'rain' and 'dew' which prevent the atmosphere from retaining more water than it can hold for a given temperature.
On natural gas, as I said in my original post (and JasonB subsequently reiterated) not all natural gas plant designs exceed the regulated CO2 emissions limit. Thus, natural gas plants can continue being built, they just have to be cleaner than the current average plant in the US. This is where I think the new regulation will actually have the most impact. Unless there are major government investments in renewable power, natural gas is going to be the largest power source in the US for the next fifteen years or so. If these regulations are applied to existing plants within a few years and then maintained through the period where natural gas is a major power source they will reduce total CO2 emissions from natural gas by about one third.
Finally, on nuclear plants... they are well below the CO2 emissions limits and there are no other regulations in place which significantly impact them. That said, there is no chance of major nuclear power development going forward. Nuclear has always been more expensive than coal and has only become more so. Thus, the only reason to go nuclear has been to decrease pollution (or rather, replace carbon and other fossil fuel pollution with radioactive waste and potential nuclear disasters), and that no longer makes any sense as wind and solar both produce even less pollution and are now cheaper than nuclear for most of the planet. Nuclear had a window where it could have become a significant power source, but that time has now clearly passed. Existing nuclear plants will continue operating until they reach end of life and a few new ones may be built to play a niche role in providing 'baseload' power in some areas, but that's about it. There is no logical reason to pay more for a higher polluting technology... which also has a limited fuel supply. Future technological developments might give nuclear another shot in the form of thorium reactors, fusion, or some other development, but those are currently theoretical or even more expensive than 'standard' nuclear.
-
Kevin C at 20:02 PM on 27 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
I think the link is probably to this talk.
For another carbon pricing experiment see the regional greenhouse gas initiative. (cap-and-trade rather than tax).
-
bouke at 19:41 PM on 27 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
"the meme later propagated by Richard Dawkins." links to a private youtube video that I can't view. Now I am a sad panda. ;-)
Moderator Response:[AS] Fixed, thanks!
-
grindupBaker at 17:55 PM on 27 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Sidd @ #30 But the OHC graphs at your link show a slope of 13.2e21J per year from 1990 to 2008 plus you have an extra bit at greater depth (I suppose ~14e21J total). Am I misunderstanding something about these numbers or is your 6e21J per year more historical (like me) ?
-
JasonB at 17:42 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone,
@23 and 24, my question was do they have the power to regulate H2O as a pollutant
No, because it doesn't meet the legal definition of pollutant that CO2 does because of the explanation already given above.
if you raise the cost of coal fired electricity via a CO2 tax ofr the purpose of encouraging an alternative then surely nuclear would be the best option.
Nuclear gets to compete in the market place just like all the alternatives. A carbon tax neither favours renewables relative to nuclear nor hurts them relative to nuclear because nuclear is also low-carbon — raising the cost of carbon helps nuclear exactly as much as it helps the renewables, and if you like nuclear then this is a good example of the benefits of using a market-based scheme (like a carbon tax or ETS) rather than a "direct action" scheme like Tony Abbott wants.
a way to raise the cost of nuclear would be to claim H2O in its gaseous state is a pollutant as well thusly driving the electricity sector towards an alternative of their liking.
CO2 is being claimed to be a pollutant because of the impact it is having on the environment. The 2007 Supreme Court case linked to in the main article showed that CO2 legally met the definition of pollutant given in the Clean Air Act and therefore the EPA were required by law to regulate CO2 emissions. Remember, at the time, the Bush administration was in charge and the EPA had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get it to do its job.
The only way for the EPA not to regulate CO2 emissions now would be for Congress to pass a special law claiming that CO2 was not a pollutant despite legally meeting the criteria or by removing the need for the EPA to act by imposing their own regulations (like an ETS or carbon tax).
Your suggestion doesn't make any sense anyway — even if H2O was classified as a pollutant, why would that hurt nuclear relative to e.g. solar thermal? Both can be made low water users at additional cost.
However how could you reduce the gas plants? CCS is not feasible both in cost and technology so i suggest you will lose them aswell
A combined-cycle gas plant has an emissions intensity of 800 lbs CO2/MWh so it would have no problem meeting the standard.
To JasonB @23 and Rob Honeycutt @27 regarding CO2 tax has no effect on manufacture sorry but i must disagree. The tax adds to the cost of manufacture so if you are competing with an overseas manufacturer then you become less competitive and in the current environment this is the last thing you need obviously.
I didn't say "no effect", I said "negligible effect" compared to the massive effect that the exchange rate has had on profitability. Something can indeed be non-zero but still be lost in the noise and make no difference to the outcome. If you think the carbon tax has had a material effect on competitiveness since it was introduced then please by all means produce that information and show that it is a direct result from the carbon tax.
The tax that is applied to the coal miners
Note that coal miners don't have to pay tax on the coal that they mine — the consumers of that coal, the ones that actually burn it, have to pay the tax. The coal miners only have to pay tax for fugitive emissions that they release during the mining process, which gives coal mines with less emissions a competitive advantage, as it should.
for the most part this cost is passed onto the consumer
Exactly. That's what the bonus payments and tax cuts were to compensate consumers for, and now that the figures are in it's clear that most consumers have been over compensated, which is why it's put a hole in the budget!
the amount of co2 produced will remain the same as there is no viable alternative
That's clearly false, as evidenced by the reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions and the increase in renewables.
You may be surprised to find that studies have shown (both here and in Germany) that the increase in renewables has actually led to cost reductions because the renewables have zero production cost, and so they're dumped onto the grid at whatever price is going, undercutting the peaking power generators that have the highest production costs (which is why they're only used for peaking power) leading to lower wholesale prices on average.
If you think the co2 emissions have reduced since the tax has been introduced then please by all means produce that information and show that it is a direct result from the CO2 tax. From my understanding all the major coal fired power stations are still running flat chat, still producing the same amount of electricity ergo CO2.
How was that understanding informed?
April: Emissions from power sector drop to a 10-year low while the share of renewable energy in the National Electricity Market (NEM) has soared beyond 12 per cent and looks set to continue rising (SMH)
June: In the eleven months since Australia's carbon price began, emissions from Australia's National Electricity Market were down 7.4%, emmissions intensity was down 5.1%, brown coal electricity was down 13.3%, and black coal electricity was down 4.2%. The 11 TWh reduction in coal-fired electricity generation was made up for by a 5 TWh increase in renewables, a 1 TWh increase in gas and liquids, and a 5 TWh reduction in consumption. (Link)
Now this is a tax it is no different to any other tax so my question is how can applying a tax create a better environment for manufacturers?
It is actually different because it is an ETS that just happens to have a preset price on carbon permits at introduction to allow businesses to plan better.
But its purpose is not to "create a better environment for manufacturers", it's to "create a better environment", fullstop. To the extent that benefits manufacturers, then they benefit. You know, because the economic impacts of the climate effects of BAU have been avoided, for example. Manufacturers who rely on externalising the true costs of their manufacturing will obviously suffer when those costs are internalised if they do not react accordingly.
At the moment we here in Oz are paying the largest co2 tax in the world and our major trading partners do not
And yet you haven't produced any evidence that it's having a meaningful impact on the bottom line, and in a few years the point will be moot as we'll be in the largest ETS market in the world, paying the same price.
Even if the world does act as one at some point in time how is raising the cost of cheap reliable electricity going to have any affect apart from raising the cost of that cheap reliable electricity.
Basic economics. If you make something bad more expensive relative to alternatives, less of the bad thing will be consumed.
I think you also need to recognise that not incorporating the true cost of emitting carbon into the price of fossil fuels is actually distorting the free market and preventing it from allocating resources efficiently. If the consumers of coal, for example, are not required to pay the true cost of burning that coal, and instead that cost is bourne by everybody and not just those consumers, then they are going to consume a lot more than they otherwise would have, and other technologies that do not have those costs aren't able to compete fairly in the market.
As for the world acting "at some point", the EU was way ahead of us, and by the end of this year a billion people will be living with some kind of carbon pricing mechanism. We're not exactly trailblazers.
This is just another tax applied by governments to increase revenue nothing more nothing less.
And yet it is revenue negative thus far, and you yourself claim that it's going to blow a gaping hole in the forward estimates!
Maybe, just maybe, the purpose is to actually reduce carbon emissions instead?
-
sidd at 15:09 PM on 27 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
It is useful to keep in mind that the net radiative imbalance due to GHG for the entire earth integrated for a year is about the same (6e21J) as the amount of heat absorbed to seasonally melt 20,000 cubic Km of ice that melts annually in the Arctic sea. The same amount of heat is released during refreeze. The amount of heat required to melt enuf ice corresponding to a 1mm rise in sea level is 1e20J.
The amount of heat increase below 2000m is not negligible. I have added to my comments on Balmaseda(2013) with inclusion of estimates from Kouketsu(doi:10.1029/2010JC006464, 2011, 5% OHC increase below 3000m) and Purkey(doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00834.1, 2013, 14% OHC increase below 2000m south of 30S ) for depths below 2000m.
http://membrane.com/sidd/balmaseda-2013.html
sidd
Prev 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 Next
