Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 Next
Comments 44201 to 44250:
-
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
-
citizenschallenge at 14:42 PM on 27 June 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Oh and why should we trust that above image is from a beach in the Maldives anyways?
Speaking of sea levels are you familiar with Prof. Mitrovica?
He gives some great lectures that discuss new finding regarding global and regional see levels you'd find fascinating: "Enigma of Global Sea Level Rise"
~ ~ ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdfTUdU9x-k
In Search of Lost Time:
Ancient Eclipses, Roman Fish Tanks and
the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rise
Professor Jerry X. Mitrovica, Ph.D. -
citizenschallenge at 14:37 PM on 27 June 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse what's up with that?
What about the doctored photograph, why aren't you up in arms about that?
-
Donthaveone at 13:26 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Rob @ 30
It is not a matter of disagreeing we are just debating an issue and we have differing opinions.
Here is a link that will help you understand Australias carbon tax plus it gives you a list of what other countries have done, mind you China is on the brink of financial collapse so i have doubts about them implementing a scheme any time soon
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1492651/Factbox-Carbon-taxes-around-the-world
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?
At the moment we here in Oz are paying the largest co2 tax in the world and our major trading partners do not so we meet your conditions outlined above that would mean "i have a position".
In fact one of the reasons why Labor have a gaping hole in their forward estimates is because the expected revenue raised from the tax is not going to materialise as the EU market which ours will be link to is verging on collapse.
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. This is just another tax applied by governments to increase revenue nothing more nothing less.
Andy Skuce @ 31,
Thanks for the heads up Andy i look forward to reading your post, i am sure that what you say can be done.
Cheers
-
Andy Skuce at 12:41 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone: if you can wait a day or two, I have a post in the pipeline here that will present hard data that demonstrates that a carbon tax can be structured to minimize any effect on business competitiveness and, at the same time, reduce emissions substantially.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:37 PM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone... You can disagree if you like, but I work in manufacturing and I can tell you that carbon taxes are unlikely to affect the competitiveness of US manufacturing. If carbon taxes were immediately extremely high and other major manufacturing bases had no carbon taxes, then you might have a position.
As I stated before, China, currently the world's largest manufacturing region, is actively putting in carbon pricing faster than we are in the US. Any disadvantage on the level you're suggesting is actually reversed.
You also ignore the fact that carbon pricing is likely to come with broad cost benefits for nations who implement it. Where you lose economic benefits in some areas (carbon intensive production) you gain back in other areas where you have less carbon intesive production. And the really carbon intestive manufacturing isn't mobile enough to send off shore. Concrete production is never going to China.
Consider also, carbon pricing would tend to drive more domestic manufacturing of low carbon and carbon-free solutions. More wind energy, more PV production and installation. What happens with such installed costs is, you force companies to innovate. The companies that innovate their way toward lower carbon solutions are going to be the market winners. Those that can't innovate will die.
Over the longer term, I very much hope that much larger carbon pricing goes into effect. This is because, putting some real bite behind carbon pricing will force manufacturers to implement systems that avoid production of carbon.
-
Donthaveone at 11:54 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
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.
The tax that is applied to the coal miners/electricty produces from coal or gas adds to their costs of manufacture this cost is passed onto the users and for the most part this cost is passed onto the consumer. In the cases where the cost cannot be passed on then this is now an additional financial cost born by the company.
As the amount of permits allowed to the top 500 (or was it 300?) companies that produce CO2 is reduced the costs that flow down to the consumer will increase the amount of co2 produced will remain the same as there is no viable alternative.
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.
Cheers
-
Donthaveone at 11:35 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Firstly to RH, yes i spelt his name wrong by adding a space and a capital B however i think your claim of showing disrespect to the office of the president of the united states is drawing a very long bow. I will endeavour to get his name right in the future.
@23 and 24, my question was do they have the power to regulate H2O as a pollutant the reason being is that 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. The green movement in Australia discourage nuclear (actually it is more than just them) so i would assume it would be similar in the US therefore 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.
I wish people would not try and read things that are not there.
@25
Thanks for the info CBDunkerson, if you limit the amount of CO2 produced as you say then yes no new coal plants will be built and a phasing out of the old could happen. 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 (at least new plants same as coal). You did not mention nuclear, is nuclear still a viable alternative in the US or is there major hurdles put in place for this sector as well?
-
grindupBaker at 11:15 AM on 27 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
WebHubTelescope @#25 Also there's Prof. Richard Muller's land surface only AST since 1753 from 36,000 temperature stations at Berkeley Earth.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:25 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
"...it just makes our manfacturing un competitive..."
My background is in manufacturing, and I can tell you without a doubt that a carbon tax is not an impediment to domestic manufacturing. And even if it was, China is advancing carbon pricing much more rapidly than we are, so any potential (minimal) effect is actually reversed.
-
tcflood at 10:25 AM on 27 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
Phil @ 74
I certainly did confuse the two, and I apologize. Must have been a senior moment - they're becoming more frequent these days.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:16 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
CBD@21... Doh! I actually knew that about the EPA endangerment finding. I've argued it many times in various comments sections.
-
CBDunkerson at 10:16 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Found a bit more info on what exactly they are doing. By September the EPA is supposed to put into effect regulations which require all new power plants to produce less than 1000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity produced. This is the same standard the EPA delayed releasing a few months ago. Given that the average coal plant produces ~2250 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour, that basically outlaws them or would require vast improvements in 'carbon capture' technology... not to mention huge decreases in its cost. It would also stop many natural gas plants as they currently average ~1135 lbs/MWh. However, there are natural gas plant designs which can meet the new standard while remaining profitable. Petroleum based power plants (very common in Hawaii) are also pretty much impossible under the new regulation.
They aren't doing anything with existing power plants right away. Instead, Obama has directed the EPA to come up with regulations for those within a year. That would likely be before any litigation on allowing existing power plants to emit above the new EPA designated harmful level could work through the courts. Again, this seems designed to let them phase out and avoid a disruption in the power supply.
The ironic thing is that this really doesn't amount to much at all. It will prevent a few coal power plants from being built, hopefully shut down some of the existing ones a little earlier, and force natural gas plants to be a little less polluting. The reason it isn't a big deal is that most of that was already happening. Coal power has gone from 53% of all US electricity in 1997, to 44% in 2011, to just 36% in 2012. Basically, it was already falling off a cliff. There were very few new coal power plants in the works, just a handful in heavy coal mining states, and most of the existing coal plants are old and likely to shut down within a decade anyway.
Meanwhile, in the US, natural gas is booming and wind and solar are taking off in some areas where they are now cheaper than coal. Half of the new US power installed so far in 2013 has been solar. Probably the biggest impact this regulation is going to have is by slightly reducing the emissions from each natural gas plant. Obama will probably get credit for 'ending coal', but really it was already inevitable without this new regulation.
-
heb0 at 09:42 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
@22 -Donthaveone
To add to JasonB's explanation, the following article addresses why it isn't accurate to think of water vapor in the same way we think about CO2 and other GHGs.
http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
-
JasonB at 09:39 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone,
We have a carbon tax which actually does nothing in regards to reducing emissions it just makes our manfacturing un competitive so i hope O Bama does not go down this path for your sake.
Strictly speaking, we have an emissions trading scheme with a fixed permit price for the first few years, but the effect is similar, which is this: it makes carbon-intensive technologies less competitive than the alternatives, and because it's an ETS, it also puts a cap on the total emissions.
And, in fact, emissions have been reduced in the 11 months since it was introduced. Not only that, but since the whole point of an ETS is that emissions are capped, over time the emissions are reduced simply by virtue of lowering the number of permits on offer. It's not a difficult concept and it has been used widely in the past for other pollutants.
Funnily enough, it's the kind of approach normally favoured by free-market types because rather than the government picking winners and deciding what technologies to support through subsidies (i.e. Tony Abbot's scheme), the government simply tells the market what their emissions quota is and the market decides how that is to be met, with the various competing technologies duking it out.
Regarding manufacturing, as an exporter I can tell you that putting a price on carbon has had a negligible effect compared to the strong A$. It's lost in the noise. And those that are more carbon-intensive actually get free permits.
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?
Methane, yes — if you look carefully they're talking about "CO2e", where "e" stands for "equivalent". H2O no, for the obvious reason that H2O is a condensing greenhouse gas — it goes up and down automatically with temperature. If you tried to emit a large quantity of water vapour into the atmosphere, it would quickly precipitate out again before it had a chance to have a long-term effect. It is one of the most important positive feedbacks, because as CO2 warms the earth, the atmosphere can hold more H2O, amplifying the effect of the CO2, but the H2O itself is not directly controllable. Think of it like a turbocharger in a high-powered car — the accelerator pedal is the CO2, and the turbocharger is the H2O. You can't control the speed (and therefore boost) of the turbo directly, it responds automatically to changes in the accelerator, multiplying its effect.
-
Donthaveone at 08:54 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Thanks to all those who replied i must say your politics is a lot different than mine where i live (how many times can you sack a prime minister in their first term of office LOL).
We have a carbon tax which actually does nothing in regards to reducing emissions it just makes our manfacturing un competitive so i hope O Bama does not go down this path for your sake.
To actually reduce emissions via something like carbon capture and storage (CCS) is nothing more than a pipe dream, our old PM who was elected, then sacked and is now our PM again likes this dream so wish us luck.
So i suspect O Bama is talking about a tax and some type of credit system, each your the coal company gets less credits and is fined if they exceed this limit which is great for them because they just jack up the cost of your power.
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?
Moderator Response:[RH] Our president's name is Obama. Please show some repect toward the office by correctly spelling his name.
-
grindupBaker at 07:27 AM on 27 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Ned @ #4 (belongs really on Obama post but yours is here). It's my understanding that U.S. real action is needed to spur China & other industrializing powers by example and moral superiority as the basis for whatever cajoling. Apparently, U.S. & China now ~6 bt CO2 each but China is the rapid increaser (not sure whether that's coal only). So U.S. action is about much more than U.S. CO2 emissions due to their still somewhat pre-eminent position.
-
scaddenp at 06:37 AM on 27 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Stealth, regulars here use the "comments" tab to see new comments made anywhere on the site. This makes it possible to have all comment threads open while also keeping comment threads on topic.
-
CBDunkerson at 05:11 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Rob @18: Actually, the original act didn't list CO2 specifically. The provision of the clean air act in question was very general - stating that the EPA should regulate any materials emitted into the atmosphere which are found to be harmful. The findings Dana referred to were an EPA analysis finding that CO2 was harmful and a Supreme Court decision that they were required to act on it (that was in 2007 with the EPA under George W. Bush resisting doing anything about AGW).
So yes, the original Clean Air Act was designed with the 'presence of mind' to make it flexible and allow the EPA to decide on the details... rather than needing to pass a new law for each pollutant and specifying the allowed emissions levels and so forth. Instead just a nice simple, 'the EPA is in charge of identifying and regulating air pollution'.
Of course, whatever they eventually do will be challenged by conservatives. Indeed, there have already been a host of challenges to the EPA finding that CO2 is harmful (and it has been fun watching those wither and die as standards on allowed scientific evidence bar virtually all denialist nonsense from the courtrooms). That may prevent implementation for years... with their hope being that the next president if then a Republican and can toss the new standards before they ever go into effect.
-
fk9014 at 04:15 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
voneschen has not been seen here before but managed to get a first post on a new article, that was off-topic. surely a troll.
-
Non-Scientist at 04:12 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
"voneschen" has not responded, nor will he.
The troll, feed it not.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 27 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Jay Dee Are @17... It's interesting that they had the presence of mind to make sure CO2 was included in the Clean Air Act.
Kinda hard to blame that one on Al Gore. ;-)
Prev 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 Next
