Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard

Posted on 9 November 2010 by dana1981

A frequent skeptic argument is that solving the global warming problem will be "too hard", and thus we should just resign ourselves to trying to adapt to whatever climate change happens.  Considering that many consequences of a large magnitude climate change would be very bad, hopefully this is not true.  Although it may be comforting to get in the car, close our eyes, sit back, and hope it does not crash into a brick wall, the wiser course of action is to see the wall in our path and attempt to avoid it if possible.

The argument that solving the global warming problem by reducing human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is "too hard" generally stems from the belief that (i) our technology is not sufficiently advanced to achieve significant emissions reductions, and/or (ii) that doing so would cripple the global economy.

Technology

Pacala and Socolow (2004) (PS04) investigated the first claim by examining the various technologies available to reduce GHG emissions.  Every technology they examined "has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale."  PS04 examined what would be required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 500 parts per million (ppm), which would require that GHG emissions be held near the present level of 7 billion tons of carbon per year (GtC/year) for the next 50 years. 

PS04 used the concept of a "stabilization wedge", in which "a wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere that starts at zero today and increases linearly until it accounts for 1 GtC/year of reduced carbon emissions in 50 years."  Implementing seven such wedges would achieve sufficient GHG emissions reductions to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide at 500 ppm by 2050, and emissions would have to decrease linearly during the second half of the 21st century.  PS04 identifies 15 current options which could be scaled up to produce at least one wedge, and note that their list is not exhaustive.

  1. Improved fuel economy: One wedge would be achieved if, instead of averaging 30 milesper gallon (mpg) on conventional fuel, cars in 2054 averaged 60 mpg, with fuel type and distance traveled unchanged.  Given recent advances in hybrid and electric vehicle technology, this is a very plausible wedge.

  2. Reduced reliance on cars: One wedge would be achieved if the average fuel economy of the 2 billion 2054 cars were 30 mpg, but the annual distance traveled were 5000 miles instead of 10,000 miles.

  3. More efficient buildings: One wedge is the difference between pursuing and not pursuing known and established approaches to energy-efficient space heating and cooling, water heating, lighting, and refrigeration in residential and commercial buildings.

  4. Improved power plant efficiency: One wedge would be created if twice today’s quantity of coal-based electricity in 2054 were produced at 60% instead of 40% efficiency.

  5. Substituting natural gas for coal: One wedge would be achieved by displacing 1400 gigawatts (GW) of baseload coal power with baseload gas by 2054.  Given recent natural gas price decreases, this is another very plausible wedge.

  6. Storage of carbon captured in power plants: One wedge would be provided by the installation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) at 800 GW of baseload coal plants by 2054 or 1600 GW of baseload natural gas plants.

  7. Storage of carbon captured in hydrogen plants: The hydrogen resulting from precombustion capture of CO2 can be sent offsite to displace the consumption of conventional fuels rather than being consumed onsite to produce electricity.  One wedge would require the installation of CCS, by 2054, at coal plants producing 250 million tons of hydrogen per year (MtH2/year), or at natural gas plants producing 500 MtH2/year.

  8. Storage of carbon captured in synthetic fuels plants: Large-scale production of synthetic fuels from carbon is a possibility.  One wedge would be the difference between capturing and venting the CO2 from coal synthetic fuels plants producing 30 million barrels of synthetic fuels per day.

  9. Nuclear power: One wedge of nuclear electricity would displace 700 GW of efficient baseload coal capacity in 2054. This would require 700 GW of nuclear power with the same 90% capacity factor assumed for the coal plants, or about twice the nuclear capacity currently deployed.

  10. Wind power: One wedge of wind electricity would require the deployment of 2000 GW of nominal peak capacity (GWp) that displaces coal electricity in 2054 (or 2 million 1-MWp wind turbines).  This would require approximately 10 times the current (as of 2010) deployment of wind power by mid-century.  Note that global wind power deployment increased from approximately 40 GW in 2004 to 158 GW in 2009.

  11. Solar photovoltaic power: One wedge from photovoltaic (PV) electricity would require 2000 GWp of installed capacity that displaces coal electricity in 2054.  This would require approximately 100 times the current (as of 2010) deployment of solar PV power by mid-century.  Note that global solar PV power deployment increased from approximately 3 GW in 2004 to 20 GW in 2009.

  12. Renewable hydrogen: Renewable electricity can produce carbon-free hydrogen for vehicle fuel by the electrolysis of water. The hydrogen produced by 4 million 1-MWp windmills in 2054, if used in high-efficiency fuel-cell cars, would achieve a wedge of displaced gasoline or diesel fuel.  However, use of renewable energy to power electric vehicles is more efficient than powering hydrogen vehicles with hydrogen produced through electrolysis from renewable power.

  13. Biofuels: One wedge of biofuel would be achieved by the production of about 34 million barrels per day of ethanol in 2054 that could displace gasoline, provided the ethanol itself were fossil-carbon free. This ethanol production rate would be about 50 times larger than today’s global production rate, almost all of which can be attributed to Brazilian sugarcane and United States corn.  The potential exists for increased biofuels production to compromise agriculturaly production, unless the biofuels are created from a non-food crop or other source such as algae oil.

  14. Forest management: At least one wedge would be available from reduced tropical deforestation and the management of temperate and tropical forests. At least one half-wedge would be created if the current rate of clear-cutting of primary tropical forest were reduced to zero over 50 years instead of being halved. A second half-wedge would be created by reforesting or afforesting approximately 250 million hectares in the tropics or 400 million hectares in the temperate zone (current areas of tropical and temperate forests are 1500 and 700 million hectares, respectively). A third half-wedge would be created by establishing approximately 300 million hectares of plantations on non-forested land.

  15. Agricultural soils management: When forest or natural grassland is converted to cropland, up to one-half of the soil carbon is lost, primarily because annual tilling increases the rate of decomposition by aerating undecomposed organic matter.  One-half to one wedge could be stored by extending conservation tillage to all cropland, accompanied by a verification program that enforces the adoption of soil conservation practices that work as advertised.

PS04 concludes "None of the options is a pipe dream or an unproven idea....Every one of these options is already implemented at an industrial scale and could be scaled up further over 50 years to provide at least one wedge."  While the study has identified 15 possible wedges, PS04 argues that only seven would be necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 500 ppm by mid-century.  The list in the study is also not exhaustive, for example omitting concentrated solar thermal power and other renwable energy technologies besides wind and solar PV.

However, Dr. Joseph Romm (Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the Clinton Administration) argues that at least 14 wedges would be necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm.  Romm proposes what he believes to be the most plausible way to achieve 16 wedges:

  • 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
  • 1 of wind for power — one million large (2 MWp) wind turbines
  • 1 of wind for vehicles — another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
  • 3 of concentrated solar thermal — ~5000 GW peak.
  • 3 of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs.
  • 1 of coal with carbon capture and storage — 800 GW of coal with CCS
  • 1 of nuclear power — 700 GW plus 10 Yucca mountains for storage
  • 1 of solar PV — 2000 GW peak [or less PV and some geothermal, tidal, and ocean thermal]
  • 1 of cellulosic biofuels — using one-sixth of the world’s cropland [or less land if yields significantly increase or algae-to-biofuels proves commercial at large scale].
  • 2 of forestry — End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
  • 1 of soils — Apply no-till farming to all existing croplands.

The bottom line is that while achieving the necessary GHG emissions reductions and stabilization wedges will be difficult, but it is possible.  And there are many solutions and combinations of wedges to choose from.

Economics

Working Group III of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report focused on climate change mitigation, and a substantial portion of the report focused on the economic impacts of mitigation efforts.  The key finding of the report is as follows.

"Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels (high agreement, much evidence)."

The report found that stabilizing between 445 and 535 ppm CO2-equivalent (350–440 ppm CO2) will slow the average annual global GDP growth rate by less than 0.12%.  Additionally, this slowed GDP growth rate is in comparison to the unrealistic business-as-usual (BAU) scenario where climate change has no impact on the economy.  By 2030, the IPCC found that global GDP would decrease by a total of no more than 3% compared to the unrealistic BAU scenario, depending on the magnitude of the emissions reductions. 

The report also found that health benefits from reduced air pollution as a result of actions to reduce GHG emissions can be substantial and may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation costs.  Some other key findings:

"Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit."

"Forest-related mitigation activities can considerably reduce emissions from sources and increase CO2 removals by sinks at low costs."

"Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes. Such policies could include economic instruments, government funding and regulation."

In short, there are numerous opportunites to reduce GHG emissions at low cost, some of which result in a net economic gain.  Overall, emissions can be reduced at a cost which will not cripple the global economy.  Moreover, these emissions reductions would have a significant positive economic impact by slowing global warming.

We have the necessary technology.  The net costs to implement them will not be crippling.  The question remains - do we have the will to put forth the effort and initial investment to solve the problem?

This post is the Advanced version (written by Dana Nuccitelli [dana1981]) of the skeptic argument "it's too hard".  Basic and Intermediate versions are also available.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 138:

  1. BTW, you don't have to refer to Jevons or any other market theory/concept to understand what happens if something becomes cheaper or more expensive. There are hundreds of millions of people running businesses that will tell you what happens.
    0 0
  2. RSVP: "How is it not so that a plot of land designed for collecting solar power, isnt one plot less for growing food?" Actually there are a growing number of Brit farmers that are interested in putting solar PV panels in their fields, keeping livestock underneath.
    0 0
  3. The Ville @52 That makes sense, as it opens to the idea of finding rather niche solutions that make sense locally, while having benefits globally, in the same way that so many locally "good" things may have a globally "bad" effect. When considering a global issue, you are concerned with an overall average. Since the task is to affect the average, you can end up with solutions that make little sense to the local condition. The prescriptions in the article in no way differentiate between regional needs. Some things may be universal, while other make no sense at all. A simple example would be not using wood to heat a home that is isolated in the middle of a forest or orchard, especially where the amount of heat needed is equal to the rate of local growth and or normal pruning, etc.
    0 0
  4. Why would there be no mention of biocharcoal technology? Combined with tree planting this technology can sequester as much CO2 as is required to stabilize climates and restore once fertile soils, as well. Another wedge. http://www.biochar-international.org/
    0 0
  5. Bern @ #31Phila @ #28: It already *has* happened - if you consider the lack of regulation of the finance sector and the resulting economic chaos of the last few years... My implicit point exactly and explicitly. The only people who've managed to "wreck the economy" are the kneejerk anti-regulation types. Which suggests that it might be time to start listening to people with a better track record, or failing that, a more plausible set of basic assumptions.
    0 0
  6. To say that wedge one is useless simply because of Jevon's principle is obsurd. Also, comparing older technologies to newer technologies and saying that the samething will happen is crazy (Steam engines vs cars). If you do the math on fuel efficiency, you will see why Jevon's principle doesn't completely apply to automotive technology and fuel consumption. Fuel efficiency in cars is not linear. The more efficient a car gets in fuel efficiency is not 1:1 with how much gas is consumed. The math shows you that. When they talk about the average fuel economy of a fleet of cars, it is exactly that...the "average" fuel economy taking into account that some of the cars have a fuel economy of 20 MPG and some of them might get 40 MPG. Now here is why you can't take the "average" fleet fuel economy number at face value. For one, the MPG number doesn't necessarily mean that the "gallons" is referring to gallons of gasoline. But, let's assume that we're talking strictly gasoline. Let's take two sets of two cars each (these are our fleets). The first set consists of a car that receives only 10 MPG and another that receives 100 MPG. Together they average out to 60 MPG. But if both cars were to travel 100 miles, they would together consume about 6 gallons of gasoline. Now let's look at another fleet that consists of two cars that both average 60 MPG. The average MPG of both these cars is obviously 60 MPG, but if you look at the amount of gasoline consumed if both these cars traveled 100 miles, we'd see that it comes out to be almost HALF of what the first fleets uses. What this means is that even though wedge one would propose levels increased to 60 MPG (up from 30 MPG), the amount of gasoline consumed (and therefore burned releasing GHG) is going to be much more than just double! The reason for this is because of the fact that by the date 2054, there will be much less cars on the road that only get 10, 20 or even 30 MPG. There is a very sharpe upcurve to the graph of fuel consumption that shows that as a car becomes increasingly fuel efficient, there is a much sharper decrease in actual fuel consumed. That doesn't even take into account that much of today's technology in fuel efficient cars allows for almost no fuel consumption if the commuter only travels a few miles a day (ie, plug-in hybrids). Wedge 1 doesn't concern itself with the number of commuters who will decide to drive a car when traveling for the holidays that would've otherwise said "no" if fuel costs were too high. Wedge 1 concerns itself with the average commuter. That is where the greastest savings in fuel consumption will come from. And it is from those commuters that we'll see the greatest decrease of fuel consumption if fuel efficiency in cars increases from 30 MPG to 60 MPG. The less we see vehicles that get 10-20 MPG on the road, the greater the savings in fuel comsumption are.
    0 0
  7. Re: Jevons paradox I've been following this thread with great interest, as it finally begins to address the next needed step: taking action on what we know about global warming. Since I have little expertise in most of what's been covered in this thread thus far, I've been content to lurk. What The Ville & CBD have identified, Jevons paradox, touches upon the heart of AGW: the need to educate people about the dangers of the CO2 derived from the burning of fossil fuels so that they will want to leave the stuff in the ground. Without that same educational process, Jevons paradox will kick in and reduce the effectivity of the changes applied to each wedge. In short, people will adapt to the wedge in unanticipated ways, negating some of the intended benefit of the wedge. Like the unlamented turn towards pro-nuclear power on a recent thread by some individuals, without the education to make the need to allow the wedge to come to complete fruition, or the need to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, the result will be less than the intent. People are people, after all. And being people, they are resistant to both change and to education. And will fight both kicking and screaming. Like a child going to the dentist, even if for their own good, they will resist. The Yooper
    0 0
  8. clonmac. The biggest issue I have with "official" fuel efficiency ratings it that it *assumes* open highway travel only. How many people actually use their cars primarily for this purpose though? In peak hour traffic, cars usually consume 20% more petrol than what their official fuel efficiency claims. So if a car is officially rated as 8L/100km, then in peak hour traffic its more like 9.6L/100km (or often as high as 10L/100km). Yet it never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise *intelligent* people will die in a ditch to defend their RIGHT to let the Oil Companies pick their pockets with impunity. Even suggesting that they might consider car-pooling or-heaven forbid-public transport gets you dark looks & mutterings of "Communist". Hilarious :)!
    0 0
  9. Its unfortunate that, even here, I seem to be running into much the same narrow thinking about solutions as what I do on sites like The Australian. For example, RSVP talks about crop-land that could be displaced by solar panels. For starters, he doesn't seem aware of just how much land is displaced by the average coal mine-& how this demand for land is already placing pressure on food security here in Australia. Not only is there the direct land displacement by the mine, though, but coal dust & coal slurry can damage even more of the land outside of the mine site. By contrast, how much roof-space (commercial & residential) do you think there is in-say-Australia? How much of that space would you need for just 3KW of generating capacity? At the moment all this roof-space is primarily wasted space, when it could instead be converted into one giant, but highly decentralized, solar power station. The main point though is that, whether built in deserts, fields or on rooftops, the nature of photovoltaic energy (& wind energy) is that they can harvest energy *without* necessarily disrupting whatever activity might otherwise occur on the site. That is thanks to the *modular* nature of the power supply-something that both coal & nuclear lack. Another benefit of modular power supply, though, is that you can scale it up to meet demand-or scale it back if you realize demand won't be met. For instance, if you build a 1,200MW coal power station, then you're committed to that-even if demand only ends up being 800MW. Also, you don't get *any* of that power until the power station is completed. If, in the future, demand exceeds that 1,200MW of supply, then you have to build a *whole new power station* to meet demand-or else import electricity from elsewhere at a higher price. If that power station were made up of photovoltaics though, you could stop building your power station at 800MW-& still have a fully operational power station. Also, as long as the transmission infrastructure is already in place, then you get power even before the power station is fully built. Lastly, if demand one day routinely exceeds supply by 10% or 20%, then you just throw in 80MW to 160MW of more solar panels!
    0 0
  10. Marcus, good points about some of the benefits of solar PV and wind. Of course they also have their disadvantages - on a cloudy or calm day, 800 MW of solar PV and/or wind isn't 800 MW anymore. That problem is solved by diversifying the power grid, which is why you've got some wind wedges and some solar PV and some solar thermal and some natural gas, etc. etc. The other disadvantage with solar PV is that it's still expensive relative to these other sources. But the price is decreasing as technology advances and the economies of scale take effect.
    0 0
  11. The last point is definitely true. Prior to the invention of the Sine-Wave inverter (1982), the average cost of a solar cell was US$26/Watt. At last check (October 2010) they were only $3.59/Watt. Not only that, but average conversion efficiencies have tripled in that same length of time (from around 8% to 24%). By contrast, coal power costs about $1.80 to $2.20 per Watt to install, & conversion efficiencies have been stuck-by physics & engineering constraints-at around 36% for the last 30 years. Yet guess which energy source receives the biggest R&D tax concessions?
    0 0
  12. #59 Marcus at 09:43 AM on 10 November, 2010 The main point though is that, whether built in deserts, fields or on rooftops, the nature of photovoltaic energy (& wind energy) is that they can harvest energy *without* necessarily disrupting whatever activity might otherwise occur on the site. Indeed. This photovoltaic plant was built on Carrizo plain, California in 1983, abandoned in 1994 and looks like this now. This is the native grassland at Carrizo plain. Or even prettier, sometimes. No disruption at all. The plant occupies 0.72 km2 and it has produced 5.2 MW at its prime (slightly more than 7 W/m2). With this land use efficiency a standard 1000 MW plant would destroy 140 km2, orders of magnitude more than a coal fired plant, open mines included.
    0 0
  13. Berényi Péter @ #62: So, what you're saying is that because a solar PV plant built with 30-year-old technology was an inefficient use of space, that any new plant using 3 times more efficient PV cells is necessarily a waste of space? And lets look at that 1000MW coal plant. The power plant itself might only use a couple of km2. But the mine used to power that? If you happen to live in an area where coal mines are all underground, that might only add a few more km2, so maybe 10km2 total. If it's open cut, like the majority of coal mines in this part of the world, then you're talking about a couple of km2 of additional area affected per year. Over a 30-year mine life, the areas can get pretty big (thinking back to one I worked in as a student some 18 years ago, it affected about 50km2 at the time, and had only been in operation for about 5 years - I'd hate to think what it's footprint is now!).
    0 0
  14. Ah, spoken like a true Coal Power advocate Berényi Péter-first of all you totally ignored my main point (namely the amount of viable roof-space that could be put to work making solar-power), then dredge up a single, almost 30-year old case to try & dismiss my secondary point. The top-most picture is simply an example of failure to rehabilitate a site, & a poor choice of site to begin with. We're talking true *deserts* here BP, not plains like the one you conveniently have a picture of. A modern photovoltaic array could get around 60W-250W/sq. meter (depending on the conversion efficiency of the cells), which kind of stomps your pathetic argument into the ground-as a 6MW facility in modern terms would use up less than 10 square meters of space (between 2-8 square meters actually). As I said in my previous post, you could then build a 1,200MW PV plant *not* by building a *single* 1.6 square kilometer facility, but by building about 8-10 160 square meter facilities-easy to do with available roof-space!
    0 0
  15. I have just read that the International Energy Agency reckon that global coal demand is set to rise by 60% over the next 25 years, with China buring 50% of it in 2035. Not a good indicator of any reduction or levelling off of emissions.
    0 0
  16. Oh & BP, its worth noting that that's just the amount of electricity/square meter using very basic photovoltaic technology. If you're looking at *concentrated* photovoltaic power (which uses reflective mirrors to enhance the amount of light hitting the panels), then you could probably reduce the watts/square meter by a further 20% to 40%.
    0 0
  17. sorry, I obviously meant *increase* the watts per square meter.
    0 0
  18. Wow BP, cherrypicking at its finest.
    0 0
  19. Nice article in Science Daily on direct current (DC) transmission networks for offshore wind farms here. Nice bit of out-of-the-box thinking reflected in the idea. The Yooper
    0 0
  20. I see a reality check is in order. Power Density Primer: Understanding the Spatial Dimension of the Unfolding Transition to Renewable Electricity Generation (Part IV – New Renewables Electricity Generation) by Vaclav Smil May 13, 2010
    0 0
  21. Ah, more cherry-picking at its finest Berenyi. A free-market Web-site. Kind of like those climate change denialist sites you're so fond of, hey Beranyi? When you can find data from a *neutral* source-not one pushing a pro-fossil fuel agenda down our throats-then I might take you seriously. Until then, I think you're the only one needing a reality check. An average, 1KW solar panel (of only about 10%-12% efficiency) is only 8 square meters in size-which amounts to around 125W/square meter. Of course there are already models on the market which exceed 25% efficiency, & there are models coming out of the lab that surpass 40% conversion efficiency. Go do some *proper* research Beranyi!
    0 0
  22. Berényi - Your source seems a bit biased. Here's a few posting titles: - Post-Election, Post-Cap-and-Trade: Obama Clings to an Anti-CO2 Agenda - Wind Energy is Ancient (the infant industry argument for subsidies does not apply) - EPA’s Regs for Rigs – Fuel Economy Fetish Goes Diesel - Real Clean Coal: Japan’s Unit #2 Isogo Plant - “The Future of Economic Freedom” (A corporate call to principled action) - Halloween Hangover: Ehrlich, Holdren, Hansen Unretracted - Peeling Away the Onion of Denmark Wind (Part IV – CO2 Emissions) - Dear Peak Oilers: Please Consider Erich Zimmermann’s ‘Functional Theory’ of Mineral Resources - Solar Cheaper than Grid Nuclear? Think Again! - The All-Electric Car: Think 132-Year Payback (DOE’s Sandalow shows us what not to do) - ... Certainly not peer-reviewed material. And in fact I can see the axes being ground there.
    0 0
  23. A couple of other real-world projects that show how off-beam Beranyi & his "source" actually are. The Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada (hardly the sunniest part of the world), has 80MW of peak capacity & covers an area of around 900,000 square meters-or about 80 Watts/square meter. Nellis Airforce Base-14MW facility occupying a total of roughly 500,000 square meters-or about 30 Watts/square meter. Both of the above examples used technologies from earlier this decade (& probably not even the best available), yet we're seeing that even the very *worst* energy densities are 4 times greater than the 25+ year-old project BP uses to try & dismiss solar energy out of hand. Certainly these examples don't detract from my original points, which were: (1) the modular nature of photovoltaics means you don't need to build it as a single, large power station-but instead distribute it over a wide geographic area-to reduce its footprint; (2) that even if you *were* t build it as a single, large power station-photovoltaics have a smaller footprint than a coal or nuclear power station *if* you consider the footprint of the associated mine (& even more-so if you also account for the land area needed to dump associated waste); (3) If built as a single, large power station, photovoltaics work best when sited in areas that are otherwise devoid of economic value (like desert). Recent events in Northern NSW proves this is *not* the case for coal!
    0 0
  24. As for distributed solar generation, I see a big future for some of the newer technology incorporating solar function into roof materials. May not be affordable or sensible initially for domestic applications, but when you look at all the schools, stadiums and churches with large roof areas and only intermittent use for their own purposes, there's a large potential. Especially when you consider Australia and other hot places' need for cooking and air conditioning at exactly the times schools are using nil or little power. Between 4 & 8 pm in summer on workdays, all weekends, as well as school holidays, there's a big source with no additional land use involved at all. Add in solar thermal and some geothermal for baseload and a bit of wind for cold and cloudy weather, looks good. And can we please take into account the enormous demands on the water supply for all power plants that burn stuff. Water is used for both mining the fuel and for operating the plants. In a world of more droughts, or at least more unreliable water supplies, this has to be a big consideration.
    0 0
  25. Speaking of air-conditioning, has anyone heard anything recently about that solar-thermal-powered air-conditioning system being developed by ANU? Most recent stuff I can find is the press release from February last year. Stuff like this has the potential to make a *massive* dent in electricity usage, particularly in Australia.
    0 0
  26. dana1981: Wow BP, cherrypicking at its finest. Truly. And why do I have this suspicion that his worries about land use in the desert West would evaporate if we were talking about an ideologically acceptable power source like coal, oil or nuclear?
    0 0
  27. Marcus #59 Your point is well taken about using roof space, its decentralized modular nature, and how roof space is not normally available to agriculture, however in 73 you do a 180 and "certainly do detract from your original point". And aside from your point, compare the radiative qualities of a black body (black shale roofing, or even tar paper) to a solar panel. The solar panel is "sequestering" heat all day. Using photovoltaics to create electricity surely reduces CO2 (which isnt bad), but its not so clear overall that they make the Earth cooler. The most efficient solar panel would be one that when you touched it midday, it would be nice and cool. A hot roof on the other hand is actually radiating heat into space.
    0 0
  28. RSVP@77 The solar panel would cause a delay in warming via conduction or emission. eg. if it was hundred percent efficient, eventually the energy would be converted to heat or work by the device(s) it was connected to. But this energy would escape, as it does in the natural world. In theory renewables are the only non-warming (over time) energy source. It has been pointed out that if you added a very large number of nuclear and geothermal power stations and operated them 24/7, you would eventually warm the planet by a few degrees. But it would require an enormous expansion of nuclear energy.
    0 0
  29. Berényi Péter your photos highlight some of my concerns about solar farms that use currently inefficient technology. I am quite concerned about the impact on the biodiversity in the areas that are suitable for them. People forget that scrub land, desserts etc. are actually rich in life that has adapted to those conditions and you only see it when there is rain or flooding. It only appears for a few weeks or months. I think wind farms have a smaller impact although probably are not suitable for desserts etc. There are a lot of interesting ideas around. I was interested recently in the idea of harvesting the heat stored under cities and towns, that causes the urban heat island effect: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44135 We should exploit resources that are caused by our own existing developments, before exploiting the natural landscape more.
    0 0
  30. Hi Dana, keep up the good work. Here's another take on the 'wedge' system, developed by the Centre for Alternative Technology (C.A.T.) for the U.K. specifically; Zero Carbon Britain 2030
    0 0
  31. #73 Marcus at 17:00 PM on 10 November, 2010 The Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada (hardly the sunniest part of the world), has 80MW of peak capacity & covers an area of around 900,000 square meters-or about 80 Watts/square meter. Come on. Peak capacity means naught. If anything, only average capacity has an economic value. Sarnia Solar Energy at a glance: Capacity peak: about 80 MW of emissions-free power Power purchaser: Ontario Power Authority Facility size: Located on 950 acres Panel surface area: about 966,000 square metres, which is about 1.3 million thin film panels (First Solar) Annual yield: about 120,000 MWh CO2 saving: over 39,000 tonnes per year Jobs created: About 800 jobs created at construction peak, as well as indirect benefits to dozens of businesses in the Sarnia area, including engineering and design firms, construction subcontractors, suppliers and service providers. Let's see. The annual yield, 120,000 MWh is 4.32×1014 J. There are about 3.16×107 seconds in a year. Therefore nominal average capacity is 1.37×107 W (13.7 MW). It is only 17.1% of peak. Panel surface area is 9.66×105 m2. That's 14.2 W/m2, a bit less than 80 W/m2. However, facility size is much larger than raw panel surface. It is 950 acres, that is, 3.84×106 m2 (3.84 km2). 13.7 MW divided by 3.84 km2... is 3.56 W/m2. At the latitude of Sarnia (43°N) average annual insolation at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) is 317.2 W/m2 (484 W/m2 in June and 138 W/m2 in December). However, about 30% is reflected back to space and another 20% is absorbed before getting down to ground level. The 160 W/m2 average left is used at a meager 2.25% efficiency (8.94% for net panel surface). In wintertime, when it is cold and dark, so energy is needed most, capacity is less than 6 MW (1.56 W/m2, 7.5% of peak). That's reality, if you know what I mean.
    View Larger Map They say the additional 60 MW (peak) capacity costs US$300 million to install (they've purchased 20 MW from First Solar for US$100 million) and it's just 5$/W in investment. As we have seen, in reality it is closer to 30$/W. A 20 year contract with Ontario Power Authority to sell the power is part of the deal. Now, Average Weighted Retail Price of electricity in Ontario since Jan 1, 2010 is 3.85¢/kWh. At this price annual nominal production of 120,000 MWh in 20 years brings in a stunning US$92.4 million. US$307.6 is still missing somehow, and that's with zero operational costs. In normal circumstances only a madman makes such an investment. However, we do not know at what rate Enbridge is selling it to the Ontario Power Authority. If it is at least five times the market price, with the important provision the Power Authority is obliged to buy it not when it is needed but whenever it is available, it may bring in some profit in the long run. On the other hand of course only a madman would buy something not needed for five times the market price, but it is public money, isn't it?
    0 0
  32. Interesting study suggests alternatives to fossil fuels aren't being developed fast enough, oil will run out 90 years before: News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109095322.htm Research publication (subscription): http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q I'm not sure whether studying markets is the best way??
    0 0
  33. Berényi Péter@81 I think it is a bit dubious to work out the 'W/m squared' based on facility size rather than panel area. If you start doing that then fossil fuels would take up a huge area because of the supporting infrastructure, mining etc. to support them. Or in other words, your numbers are fundamentally junk. The only valid figure to use is 14.2 W/m2 (assuming you got that calculation correct) unless fossil fuel use is re-assessed based on land use. I wouldn't like to work that one out. Also where do you get the 2.25% figure from?
    0 0
  34. Re:Berényi Péter@81 and my last comment. Regarding area of facility. If this idea was applied to fossil fuel power stations then you would have to include the land used to store big piles of coal, the mining facilities, the roads and railway lines. eg. it is ludicrous to do a watts per square meter calculation based on facility (infrastructure) size. It is possible, but since it isn't done for fossil fuel fired power stations, it shouldn't be done for solar farms. You either have to do it for every type of generation system, or none of them, you can't pick and mix the rules.
    0 0
  35. In all fairness to Berényi, the average power in W/m^2 (not the peak power) for a wind or solar plant is one of the critical numbers, along with associated energy storage capacity, such as thermal banks for concentrated solar. On the other hand, Ville and others are correct that the surface impact of fossil fueled plants does include ongoing mining operations. This makes area comparisons difficult.
    0 0
  36. Yet still, at the end of the day, we're left with the fact that you *can't* build a coal power station *without* significant disruption to the landscape-whereas you can build the *equivalent* of a solar power station *without* disruption to the landscape-by using roof-top space, road-sides & other spaces in the city & suburbs that currently go unused. Heck, they're even talking about putting solar into window tinting material & just under the surface of roads! The reality is that, when you account for the power station, the coal mine & the land used to dump toxic fly-ash waste, the environmental footprint of a coal power station is *huge* compared to solar farms-even ones that use technology that was nearly 10 years old when construction began. Given recent leaps forward in conversion efficiency, we can expect the footprint of the latter technology to keep dropping-regardless of where its built-whereas the footprint of coal power will always remain very large!
    0 0
  37. As much as I think Berenyi Peter's arguments about facility area are specious & misleading, there does seem to be a point regarding the potential income from that plant. 120,000MWh/yr at 3.85c/kWh is only $4.6m per year in revenue, if you sell the power at prevailing wholesale rates. Not a very good return from a $300m investment (just a smidgeon above 1.5%). On the other hand, you could say that solar panels at the north pole are a poor investment, and you'd probably be right. Somewhat closer to the equator, on the other hand, the numbers might change a bit... and then there's the whole other question of "how much money is it worth spending to avoid catastrophic global warming?" Of course, we want to spend that money in the most efficient way possible. Putting solar panels in far northern or southern latitudes is probably not the way to go. The Ville @ #83: I think the 2.25% figure comes from considering the entire area of the facility, which is four times the area of the actual solar panels. Not sure where the 8.94% efficiency for the panels comes from - I thought that most panels were getting closer to 15-20% these days, but must admit I haven't checked the numbers lately.
    0 0
  38. Wow Beranyi, your desperate attempts to defend a dirty & inefficient source of power-straight out of the 19th century (i.e. coal)-are really quite quaint. Yet your increasingly specious reasoning betrays the weakness of your original argument-that being the use of a 30 year old solar farm to "prove" that solar power is a bad investment. I mean, if you want to quibble over numbers, then I can always talk about the Transmission & Distribution losses from Coal Power stations (about 10% to 12% of total capacity in most areas), or the vast amounts of electricity generated-between 8pm & 8am-that never get used. Your claims regarding solar panel efficiency are entirely off-beam, btw. Solar panels being sold on the market at the time had an average conversion efficiency of about 10%-12% (some were even as high as around 20% around 2006-2008). This means that, even for this poorly lit region of the world-using the most inefficient solar panels of the time-should get around 16 Watts/square meter. The only thing I will agree on is Bern's point about the folly of building a solar farm so close to the Pole. In more appropriate regions (pretty much anything south of Canada), the *real* energy density of solar panels is much closer to the numbers I've previously cited-& its improving pretty much every year, whilst prices continue to drop (current US price is about $3.50/Watt). Yet, as I've said before-ad nauseum-the *real* beauty of photovoltaics is that you don't need to build them as "Solar Farms", you just build them on available roof spaces-& other vacant areas-& you can get the equivalent of a power station. For instance, the average residential rooftop in Australia can easily fit about 4kw worth of solar panels. Now even if we assume only 1 million such homes being available for fitting, that comes to 4 million KW of peak power-or about 4,000MW-the equivalent of about 4 regular sized coal-fired power stations, without displacing a single acre of farm land, national park or urban development area. Try doing that with a coal power station & see how far you get.
    0 0
  39. Bern @ 87. The best *commercially available* solar panels have a conversion efficiency of 24%-& it would be hard to find one with anything less than a 16% conversion efficiency. There are models in the Lab which currently get greater than a 40% conversion efficiency. All of this progress is being made on, virtually, the "smell of an oily rag"-in terms of R&D funding.
    0 0
  40. The Ville #78 "The solar panel would cause a delay in warming via conduction or emission. eg. if it was hundred percent efficient, eventually the energy would be converted to heat or work by the device(s) it was connected to. But this energy would escape, as it does in the natural world." It's funny you shrug off that "small" detail when in fact supposed warming due to delays in cooling brought on by anthropogenic CO2 enshrines the cornerstone of AGW theory.
    0 0
  41. Bern: "I think the 2.25% figure comes from considering the entire area of the facility, which is four times the area of the actual solar panels.| Yes that is what I was thinking overnight (UK). That was the only explanation. That is a distinct distortion of any engineering or scientific methodology that is credible. He is mixing up economic calculations with engineering calculations, in a way misleading way. The only currently reasonable way of using watts per metre squared calculations regarding solar panels is for comparisons with other solar power stations. Once you go beyond that, and start using pseudo economic/engineering calculations to make comparisons with other options, the simple calculations break down dramatically. Even my assumption that you can reduce it to the solar panel area and compare it to a coal fired power station, is clearly incorrect, but is is less of a bodge than Berényi Péters attempt.
    0 0
  42. #88 Marcus at 11:03 AM on 11 November, 2010 your desperate attempts to defend a dirty & inefficient source of power-straight out of the 19th century (i.e. coal)-are really quite quaint. I am not defending coal. I am just trying to tell you land use efficiency of coal based power generation is up to a hundred times better than that of solar (mining, transportation & waste disposal included). It is a fact. Even in a worst case scenario when the plant is located far away from the mine its efficiency in this respect is more than ten times better. Of course nuclear outperforms coal by another factor of ten-to-a-hundred, so we should clearly go for it. Yet your increasingly specious reasoning betrays the weakness of your original argument-that being the use of a 30 year old solar farm to "prove" that solar power is a bad investment. Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada is not a 30 year old thing, it is being built right now by Enbridge using state of the art thin film PV collectors purchased from First Solar in the 3rd quarter of 2010. I do not think it is a bad investment either. At least as long as the public lets the Government collect the money for an expensive PR campaign of an oil company (that's what Sarnia is about), it's just a piece of cake. I mean, if you want to quibble over numbers, then I can always talk about [...] Well, there is a several thousand years old European tradition which involves extensive quibbling over numbers before making decisions called "rational" by the natives. This tradition may be fading away in Europe quickly, but during an aggressive past period of European history known as "colonization" it was exported mindlessly all over the world using transient military might and may still be practiced in backwater corners. I am glad the New World is proudly joining the fight for getting rid of this old burden. Plain talk is so much nicer and as you say, we can always do that almost effortlessly. This means that, even for this poorly lit region of the world-using the most inefficient solar panels of the time-should get around 16 Watts/square meter. The 14.2 W/m2 efficiency for net panel surface claimed by Enbridge is not much less than that. However, land use efficiency also includes the necessary tilting of panels (to optimize insolation angle), gaps to avoid shading, service roads & buildings, etc. BTW Sarnia is not so poorly lit as you claim. In June it gets 24% more power flux at TOA than the equator and even the annual average is only 24% less here than there. The atmosphere may be a bit more transparent in arid or semi arid regions (except for airborne dust), but destroying sensitive desert ecosystems by building extensive road systems there, sending in heavy machinery over large areas and turning them into tramped down construction sites (remember the meager land use efficiency) is not always a good idea. Also, large population and industrial centers tend to be outside deserts, so power transmission losses also come into play. Yet, as I've said before-ad nauseum-the *real* beauty of photovoltaics is that you don't need to build them as "Solar Farms", you just build them on available roof spaces-& other vacant areas-& you can get the equivalent of a power station. I would agree with that. Except if the technology is far too expensive for large scale installations, it is even more expensive for a distributed system. We should clearly wait until price of solar panels gets closer to that of ordinary roof tile. Anyway, if you do not have local energy storage capacity, electricity generated on rooftops is not terribly useful. Of course it can be used for air conditioning, because it is sunny most of the time when it is hot, but PV panels make a low albedo (dark) surface per definitionem, collecting heat effectively and making electricity as a byproduct just to get rid of this heat using complicated machinery. Does it make sense? Painting rooftops white may be a low tech solution compared to this, but it is much cheaper. Pre-heating water with old style solar heat collectors to be used by washing machines, dishwashers, in shower and family pools may also make more sense on rooftops, than PV. On the other hand, if you could store the electricity generated in sunny hours locally for later use, when it is really needed, that would be a game changer. Unfortunately current battery packs are both prohibitively expensive and are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime. Proper handling of toxic waste distributed all over the country is a real nightmare. We are clearly a technological breakthrough or two away from efficient, cheap and benign storage.
    0 0
  43. RSVP@90 You make a good point! I wasn't shrugging anything off. My comparison was with a really massive increase in nuclear energy (mainly), probably bigger than is practically or physically possible. In which case renewables are probably better because they don't add to the system, they take an existing input from a 'nuclear' source external to the Earth.
    0 0
  44. Berényi Péter: "I am just trying to tell you land use efficiency of coal based power generation is up to a hundred times better than that of solar (mining, transportation & waste disposal included)." 1. Your calculations are dubious and clearly weighted. 2. You haven't at all compared solar with coal land use. I haven't seen any research that does. Please reference some if you have. The subject I suggest is a potential mine field and can't be simplified. You have presented some rough calculations based on easily available data on solar panels, but you have produced nothing regarding coal. And lets not forget that in engineering terms coal fired power stations are no angels when it comes to real engineering based efficiency calculations (excluding land use).
    0 0
  45. Berényi Péter: "Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada is not a 30 year old thing, it is being built right now by Enbridge using state of the art thin film PV collectors purchased from First Solar in the 3rd quarter of 2010." Agreed, it uses the latest Thin Film technology with an efficiency probably between 8 and 9 percent. Which means your 2.25% figure is misleading. It should be pointed out that the older technology is more efficient but more expensive. Berényi Péter: "However, land use efficiency also includes the necessary tilting of panels (to optimize insolation angle), gaps to avoid shading, service roads & buildings, etc." That is irrelevant unless you are going to do more detailed and similar checks on land use for other options.
    0 0
  46. #94 The Ville at 21:35 PM on 11 November, 2010 You have presented some rough calculations based on easily available data on solar panels, but you have produced nothing regarding coal. Look again. Under #70 I have provided a link where the question is discussed at length. Power Density Primer: Understanding the Spatial Dimension of the Unfolding Transition to Renewable Electricity Generation (Part II – Coal- and Wood-Fired Electricity Generation) by Vaclav Smil May 10, 2010 "In order to provide a useful approximate bracketing we might thus conclude that, depending on their specific circumstances, most large modern coal-fired power plants generate electricity with power densities ranging over an order of magnitude, from just around 100 W/m2 to 1,000 W/m2."
    0 0
  47. Berényi - Given the obvious biases of the fossil fuel oriented blog you referenced, I find it difficult to take their numbers seriously. Do you have any less biased references for these comparisons? Anything peer reviewed would be nice, but something other than a blatantly tilted perspective would be nice; perhaps a survey document from energy planners or something?
    0 0
  48. Ok, I just had a quick look at that article. The "1000W/m2" figure is arrived at by assuming a 15m thick seam of very high quality coal, and looking at the area required to generate power each year. So, over a nominal 30-year plant life, that 1000W/m2 area impact is looking closer to, what, 33W/m2? And that's assuming 100% efficiency in extracting the coal (i.e. the total mine area is exactly equal to the area of coal seam extracted). In my experience, it's probably closer to 50%, so we're looking more like 16-17W/m2. All of a sudden, that coal-fired plant doesn't look ten times better than solar in terms of land usage. And that's a best-case scenario, with coal conveyored from mine to plant, and fly-ash dumped in the old pit (doubt you'd be able to manage that with strip-cut mining - the pit is needed to dump the spoil from the next strip). If we look at a power station with remote mine, then we're looking at numbers the same, or worse, than that solar plant in Ontario. I guess that highlights why John wants to try to stick to peer-reviewed sources, even when looking at mitigation approaches. It makes the numbers a whole lot less rubbery, as both sides of the argument have been known to massage the figures a bit...
    0 0
  49. BP #92 - "We should clearly wait until price of solar panels gets closer to that of ordinary roof tile." And how exactly are solar panels supposed to reach such a ridiculously low cost? I mean, if we're not supposed to buy the current technology, where is the R&D funding supposed to come from?
    0 0
  50. Berényi Péter wrote : "Unfortunately current battery packs are both prohibitively expensive and are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime. Proper handling of toxic waste distributed all over the country is a real nightmare. We are clearly a technological breakthrough or two away from efficient, cheap and benign storage." Sounds like the nuclear waste problem - but not nearly as bad. Perhaps we should wait for the technological breakthrough there too ?
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us