Imagine a group of 100 fisherman faced with declining stocks and worried about the sustainability of their resource and their livelihoods. One of them works out that the total sustainable catch is about 20% of what everyone is catching now (with some uncertainty of course) but that if current trends of increasing catches (about 2% a year) continue the resource would be depleted in short order. Faced with that prospect, the fishermen gather to decide what to do. The problem is made more complicated because some groups of fishermen are much more efficient than the others. The top 5 catchers, catch 20% of the fish, and the top 20 catch almost 75% of the fish. Meanwhile the least efficient 50 catch only 10% of the fish and barely subsist. Clearly, fairness demands that the top catchers lead the way in moving towards a more sustainable future.
The top 5 do start discussing how to manage the transition. They realise that the continued growth in catches – driven by improved technology and increasing effort – is not sustainable, and make a plan to reduce their catch by 80% over a number of years. But there is opposition – manufacturers of fishing boats, tackle and fish processing plants are worried that this would imply less sales for them in the short term. Strangely, they don’t seem worried that a complete collapse of the fishery would mean no sales at all – preferring to think that the science can’t possibly be correct and that everything will be fine. These manufacturers set up a number of organisations to advocate against any decreases in catch sizes – with catchy names like the Fisherfolk for Sound Science, and Friends of Fish. They then hire people who own an Excel spreadsheet program do “science” for them – and why not? They live after all in a free society.
After spending much energy and money on trying to undermine the science – with claims that the pond is much deeper than it looks, that the fish are just hiding, that the records of fish catches were contaminated by being done near a supermarket – the continued declining stocks and smaller and smaller fish make it harder and harder to sound convincing. So, in a switch of tactics so fast it would impress Najinsky, the manufacturers’ lobby suddenly decides to accept all that science and declares that the ‘fish are hiding’ crowd are just fringe elements. No, they said, we want to help with this transition, but …. we need to be sure that the plans will make sense. So they ask their spreadsheet-wielding “advocacy scientists” to calculate exactly what would happen if the top 5 (and only the top 5) did cut their catches by 80%, but meanwhile everyone else kept increasing their catch at the current (unsustainable rate). Well, the answers were shocking – the total catch would be initially still be 84% of what it is now and would soon catch up with current levels. In fact, the exact same techniques that were used to project the fishery collapse imply that this would only delay the collapse by a few years! and what would be the point of that?
The fact that the other top fishermen are discussing very similar cuts and that the fisherfolk council was trying to coordinate these actions to minimise the problems that might emerge, are of course ignored and the cry goes out that nothing can be done. In reality of course, the correct lesson to draw is that everything must be done.
In case you think that no-one would be so stupid as to think this kind of analysis has any validity, I would ask that you look up the history of the Newfoundland cod fishery. It is indeed a tragedy.
And the connection to climate? Here.
I’ll finish with a quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, one the founders of the original conservative movement:
“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
See here for a much better picture of what coordinated action could achieve.
#950 James
Of course single pilot IFR is doable. That’s not the point I like to have someone in the right seat to augment CRM. More resources are always better. Or are you so egocentric that you think you are always right and never make a mistake in flight.
If that is true, then you would be the very first pilot never to have made a mistake and we should all worship you.
#952 James
You’re not ‘expected’ to know that. But it also clearly illustrates that you don’t look things up (when your unsure, try google). Which of course supports the generally obvious reality that you are too myopic to really examine the contextually relevant facts about human caused global warming (I know I am being at least a little arrogant in the statement but it certainly seems appropriate in your case).
#953 James
Again you illustrate that you don’t understand context. It doesn’t matter who else said it, I was addressing your post. Silly boy.
In your last sentence you basically implicate your perspective as amoral. By extrapolation we can see that you seem to believe that the ecosystem is more important that the human casualties of the Chernobyl incident. By further extrapolation one might see that you feel nuclear power is more important that humans… hmmmmm…
This explains the line of reasoning you have presented, and also is a very good reason for you to not post your real name. You certainly are not the type to take responsibility for your words.
I have to agree with #1069. You’ve got some pretty serious issues with context and perspective… and yes, you seem to be off your rocker. You are locked in on your target and it seems to be the wrong target. I hope you are not in the military, I’d hate to be on the field with you and end up being a friendly fire victim because you thought being off target was net positive.
Your simply too biased to be taken seriously. Personally I believe in a republican form of government with democratic components as set up by the founders. You should be banned form posting as you simply don’t seem to be able to learn. Some people are a lost cause I guess but you really are wasting a lot of peoples time in this thread.
Okay, I just read your # 1086… BPL is looking more accurate all the time in his assessment of you. Your logic is so convoluted as to be unbelievable. You think mutation caused by radioactivity is okay and you still “want to preserve the chance for them, and for me and any possible offspring, to enjoy a decent life.” for your neighbors? WOW!!!!
Thanks for the Acidification link Hank.
So, great, we are chewing away at the bottom of the ocean food chain at the same time as we will be running out of oil to go catch it at the same time as… Looks like all the curves are heading the wrong way, eh!
Its going to be a case where we are not looking for global solutions for energy or transport etc that work for all – I think we are well past that already. Its going to be to find a solution that works for you with what you have to hand where you are.
Be nice to think the world will suddenly come together at Copenhagen, but I fear the inertia of the system will be too much for man to overcome. The wheel will slow and turn the other way only in geological time frames from here on, and we will just be passengers with the rather glum tribal memory that it was we who broke the wonderful spell of the Holocene.
bobberger wrote:
“I think your EIA has it about right.”
If so, that would be the first time in quite a while. Their forecasts have consistently underpredicted the growth in renewables.
RobB, I think you are the one who is underestimating the scale of U.S. government support and subsidies for fossil fuel projects – here’s another one:
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/06/02/Analysis-US-still-wants-Azeri-energy-flowing-westwards/UPI-80841243973922/
Do you see the U.S. government calling for a $6 billion solar farm project in North Africa, which would sell power to Europe? No – you see a push for oil reserves, and a fossil-fuel centric mentality that is reflected in the output of think tanks at the international scale – try the James Baker Institute take on fossil fuels in Europe:
The Energy Forum will release a major study examining several scenarios for Russian and Caspian oil and natural gas production, alternative export routes and associated geopolitical factors.
Or in Africa?
Africa is a major producer of oil, natural gas and coal. Yet, as few as 2 percent of some sub-Saharan African populations have access to electricity because of the expense and unreliable supply.
This reflects the $4 billion World Bank-financed Exxon pipeline that takes Chad’s oil to the coast. Doubtless Exxon would also like to take Darfur’s oil to the coast. This ‘aid’ has led to increased warfare and ecological destruction – the situation in Chad looks very similar to that in Ecuador, where Chevron-Texaco faces a $27 billion lawsuit due to their polluting practices.
The World Bank is a global taxpayer financed institution, that gets a good chunk of its funds from the U.S..
Regardless of where you go in the world, you see governments like the U.S., Russia, China and India focusing on access to fossil fuels and other raw materials (uranium), with the rationale being “national security”. Their mentality is backwardly primitive, and seems to revolve around the desire to control global energy resources and the threat that other nations might wish to do so as well.
With renewable energy, there really isn’t anything to control – except the patents that are used to develop renewables, I suppose. This inability to control (and thereby profit from) the resource might be why certain manic types are so unwilling to see it developed.
Think of it in terms of fishing – imagine if there was a small group that controlled access to fishing boats because they owned all the lumber, and so they kept all other boat manufacturers from competing with them and charged fishers a hefty fee that kept them in poverty no matter how hard they worked. Then, someone comes along and says, “look, it’s easy to make a boat out of fiberglass – or even steel” – horrors. Disruption. Loss of income and power. And so on.
Why do YOU think the big banks took the $700 bailout and went out and bought supertankers, filled them with oil, etc.? Now you’ve got oil market traders bidding up the oil price, even though economic demand is still dropping – that’s not the free market, that’s the scenario as described.
Altering this dynamic will require fundamental changes in both U.S. domestic and U.S. foreign policy – and on foreign energy policy, no changes have been seen, while the domestic policy changes are in some cases cosmetic (we’re green!), in others slightly hopeful (fuel efficiency, a watered-down climate bill, and ARPA-E funding), and others (FutureGen) are blatantly deceptive.
The only way large-scale changes will happen is if the public and independent entrepreneurs continue to press government institutions to do it – and yes, the academic institutions are government institutions, even the private ones are taxpayer-financed, and they are just as much to blame for the lagging response as are the State Department or the Minerals Management division of the Interior.
RE: 1152
Hey Nigel and Hank,
Has anyone got access to the sampling data? I am curious about the acidic balance regarding carbonic versus sulfuric content. There is also the possibility of a phosphoric acid issue; however, with the phosphate bans of the 1970’s, it should not be much of a factor.
I know that most of the data collected today appears related the ionic conductivity probe of many of the Argo buoys; however, this does not necessarily specify the driver of the ionic change. Granted, it should be evident that based on the carbon isotope balance and atmospheric content the culprit should be clear; however, I would prefer to map the various sample data if it were possible.
It is quite possible that both Woods Hole and NOAA may have a long term sample library that could be tapped for this effort. Has anyone heard of a NSF or EPA project establishing a lab for researching data along these lines?
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Apropos the state of the oceans, here’s the obligatory link to
Jeremy Jackson’s Brave New Ocean presentation. Science doesn’t get much grimmer than this.
re 1128
James: “Paying for basic R&D is not the way most companies operate (through there are some exceptions). Usually they take university/government basic research, and do the development needed to make a commercial product.”
I believe you are mistaken. It used to be 2/3 govt. research, 1/3 private sector. This has since flip-flopped.
For details of the current state of funded research, go here:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
Quote:
“The trend is undeniable. In 1965, the federal government financed more than 60 percent of all R&D in the United States. By 2006, the balance had flipped, with 65 percent of R&D in this country being funded by private interests. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, several of the nation’s science-driven agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and NASA—have been losing funding, leading to more “outsourcing” of what were once governmental science functions.”
Yes, David Cooke, the ocean pH information is available and should be easy to find. You’ll find several relevant topics with the Search box at top of page.
The many articles published in Nature would be a good place to start; your library will have or be able to get it for you.
RE: 1158
Hey Hank,
Sorry, for the miscommunication, it is not PH that I am concerned with, it is the ratio of Carbon ion content in the ocean versus Sulfuric, Nitrogen and Phosphoric ion content. The PH data is clear, as is the Sodium ion concentration changes in the current SST measurements. I am curious if there is a specific acid content database versus a acidic versus base ratio analysis.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Hank and David Cooke, the issue of ocean acidification is similar to the issue of permafrost melting – by the time it becomes a serious problem (0.7 pH unit change at 1900 ppm CO2, for example), other issues could easily eclipse it.
It does relate to the ‘commons’ notion in that this shows that the “atmospheric commons” is not the only issue, since the CO2 equilibrates with the oceans. As noted, this is not an ‘ownership’ problem – if we consider a similar problem like an epidemic of plague, you can see that the real factors are ecological, and the solutions are technical in nature. The only role that “ownership” plays is that owners of fossil fuel reserves don’t want to see their assets devalued by cleaner, more efficient, fossil fuel-free technologies. Whether said vested interests are states or private groups is really irrelevant to the CO2 fluxes in question. Their liberal or conservative political identities make no difference, nor does it matter if the justification is neoclassical or Marxist. This also applies to disease epidemics, by the way.
However, in ecology single-minded arguments always run into the unexpected – you think your model of foxes and rabbits will predict future population changes, and then a big drought comes along, or a pack of wolves kills most of the foxes, etc. Similar issues apply to economics – look at the many predictive failures of neoclassical econometric models, for example.
Likewise, the ocean acidification issue is expected to impact shell-forming animals, coral reefs, etc – but those are complex ecological issues, not easily predicted. For example, consider oceanic hypoxia – the spread of low-oxygen water masses throughout the deep zones of the world ocean.
I’m pretty sure that by the time acidification became an issue, large-scale hypoxia would be even more severe. A major factor there is the nitrate-rich and phosphate-rich runoff from agricultural farms over the 20th century. Global warming-related ocean circulation changes also play a role:
Ocean Dead-Zones May Be Linked To Global Warming (Feb. 15, 2008)
Notice that Lubchenco is now head of NOAA, a vast improvement over the previous administration, and a good sign that science will now start to play more of an informative role in political decisions.
The right response to both problems (acidification and low-oxygen zones) is roughly the same – but for hypoxia and ‘dead zones’, you need to include agricultural and industrial impacts above and beyond fossil CO2 emissions.
The statement calls on negotiators at upcoming U.N. climate change talks to recognize the threat of ocean acidification and to mitigate it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by at least 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050, with further reductions thereafter.
David, yes, plenty available; e.g.:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=Mozilla-search&q=ratio+%2Bocean+Carbon+Sulfur+Nitrogen++Phosphorus+ion+content
You’ll find discussion elsewhere; I won’t follow this up, Gavin’s asked us to stay focused here.
#1068 Anne van der Bom
For a large commercial example I extract from a report (it was from a solar industry magazine a few months ago):
———-
Chevron Energy Solutions and California State University, Fresno (Fresno State), have completed a large-scale solar power installation at Fresno State that will supply 20% of the university’s annual power needs.
The 1.1 MW solar system – the largest photovoltaic-paneled parking installation at a U.S. university – comprises 10 structures and 3,872 photovoltaic panels mounted on top of more than 700 carport stalls.
The $11.9 million project cost was partially offset by a $2.8 million rebate administered by Pacific Gas & Electric Company under the State of California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program.
———-
Ignoring the rebate, this works out to about $11 per watt. There is no “diy” here. There should be some economies of scale for this size of project. For residential projets the cost is similar, at least according to the optimistic initial estimates one receives. Those familiar with project costs know to throw on a significant reality factor.
Much of that $11 cost is for installation and the mark-ups of the manufacturer and the vendors. Even though the manufactured cost might go from $5 to $1 per Wp, the final cost probably will not change as much as that might suggest. And the lowest cost basic material seems to require more panel area, which means the installation cost would go up.
In my own case I have trees that would stop early morning and late afternoon generation (according to the latest estimator I have contacted who declined to).
Being within a few years of the end of life form my present roof, I would have to write off some of that, since installing solar on an older roof due to be replaced in a few years does not sound like a good plan.
At least for planning purposes it seems like we should try to find numbers that do not assume a little “diy.”
As to public money to give people incentives to install solar, it seems a little off that we in California would be spending $2.8 million of public money for this kind of thing, especially now when financial reality is forcing us to cut food programs for children that might otherwise not eat and to cut assistance programs for disabled elderly who can not perform basic functions without that assistance.
And that does not even address the 30% federal free money; which might better be regarded as “not really free.”
The wind power story is not so good either.
LDC @ 1146:
The utility doesn’t have to be in control of the supply / demand balance — they already aren’t. Or do you have to ask the utility whenever you turn on a toaster oven? What the utility controls is the supply, consumers control the load. The utility is already always in a reactive mode — it’s not like they can force consumers to consume.
There’s work being done, particularly by the folks at the Pacific Northwest Research Lab, on autonomous load shedding. The GridWise Alliance is heavily involved and has products and services that are ready today. Here in ERCOT’s territory, demand response is being certified as spinning reserves (may have happened already). When (or now, if it happened already) that happens, the utilities will lose further control over the supply / demand balance to autonomous systems, much like the current supply / demand balance is already controlled by autonomous systems. The only difference is going to be whether the reserves are on the supply side or the demand side.
As regards your comment about excessive battery charging and heat loss, proper system design requires that battery capacity be something on the order of 3 days load and/or solar production. The likelihood that there’d be an extended period of “please go away” from the utility company that would result in significant amounts of power being spilled is just not that great. Considering that responsive reserves are dispatched on 15 minutes notice, I’m thinking 15 minutes is probably about it.
Telling DRGs to “please go away” is a lot more complicated than you’d like to believe. For one thing, you tell me to take my generation away, and I might take my load away — and reduced load is the same as increased supply. Now what? In the future, DRGs and utilities are going to have to learn to work together. There are a lot of benefits — economic, environmental, security, warm-and-fuzzy — to distributed renewable generation.
John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) Says (3 juin 2009 at 1:48 AM)
“Of course single pilot IFR is doable. That’s not the point I like to have someone in the right seat to augment CRM.”
A little bit past the sell-by date by now, but I’ll note that the great majority, perhaps all, of 2-place fighter aircraft have tandem rather than side-by-side seating, and will argue that the workload in a combat situation is likely much greater than even an IFR approach to a busy airport. Tandem seating therefore doesn’t seem to present any great obstacle to sharing cockpit workload. And as mentioned, there are a number of popular civilian aircraft with tandem seating – the Piper Cub, Citabria, Rutan’s LongEze, most 2-place sailplanes…
“But it also clearly illustrates that you don’t look things up (when your unsure, try google). Which of course supports the generally obvious reality that you are too myopic to really examine the contextually relevant facts about human caused global warming…”
In fact, as I stated at the time, I did do a Google search on that name and found that it was a minor character actor. I don’t have, don’t want, and have carefully not acquired the cultural context that would prompt me to look through the list of credits, single out one film, relate that to a rather interesting children’s book that I’d read decades ago, and realize that the poster was trying to make a bad joke.
You’re not just being arrogant here, you’re being parochial in assuming that everyone in the world should be absorbed in contemporary western media culture.
“In your last sentence you basically implicate your perspective as amoral. By extrapolation we can see that you seem to believe that the ecosystem is more important that the human casualties of the Chernobyl incident.”
Why yes, I do think that the ecosystem is more important than human casualties. Is this amoral, or is it just a morality that’s rather different than yours? I don’t place humans as a species on some exalted pedestal, apart from the rest of the world.
Besides, how long do you think humans will survive if they manage to wreck their ecosystem? Indeed, isn’t this web site devoted to discussing the potentially catastrophic consequences of a particular kind of ecological damage? If you carry your morality to its obvious conclusion, you should be arguing in favor of using fossil fuels since they confer short-term benefits on humans, and damn the rest of the world.
“This explains the line of reasoning you have presented, and also is a very good reason for you to not post your real name.”
But I have posted my real name. It’s certainly not a screen name, like some. Beyond that, I believe in privacy. If you don’t, that’s your privilege – I don’t make a fuss over the name you choose to use, even though I find it a bit offensive.
James
3 June 2009 at 12:01 AM
Now you’re making things up as you go along.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
“a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public”
Clean coal is definitely advantageous to the public. Therefore it is a subsidy. Case closed.
James,
Sorry, forgot this beauty:
By the same logic, testing new drugs before bringing them to market is not part of the pharmaceutical business. Performing crash tests is not part of the car business. Preventive aircraft maintenance is not part of the aviation business. You’re kidding me, right?
#1160 Ike Solem
From your link:
————-
ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2008) — A review of all available ocean data records concludes that the low-oxygen events which have plagued the Pacific Northwest coast since 2002 are unprecedented in the five decades prior to that, and may well be linked to the stronger, persistent winds that are expected to occur with global warming.
———
Does it seem a little over-reaching to suggest that something that has happened in the past is caused by something that is expected to happen in the future?
Those taking care of the commons are not well served by statements that sound not logical. That kind of hurts credibility. And the writer is now head of NOAA? Well, I might agree she is an improvement over previous leadership.
bobberger
3 June 2009 at 1:01 AM
What problems?
Jim Bullis
3 June 2009 at 1:01 PM
You realise you’re judging the price of solar by 1 single project for which you do not know the cost breakdown? How much money was spent on the roof? Did the parking lot get a new pavement?
This university information page cites a price of $7.4 million. So the information is not reliable either. For an honest assessment, you’ll agree with me that you will have to judge more projects.
Care for any references? Back-of-the-envelope calculation perhaps?
In addition to 3 June 2009 at 2:1 PM
After some googling around, I found this page
My hunch proved to be correct:
* Ten multi-car, covered parking canopies topped with PV panels
* Four publicly located electronic kiosks that provide real-time status of the photovoltaic production, conversion and electricity output
* Parking lot upgrades, including 247 additional parking spots, repaving, landscaping, improved traffic flow measures and additional lighting and security cameras
That $11.9 million was for a lot more than just the PV installation.
Anne van der Bom Says (3 juin 2009 at 1:49 PM):
““a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public”
Clean coal is definitely advantageous to the public. Therefore it is a subsidy. Case closed.”
We could debate that advantageous claim (and have), but that’s a side issue. You left out the other parts: “to a private person or company” and “to assist an enterprise”. The money’s going to various research groups, not coal or power companies, so it’s not a subsidy to those companies (though maybe it is to the researchers), and it’s not assisting an enterprise until such time as the research actually is used in the enterprise.
Anne van der Bom Says (3 juin 2009 at 2:03 PM):
“By the same logic, testing new drugs before bringing them to market is not part of the pharmaceutical business.”
Testing new drugs is part of discovering new drugs. Some companies do that, but there are quite a few which simply produce known (generic) drugs, the same way as coal-fired generation uses a known process to produce electricity. Likewise, there are medical researchers who develop drugs (funded by research grants), and later license their production (or perhaps get the information for free). Is this medical research a subsidy to the drug companies?
Or to be a little more specific, suppose I, as an independent mad scientist, work on developing a process for CCS, a cure for cancer, or a way to make chili-flavored jellybeans. Is my research subsidizing the coal, drug, or jellybean-selling companies?
Jim Bullis asks about ocean hypoxia:
I would read “stronger, persistent winds that are expected to occur with global warming” to mean that the stronger winds are occurring already, as expected by theory.
Anyone else see “Earth 2100” last night? (it was hard to get to sleep after that – perhaps because it seemed so utterly realistic and almost inevitable – almost…)
… One reason it’s a bit hard for me to figure out how PV/solar collectors in general can cost while successfully competing (with or without a carbon tax, etc.) is that, besides balance of system costs, I don’t know how much of a profit margin there currently is on coal and gas electricity, or how much the cost of electricity transmission is (though wikipedia says it’s quite small).
Of course, solar energy will be able (already is in places, I think)to compete at higher than average energy prices in the day and in the summer.
#1164 James
um, yes, that is amoral:
So in your case you think amorality is moral. Since these words are assumed to relate to human behavior and human judgment, generally speaking.
And since you don’t place humans on any exalted pedestal, have you considered removing yourself from the equation in order to become part of the net positive solution? Or maybe you think you and your friends should survive and the rest don’t matter? Maybe you can be more clear, but I doubt it since your posts seem to be quite contradictory, and/or obtuse in nature.
In general you exhibit traits of a pedant, which I find quite boring.
The problem is actually not so much population as you might infer, but over consumption of energy, and a lack of concentration on sustainability with an over emphasis on artificial profits outside of the global commons resource capacity.
Your extrapolation of my argument does not follow. We can reduce consumption without any significant loss of standard of living and increase renewables without even lowering population. If you are to argue the problem is population then you should focus on reducing the population that uses the most energy that results in CO2 increase and target the reduction of that population. Since you live in America, you should therefore, by your own inference, be eliminated so as to reduce the problem. Net positive right?
As far as your name, gee Wally, you know what I mean (real name equals first and last). You seem to be unable to do reasonable extrapolation as you have clearly exhibited in your posts. Instead you rely on hiding behind literalism as a notably weak defense.
My point on the name thing is that you don’t take personal responsibility for what you are saying when you hide. If privacy is your only issue then you are just being evasive. In my opinion you are also being moronic.
Your amoral argument is kind of pathetic, but glad we got to the heart of your motive and perspective.
James
3 June 2009 at 5:48 PM
How irrelevant that not all money payed directly to coal companies. Actually, it is even better for them. The NETL is effectively running the show for them through the CCPI & CCTDP programs. Those programs serve only one purpose: keeping coal in business under ever more stringent emission standards.
You can look stuff up, you know. The participants in those programs are listed on the NETL web site. To name a few: SynCoal Partners LLC, Coal Tech Corp., ABB Combustion Engineering, CQ Inc., The Babcock & Wilcox Company, ThermoChem, Inc. Not coal or power companies, eh?
Your in-depth response to the the drug testing example is an unnecessary diversion. Those examples were merely to illustrate that compliance to regulation is clearly part of doing business. I gave those examples to counter your claim that reducing CO2 emissions is not part of doing business for the coal and power industry.
> “What problems?”
All the things you’d probably expect, when scaling up. Going from one turbine to two is easy. Going from 10.000 to 20.000 is more of a challenge. When you erect the first one, you pick the perfect spot – where the wind conditions are steady and strong, not next to an inhabited area, not right in a bird route etc. The second one is probably already in a worse place – and you have to disperse them anyway in order to not break down entirely when the wind doesn’t blow in a certain area and in order to keep grid cost low. This leads to decreased efficiency with every turbine added. I don’t know whether we already reached the point at which this decrease outweighs the increase from newer generation turbines, but my guess is, that we’re not too far away from that. Another, increasing problem is the resistance from people living next to planned turbines, claiming everything from psychological problems to effected hearing and sleeplessness due to the constant “whomp-whomp” – and who can blame them? Then there are more and more people who complain about the impact on the landscape, the already mentioned birds, animals with psychological problems (down to cows who, so they claim, deliver less milk when kept next to turbines) and all sorts of things – some funny, some strange and some probably worth to think about.
Obviously, this will be less of a problem in the US, where there is, at least on the whole, a lot more area per kWh to chose from.
The grid is challenged in new ways, too. Interestingly, coping with “not enough” wind seems relatively easy, because the forecasts are reasonably precise and damping away the eventual breakdown of an already weak source, is no problem for the grid. The largest problems so far have resulted from “very good” conditions, when the grid relies on strong input from wind but has to react quickly and strongly when this larger source unexpectedly breaks down because the wind becomes too heavy. This is something the industry really has to work on. I talked to an engineer from Siemens about that and he said they had solutions ready for conditions up to 70m/s but that it would still make the turbines less effective at lower speeds and raise the cost considerably because of different (and more) materials required. Most of the other problems concern cost. In Germany, windpower is effectively paid for by whoever runs the grid you’re delivering into and at a rate of around 9ct/kWh – depending on efficiency and regulated by law. When an area with lots of wind operates close to its peak, the owner of the grid sometimes shuts turbines down for short periods of time because they can’t effectively shutdown (or heavily decrease the output of) a nuclear or coal plant without losing lots of money; or the output is simply too much for the grid segment – especially in the summer time, when the temperature of the wires is an issue. In theory, they’re allowed to do that but on the other hand, they also have to pay for every kWh delivered from the owner of a turbine. There are lawsuits under way to decide on this tricky issue. Related to that, the energy companies (not exactly wind-friendly, so one has to take their word with a grain of salt) claim that the whole cost-estimate for regulation power is underestimating the true impact. Large coal and nuclear plants are built to deliver steady power at a more or less fixed workload. The farther away they operate from that sweet spot, the more expensive they get per kWh. The better alternatives in a grid with input fluctuations are natural gas turbines, which have rather low fixed cost but are less effective when actually operating. We get most of our natural gas from Russia and prices have significantly increased over the last few years, so some of the energy companies already claim that this alone is more or less eating away what we gained from wind in the first place.
Most of this wasn’t even on the radar, when we doubled wind from one to two percent or from two to four percent. Right now, we’re at about eight percent electricity (one percent total energy) from wind and I don’t expect things to become easier or quicker with the next doubling.
re James’ comments and responses to them.
I think James has been subjected to unwarranted vilification on this thread. As a non expert, I have spent very many hours reading about possible solutions to peak oil, global warming and human population growth. It seems to me that James has made some very reasonable points, albeit, possibly, in a somewhat confrontatioal manner. In his support, therefore, I would like to make a few and not necessarily related comments.
1) I have read (and lost the cite) that over 92% of vertebrate biomass is made up by man and his associated domesticated livestock and companion animals – a factoid that I found deeply shocking.
2) Short of massive and unprecedented die off, the planet is on course for a > 25% human population increase in the next 40 years before the possibility of a population decrease can be contemplated. I find it terrifying that, against this background, the Russian Government is trying to counter its natural population decline by giving medals to all females producing 7 or more children.
3) The IEA assesses that energy availability will have to double by 2050 to meet the growing population and the rising aspirations of those in the developing economies.
4) Energy return on energy investment, certainly with respect to oil, is declining as we reach or pass peak oil.
5) There is a global economic recession and all national leaders are struggling to correct its adverse effects which, by definition, requires expansion of economic growth to make debt repayments possible. It is at least arguable that this growth requires an expansion of affordable energy supply.
6) Many commentators here would appear to welcome or even advocate falling living standards for their more prosperous peers (or even themselves) and the sharing of a smaller cake with those less economically endowed than themselves. I have no wish to criticise such a view (though, as a believer in evolution, I would prefer to favour my own two progeny rather than that they should have to share equally with my neighbour’s ten). However, it is my contention that few democratic leaders are capable of persuading their electorates to make sacrifices when the threats that make them necessary are not immediate and obvious to the majority of voters.
7) Solutions to the problem of peak oil can be worked out at a national level. Expanded use of coal is one obvious, though not sustainable, solution but one that threatens catastrophe from a global warming perspective without the use of efficient and affordable CCS technolgy within the next few years.
8) Solutions to global warming require planetary (international) agreements. These are much more likely to be achieveable if one could find a developed technology that a) would deliver CO2-free energy in a quantity and at a price that would displace the need for coal and b) make sure that it was available to all nations.
9) It is my judgement that increases in the efficiency of energy use and maximum deployment of renewable energy technologies are not, in themseves, sufficient to solve the global crisis without severe and politically unacceptable drops in living standards. They may be the total solution in some fortunate nations, blessed with plentiful wind, solar and hydro resources and populations of lowish density. Even then, however, the energy they will provide will almost certainly not deliver energy at a price comparable to that of coal in the absence of a CO2 tax or equivalent.
10) Notwithstanding the above, we should still pursue renewables because they may ultimately prove to be the best we can come up with. However, it seems to me that consideration should also be given to potentially cheaper alternatives, provided that they are sustainable in the long term and provided that there is the possibility of deploying them in time. I believe that nuclear energy could possibly fulfil the criteria needed. However, I would tend to rule out fusion on grounds of time and thermal fission on grounds of lack of long-term sustainability. That leaves fast fission (or breeder) technology as the only remaining option. I have been very impressed with claims relating to IFRs and LFTRs. I understand that the technologies are already more or less developed but that the former is possibly closer to the capability of commercial demonstration than the latter.
11) Many commentators here do not appear to distinguish between thermal and breeder reactors and seem to have closed minds about the possibilty of making use of any type of nuclear energy. Their concerns relate to costs, time to deployment, safety, proliferation risks and waste disposal. Supporters of breeder technology convincingly (to me) dismiss the last three concerns. In fact, IFRs could apparently solve problems of storing existing nuclear “waste” by usig it as a fuel. Current costs/kWh of electricity from nuclear reactors are arguably lower than those from any other energy source in Europe. Moreover, much of the expense of nuclear electricity (as is the case for wind electricity) relates to high discount rates and the need to service long term debt. These are greatly exacerbated by NIMBYs and regulators. Given political will in the face of the planetary emergency, times to deployment and hence debt servicing times could be greatly reduced and transform costs in a very favourable manner.
12) Poor old James has faced all manner of flak over his comments relating to Chernobyl. My take on the situation, FWIW, is as follows: a) Chernobyl represents about the worst conceiveable accident that could happen at a civil nuclear power plant. b) The adverse human consequences were trivial in global terms relative to those about to be faced by humanity unless we take the correct energy decisions in the very near future. c) Even at the local level, though there were some severe acute adverse effects, the severity of chronic effects on both humans and wild fauna and flora has been less than many radiation biologists had expected.
13) Proponents of fast fission should be given every assistance to demonstrate their case. If all they say is correct, it probably represents the only relatively pain free way of transitioning to CO2 free energy. I suspect that several commentators here wouldn’t like that at all. It might encourage us to continue in our wicked capitalist ways and escape the hair shirts we all deserve. Moreover, even I would have to agree that, should a smooth transition be possible, it might encourage a continuing population increase in an ever more ecologically distorted planet such that our extiction as a species might be preferable. In any event, be of good cheer, the pro nuclear proponenents may fall flat on their faces when they attempt to validate their claims. In which case, we can all jump on our bikes, become vegetarian and watch our welfare services and pensions shrink. We might even be happier.
Jim Bullis, A few points:
1) Electric cars are far more efficient than internal combustion vehicles, and if global cheap oil sources had reached maximum production in 1960 (instead of 2010), that’s what we’d all be driving. The power source? Well, a car with a big battery is perfect for stroing intermittent solar and wind.
2) The low-oxygen zones are very real – i.e. you can go visit them. There are no “acidified regions” to go look at. Now, let’s consider the question: what causes the spread of low-oxgen water? First, this is not an isolated phenomenon linked only to global warming – see this review:
Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean, Jeremy B. C. Jackson, PNAS, Aug 2008
The exact roles that warming and warming-related changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation play in ocean hypoxia are going to be related to deep ocean ventilation and exchange rates. Increased stratification reduces mixing with the surface, for example, leading to greater oxygen depletion in bottom waters. This can happen in lakes and harbors as well – especially when a lot of fertilizer and toxic industrial effluent is dumped in on top.
At the same time, strong coastal upwelling can bring that low-oxygen deep water up into near-shore locations, killing off vast amounts of marine life and sending shock waves up through food webs.
It is getting to be a global phenomenon. Here is the sub-Arctic Pacific:
See this abstract, 2008:
For other regions of the world, try this:”Strramma et al 2008, Expanding Oxygen-Minimum Zones in the Tropical Oceans, Science 2008″
Elimination of fossil fuel combustion and a complete rethinking of agricultural nitrogen loading is required – or the problem is just going to get worse and worse.
Anne says:
“The NETL is effectively running the show for them through the CCPI & CCTDP programs. Those programs serve only one purpose: keeping coal in business under ever more stringent emission standards.”
Uh, no. Coal capture and sequestration is technologically non-feasible. Oh, it can be done – but it takes almost as much energy to capture coal carbon as can be extracted from the coal. Yes, let’s invest $2 billion in every single existing coal plant so that they can produce 10% of the power per ton of coal they used to – but that won’t jack rates up (the way solar and wind would) because coal programs are tax-payer subsidized! Hurray?
No Anne, the NETL is just a PR arm of the fossil fuel industry, run through the DOE:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/
A National Energy Technology Lab that restricts itself to fossil fuels – that’s the dishonest politicized DOE for you. The DOE is one outfit that resolutely refuses to let science inform their decision-making process – it’s all based politics and backroom deals, not science. Fundamental reforms are needed, but the new leadership is even worse than the old leadership on the issue of coal – not even Bush’s DOE would approve the technologically fraudulent FutureGen plant.
So, what role do those programs serve? Convinving the public that coal can be burned cleanly, even if it can’t. That’s not science OR technology – that’s called propaganda, I believe.
Note to Douglas Wise: James has been shown to be wrong on scientific issues and on technological issues, multiple times. Many people have pointed out the errors, inconsistencies, etc. in his statements. Now, why are you calling that “vilification”?
“I think James has been subjected to unwarranted vilification on this thread.”
James or his ideas?
As his attachment to his ideas got less and less reasoned, the line blended, but he did the blending.
And I don’t see anywhere you point out how you came to the conclusion the vilification happened and that what happened was unwarranted.
Which would make your comment an unwarranted vilification of all those who don’t agree with James.
Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?
“11) Many commentators here do not appear to distinguish between thermal and breeder reactors and seem to have closed minds about the possibilty of making use of any type of nuclear energy.”
Nope, that lack of distinguishing of the two is in your eyes only. The closing is in your mind alone.
Fusion is not mentioned.
Current use of nuclear is not being posited as being destroyed. What IS being posited is that nuclear cannot replace our energy needs in place of fossil fuels. And it is the nuclear powers who maintain the inability of nuclear power generation to be a GLOBAL solution. Not anyone here.
“Going from one turbine to two is easy. Going from 10.000 to 20.000 is more of a challenge. When you erect the first one, you pick the perfect spot – where the wind conditions are steady and strong, not next to an inhabited area, not right in a bird route etc. The second one is probably already in a worse place -”
Uh, so why are you picking a place for a WIND FARM that can only hold ONE wind turbine? If you need to consider this scenario you describe the problem is just behind the optic nerve, not in the placement of the turbine.
But you CAN pick a place that can only hold one or a dozen turbines. Or a place that can hold 10,000.
There’s kind of a minimum size for a nuclear reactor…
And that nuclear reactor has to be serviced by infrastructure that allows the transport of dangerous materials, so you can’t have it placed too far out of the way, else ALL of that infrastructure is a cost (and an ongoing one at that) of your nuclear power station (which James doesn’t want to count as part of the cost, so we should avoid those places or change James and your TCO calculations).
And if your area is becalmed, the wind WILL pick up again, you know, so it’s not like your land is suddenly producing nothing. Unlike your insinuation. So you only have enough of your capacity in a distant enough place to avoid complete power loss in a high pressure ridge intruding on your land.
Mind you, high pressure ridges are usually clear skies. Maybe you could put something on the ground to harness that clear sky energy…
Anne, out of curiosity, when DOD contracts with, say, Lockheed, to produce 100 jet fighters, should that be considered a “subsidy?” It seems to satisfy all parts of your definition, though doesn’t correlate with the meaning implied by most in this discussion.. Or, if CCS subsidies are “for the public good,” why does it make people here so mad?
Anne (1169), the $7.2M you report plus the $2.8M subsidy pretty much adds to what Jim said the actual cost was. While I agree more projects averaged out adds some accuracy, do you have reason to believe the California example is way off and inappropriate? How about the blue sky projections made by some here that are based on virtually no actual projects?
bobberger
4 June 2009 at 6:1 AM
Thanks.
> has been less than many radiation biologists had expected
Citation unlikely, future unconsidered.
John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) ….(Wow! What a name!): “…hiding behind literalism as a notably weak defense.” What the hell is that? Is it an accolade or a criticism? Do you have something against literalism (other, of course, than as it applies to people’s names)?
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. wrote in 1167:
… and quotes:
… then continues:
That would be the principle of causality, I believe. By way of contrast, I have heard “insanity” defined as doing the same thing over and over again but expecting something different each time. Of course we weren’t around during earlier eras of rapid global warming but the principles involved are the same.
The good majority of today’s massive algae blooms and resulting dead zones are being caused human sewage and fertilizer acting as nutrients for algae growth.
But not off the coasts of Oregon and Washington.
What happens is this: oceans warm more slowly than land (given their greater thermal inertia) such that during the summer months there is a large temperature differential between the two. This results in an areas of stronger and more persistant high pressure over the land, stronger winds along the coasts, deeper upwelling feeding larger algae blooms — which die off later, with their organic decay using up nearly all of the oxygen in the surrounding water.
Please see:
This sort of thing should become more common as global warming continues.
Mark
4 June 2009 at 9:1 AM
“Mind you, high pressure ridges are usually clear skies. Maybe you could put something on the ground to harness that clear sky energy…”
Is this the clear sky energy you had in mind?
RodB
4 June 2009 at 10:1 AM
I don’t think that would qualify as a subsidy. They simply buy those fighters for their own use. Is the salary of a civil servant a subsidy?
RodB
4 June 2009 at 10:1 AM
I interpreted the $7.4 million price tag as including the 2.8 million subsidy. It doesn’t matter however, since that price included all kinds of other stuff, see my post 1170. Any cost analysis based on the figures that Jim Bullis provided is useless.
> “Uh, so why are you picking a place for a WIND FARM that can only hold ONE wind turbine?”
Come on, I was merely making the point that you can’t place all turbines in the perfect spot because you a) can’t place an unlimited number of them at any location b) have to keep an eye on grid cost and c) don’t want to depend exclusively on the weather in that particular area. Any justification for windpower has to include a certain spreading and that will always lead to deceasing efficiency for additional units. (Provided you start at “the best” locations. We did, anyway.)
> “And that nuclear reactor has to be serviced by infrastructure that allows the transport of dangerous materials, so you can’t have it placed too far out of the way,”
Very funny. Look at a map of central Europe, plot the polulation centers and then look at the nuclear powerplants. There is no “out of the way” here and there never was:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/e/e5/AKWs_Europa.png
> “And if your area is becalmed, the wind WILL pick up again, you know, so it’s not like your land is suddenly producing nothing. Unlike your insinuation. So you only have enough of your capacity in a distant enough place to avoid complete power loss in a high pressure ridge intruding on your land.”
As I said, you may not have that problem in the US as much as we have it in much smaller areas. The following chart shows from top to bottom the output from: a single turbine on an island in the north sea, output from a windfarm right on the coast, output of all german wind turbines – for the time of the last ten days in 2004 (timeframe chosen by the BWE (a lobby organization for windpower responsible for the graph) to make a point about the effectiveness of smoothing out wind variablilties across larger areas).
>”Mind you, high pressure ridges are usually clear skies. Maybe you could put something on the ground to harness that clear sky energy…”
Yeah, sure. Here’s the solar radiation as measured on the ground for that day:
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=ILOWERSA3&month=12&day=26&year=2004
But even if the sun HAD shown that day (for a couple of hours at least – we’re pretty far up north here and tend to have terribly short days in late December, no matter how high the pressure is) – if you’d have to do everything over and over again (wind plus wind somewhere else to catch the windcarpet plus solar if even that doesn’t work plus flywheels and what have you for all the other days and all calm nights) then we don’t even have to start talking about cost, let alone how long it would take to make all of that work together smoothly and reliably.
Another note. As you will no doubt have noticed, my English isn’t as good as many others’ from non-English speaking countries here – so I might not notice sarcasm and irony right away. I’d be grateful if you’d keep that in mind. Thank you.
Somehow the link to the graph showing windpower output didn’t make it into my last post. Hopefully this one works:
http://www.wind-energie.de/typo3temp/pics/185763e979.jpg
Again: …chart shows from top to bottom the output from: a single turbine on an island in the north sea, output from a windfarm right on the coast, output of all german wind turbines – for the time of the last ten days in 2004 (timeframe chosen by the BWE (a lobby organization for windpower responsible for the graph) to make a point about the effectiveness of smoothing out wind variablilties across larger areas).
#1179 Anne van der Bom and others
I make my points trying to show that taking care of the commons is part of a big economic picture.
Cost of paving in the parking lost example seem sort of comparable to cost of roofing under a solar panel system on an individual house. So I think my reference was not far off, though certainly inexact. As to your thinking that a cost should be evaluated after subsidies, that is appropriate for an individual anxious to get ahead financially. Whether it is wise to think this way on a public scale is another matter.
There is a lot of discussion about what is a subsidy etc. Intelligent planning has to reject any misleading cost tinkering by government, whatever it is called. In California we make a big deal about not raising taxes. But public money is extracted from utility rate payers under the guise of a “public programs” charge on our utility bills. Under this guise our PGE utility proudly spends money on lots of things that might not be the appropriate public choices. They even provide welfare assistance to owners of the poor hovels in Portola Valley CA who scraped together a few pennies from their food budgets. ( read the heartwarming story below, but keep a box of Kleenex at the ready )
——-
News article: SolarCity started its first collective solar project in Portola Valley after a handful of homeowners approached the company and asked for a volume discount. Rive said he looked at the economics and could only give them a 2 percent or 3 percent discount, about $500, with that number of people. But if they boosted the figure to 50 people, he could offer a much better deal, he told them. The homeowners recruited 77 people willing to pay $30,000 to $40,000 each for a solar-power system. Each system generates about 3 to 4 kilowatts, enough power to meet about 90 percent of the customers’ energy needs.
(You can guage the poverty level of these folks by the fact they could sign up for $30,000 to $40,000 installations. And that article avoided the issue of the rebates received from the public through forced collection, not to mention tax credits which are also a cost to the public, electric rate concessions etc. allowed by the Public Utility Commisssion. )
(When we have such worthy causes, shame on people who would take money for food and medicine for children, public education, care for disabled elderly!!!)
——-
This example provided to the press by the manufacturer adds to my cost information.
I was only trying to show that the costs for solar on a commercial scale were different from those that seem possible when we read a “cost of manufacturing” of a solar PV cell material. I only based it on the article in a solar emergy magazine. There is also a big difference in costs when the reference is what a hard working, well intentioned individual can do with his/her own two hands.
We can easily confuse ourselves with these references, not that I think anyone is misrepresenting their experience, but that there is a different kind of numbers that comes into play when we are trying to think about doing these things on a scale that counts (contrary to Edmund Burke); isolated individual efforts are not going to get the “commons” taken care of. This is not to say that individual efforts done by large fractions of the popoulation would not count big.
#1169 Anne van der Bom
Yup, my reference is the one you gave us on wind power in Europe. Costs were not so low befor subsidies. Did you read it?
I suggest that wherever there are subsidies, it is nearly certain that the costs are not realisitic on a fair market basis. And when the particular scheme is implemented on a meaningfully large scale one should expect the subsidies to be reconsidered by governments.
#1172 Jim Galagyn
Correction, I did not ask about anything. Ocean hypoxia could well be an important issue; it is out of my realm.
My comment was only intended to address the way announcements are made and the associated impact on the credibility of the scientific community.
John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) Says (4 juin 2009 at 12:18 AM):
“um, yes, that is amoral:”
Perhaps under this definition: “2: being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals”, since it’s apparently outside, or in contradiction to, your particular code of morals. But do tell us, please, just where to find the stone tablets or golden plates by which you justify setting yourself up as sole arbiter of morals?
But now we have this definition:
“1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior (a moral poem) c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment…”
Under this, I think my views are equally as moral as yours. To hold it wrong to destroy an ecosystem for profit, when there are quite workable alternatives – isn’t that a moral judgement? As well as being quite practical: humans aren’t likely to be around to make moral judgements if they keep on doing that.
“Maybe you can be more clear, but I doubt it since your posts seem to be quite contradictory, and/or obtuse in nature.”
Ever stop to think that the problem might be on the receiving end? Indeed, I don’t instantly recall you ever asking for clarification on any point; you just react to what you think I said.
“In general you exhibit traits of a pedant, which I find quite boring.”
In view of the source, I’ll consider that a compliment!
“The problem is actually not so much population as you might infer, but over consumption of energy, and a lack of concentration on sustainability…”
But again, we disagree. The problem IS over-population. Even with ultimate attention to sustainability, even with a magic source of unlimited, non-polluting energy, the Earth simply can’t support even its current population at anything close to an acceptable standard of living. Even here in the US, with as close to that magic source as the real world’s ever seen, more than half the population are forced to live in cities and suburbs, and the relentless growth of these chews up more and more land every year. There’s damned little left now, and that’s going fast. What do we do when it’s all gone?
Douglas Wise Says (4 juin 2009 at 8:31 AM):
“I think James has been subjected to unwarranted vilification on this thread.”
It’s not that I mind, particularly. What’s irritating is that so many people seem to think of it as an acceptable substitute for facts and/or reasoned discussion.
As for instance, this (Ike Solem, 4 juin 2009 at 8:47 AM)
“Note to Douglas Wise: James has been shown to be wrong on scientific issues and on technological issues, multiple times. Many people have pointed out the errors, inconsistencies, etc. in his statements.” where we have an allegation not supported by fact. Where have I been shown to be wrong? Not just “I disagree, and here’s a conflicting estimate” (though those are rare enough, it’s usually just “You’re wrong, ’cause that’s what I believe”), but “Here’s the error in your calculations”.
bobberger
In your reply to Mark you said:
That is an important point. Key to the success of wind (and other renewables) in Europe will be a reinforcement of the international grid connections, so Europe has that same advantage. International connections already exist, but are not strong enough. That will also mean that the hydropower in France, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Sweden will become available for all countries.
And those investments can actually generate money. The 700 MW NorNed cable cost $ 550 million euros, but generated a revenue of $ 50 million over the first 2 months of operation. Energy is free, it doesn’t stop at the border.