Alert readers will have noticed the fewer-than-normal postings over the last couple of weeks. This is related mostly to pressures associated with real work (remember that we do have day jobs). In my case, it is because of the preparations for the next IPCC assessment and the need for our group to have a functioning and reasonably realistic climate model with which to start the new round of simulations. These all need to be up and running very quickly if we are going to make the early 2010 deadlines.
But, to be frank, there has been another reason. When we started this blog, there was a lot of ground to cover – how climate models worked, the difference between short term noise and long term signal, how the carbon cycle worked, connections between climate change and air quality, aerosol effects, the relevance of paleo-climate, the nature of rapid climate change etc. These things were/are fun to talk about and it was/is easy for us to share our enthusiasm for the science and, more importantly, the scientific process.
However, recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions – all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Plimer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made–up ‘facts’ in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling – and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn’t something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background. (As an aside this is a good video description of the now-classic Dunning and Kruger papers on how the people who are most wrong are the least able to perceive it).
The Onion had a great piece last week that encapsulates the trajectory of these discussions very well. This will of course be familiar to anyone who has followed a comment thread too far into the weeds, and is one of the main reasons why people with actual, constructive things to add to a discourse get discouraged from wading into wikipedia, blogs or the media. One has to hope that there is the possibility of progress before one engages.
However there is still cause to engage – not out of the hope that the people who make idiotic statements can be educated – but because bystanders deserve to know where better information can be found. Still, it can sometimes be hard to find the enthusiasm. A case in point is a 100+ comment thread criticising my recent book in which it was clear that not a single critic had read a word of it (you can find the thread easily enough if you need to – it’s too stupid to link to). Not only had no-one read it, none of the commenters even seemed to think they needed to – most found it easier to imagine what was contained within and criticise that instead. It is vaguely amusing in a somewhat uncomfortable way.
Communicating with people who won’t open the book, read the blog post or watch the program because they already ‘know’ what must be in it, is tough and probably not worth one’s time. But communication in general is worthwhile and finding ways to get even a few people to turn the page and allow themselves to be engaged by what is actually a fantastic human and scientific story, is something worth a lot of our time.
Along those lines, Randy Olson (a scientist-turned-filmmaker-and-author) has a new book coming out called “Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style” which could potentially be a useful addition to that discussion. There is a nice post over at Chris Mooney’s blog here, though read Bob Grumbine’s comments as well. (For those of you unfamiliar the Bob’s name, he was one of the stalwarts of the Usenet sci.environment discussions back in the ‘old’ days, along with Michael Tobis, Eli Rabett and our own William Connolley. He too has his own blog now).
All of this is really just an introduction to these questions: What is it that you feel needs more explaining? What interesting bits of the science would you like to know more about? Is there really anything new under the contrarian sun that needs addressing? Let us know in the comments and we’ll take a look. Thanks.
Does anyone have a numerical time series, preferably annual, for the volume or magnitude of the PDO?
CAPTCHA: “aquanaut reports”
I work in the media (30 years) and science communication and my undergraduate background is in physics and math and I have long been frustrated with what you are seeing. As long as the media allows the naysayers such unlimited access to airtime we will have the GHD Effect and I see no reason for it diminishing along with all the other pseudo-sciences. (Think paranormal, alternate medicine, anti-vaccine, creationism et al). The reason it comes to this is the media is all about controversy and eyeballs, reality shows etc, which is where the fuel for the need for constant repetition comes from. It was never about information, because the vast number of journalists, producers and broadcast gatekeepers live and die with the ratings. The internet is just the latest extension of the TV system and allows for possibility of becoming a “star” with just a few words or opinions. And its easy to post. Scientific method is not intuitive, easy or accessible to most of the folks who are watching and listening because of the effects of our media. What you are doing is invaluable and necessary and above all tedious, but you can’t stop.
I think the point is, that we don’t have to wait for G IV. Think of G IV as a step on the way. The first nuclear reactor delivered electricity back in the 1950s and the technology has progressed immensly since then. G IV is interesting, because it will solve some of the major drawbacks we still have with nuclear power. G IV gives nuclear a serious perspective for a very long time – at least until fusion is ready or maybe even far beyond that. To reduce emission in the developed world, we don’t need it now.
However, as Huber pointed out in the Article linked by Douglas, even G IV would still have to struggle in order to beat coal on price and there will always be political hurdles. Nobody would sell a G IV reactor to, say, Nigeria nor would they want to buy one in the first place.
“Not to mention that by 2030, we can (if we wish) be producing so much electricity from renewables that no one will bother to build any “G4″ nuclear power plants because they won’t be needed nor will they be competitive with renewables.”
I asked for numbers to support bold claims like that over and over – but they don’t seem to exist. Otherwise I wouldn’t understand why nobody ever cites them. Its somehow even funny that the same people who don’t believe we can roll out a technology we have had for half a century and where entire developed economies (France) are being run from today would somehow “not work” while the same people claim that we can easily overcome the inherent problems and limitations of renewables in a jiffy – and make them dirt cheap as well. You people say we can’t wait for G IV (true, but we don’t have to) and complain about a “vague” roadmap. Well, what is YOUR roadmap? Where is the serious concept binding all the buzzwords (wind, solar, biomass, storage, grid, …) together and showing how we get there from where we are today, what it will cost, how long it will take etc.? I don’t mean “are you blind, solar has doubled in x months from .1% to .2%, what a great thing” or “just take wind and flywheels et viola” or “didn’t you hear about Waldpolenz – it works, hurray, a couple tens of touthands of those and some storage an there you go.”
Bob Berger, First, I have zero faith that hydrogen fusion will ever be a significant energy source on Earth. Second, even if it is, there’s a small matter of a 14 MeV neutron that 1)robs us of much of the energy from the fusion reaction, and 2)damages any containment vessel.
Second, I’ve heard nothing convincing from you or anyone else about how we deal with the waste issue. The experience with Yucky mountain demonstrates that geologic storage is problematic. Also, if you look at the sorts of analysis and wishful thinking that went into the “science” from DO(P)E, it raises some serious issues about how we can manage a project on such a scale in a financially viable way. Any assessment of costs that doesn’t include costs of waste disposal is a joke.
Now lest you think you are talking to some wide-eyed anti-nuclear activist, I am a physicist with a PhD in particle physics who regularly works with radioactive sources and at accelerators and reactors. However, it is precisely the glossing over of technical difficulties that has eroded support for nukes in the past. It is far from clear to me that the problems associated with a nuclear/fusion future will be any more tractable than the problems of a renewable future.
Patrick 027, I didn’t understand (or maybe just missed) one of your 2nd tier assertions in #499. Why does passive solar reduce the requirement for lighting and heating energy?
Re: #501 (BPL)
You can find monthly PDO data here:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
U.S. natural gas reserves estimated to be 35 percent greater, than previous estimates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/business/energy-environment/18gas.html?_r=1&sq=Estimate%20places%20natural%20gas%20reserves%20%2035%%20higher&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1245337336-I9n0EfgeCEFy0aC5FAQZHA
Since natural gas emits less CO2 per unit of heat energy than coal, this sounds like good news for help in bridging the gap to renewables.
This is a belated comment that’s been in my mind for some time (which likely means it’s OT) and just triggered by richard zurawski in #502. You folks that complain about the media supporting and reporting mostly the skeptic side of AGW have been too long away from watching TV, or reading newspapers and magazines. For at least the past couple of years they have been overwhelmingly in support of AGW. The internet IMO leans toward AGW though it’s a long way from overwhelming — there is a large number of prominent skeptic blogs; your complaints have a little validity here.
Ray, I agree with bobberger in #503. I think any reasonable power source that mitigates our need for the eventually depleted fossil fuels ought to be pursued. I don’t understand the strong thoughts by many who also want to displace fossil fuels but seemingly absolutely only if the replacement is non-nuclear. This is evidenced as bobberger says by their blowing nuclear’s challenges way beyond even unsurmountable while blowing off wind and solar challenges with a flick of the wrist. Given its challenges, with which you are certainly familiar, do you think that future nuclear has no business being explored and we ought to put all of our eggs in the wind/solar basket?
re#495. Anne van der Bom
Of all the different versions of Gen IV reactors discussed in the roadmap cited by bobberger, the SCR with pyroprocessed fuel (IFR-S-Prism)is far the most advanced in its development and the roadmap suggests that it will be ready for deployment by 2015. The 2030 date is probably more apposite for most of the other proposals and may well be too late.
You ask about a Plan B should 4th Generation not live up to expectations. The Plan B should obviously be continued deployment of renewables. There do not seem to be many Gen 1V enthusiasts who are inherently anti the deployment of renewables. The boot seems to be on the other foot. Let’s, at least, aim to get a commercial prototype up and running asap.
Your comments suggest that you have not yet had the opportunity to look for further information on the subject at the BraveNewClimate website. I would urge you to do so as it might, at least, address and possibly even quell some of your doubts. However, should they remain, I would like to hear them
Ray #504
“Second, I’ve heard nothing convincing from you or anyone else about how we deal with the waste issue. The experience with Yucky mountain demonstrates that geologic storage is problematic.”
I assume you mean Yucca Mountain? Whatever – if that example would prove geological disposal impossible (which it doesn’t, though as you said, it is problematic nevertheless) we’d be in trouble anyway. Nuclear is here today and it won’t go away just like that – including the considerable waste it already produced and will continue to produce. Personally, I think recycling radioactive waste and/or store the non-recycable parts under control on the surface is safer than burying it somewhere – even if its buried SWD-style. The cost has to be included, of course. I don’t know about the US but most calculations I’ve seen about cost of nuclear in Europe do include reprocessing or waste disposal (and therefore vary quite a lot with reprocessing of the rods usually being the more expensive option at current uranium prices).
Patrick 027 Says (18 June 2009 at 12:04 AM):
“Yes, we will lose some area that could be used for another purpose including wilderness/wildlife refuges, food production, etc. But what do we get back? What if the use of renewable energy prevents enough climate change to save some greater amoung of habitat, some greater amount of cropland – or in particular to save the quality of a much larger area?”
I don’t, of course, disagree with this in principle. The problem is that you’ve artificially limited the scenario (by allowing nothing but renewables) to produce an either/or response. So instead I offer a less-limited scenario:
1) Use renewables where they don’t cause significant damage, or (as with mixed-prairie biofuel) might even improve the existing environment. (And pay attention to cost of storage, etc.)
2) Increase efficiency & make other changes to use less energy while improving quality of life.
3) Use nuclear power as a limited-term way to fill in the remaining power needs.
4) Work on reducing the birth rate in order to eventually get the population down to a level that the planet can support.
And one question on your economic analysis: are you including cost of storage, or did I miss it somewhere?
Douglas Wise wrote: “The Plan B should obviously be continued deployment of renewables.”
Given that the USA — and the world — has vast commercially exploitable wind and solar energy resources that can produce more electricity than we currently use, with today’s technologies, which are already being widely deployed on a large scale, and which have the enthusiastic backing of private investment, and are capable of being scaled up as rapidly as we wish, it seems to me that “continued deployment of renewables” should be “Plan A” as far as energy production goes.
And indeed, it’s not even really a “plan”, it’s the reality of what is happening right now, today.
Today’s nuclear technology can’t do it, and tomorrow’s nuclear technology doesn’t exist yet.
The idea suggested by, for example, Ray Ladbury that nuclear could serve as a “stopgap” until we move to a fully renewables-based energy economy only makes sense if it refers to keeping the existing nuclear power plants running until they reach their end-of-life and are shut down and decommissioned. In that sense nuclear can be a stopgap — and I agree that it is far more urgent to shut down coal-fired power plants than it is to shut down existing nuclear power plants.
But the idea that an expansion of nuclear can serve as a stopgap on the way to renewables makes no sense. Renewables are already here, now, and can be scaled up more, and more easily, and faster, and cheaper, than nuclear. Any significant contribution to reducing GHGs by expanding nuclear power is decades away.
Indeed, if for some reason it was highly desirable to greatly expand nuclear power, the urgency of the climate crisis would mean that we would have to use renewables as a “stopgap” during the decades it would take to expand nuclear power.
But once we fully build out that renewable “stopgap”, who needs the nukes?
(Captcha says “bleeping ing” — perhaps suggesting what the moderators would like to do to comments about renewables vs. nuclear?)
Lawrence #507
“Since natural gas emits less CO2 per unit of heat energy than coal, this sounds like good news for help in bridging the gap to renewables.”
Another way of looking at it would be, that this means even more fossil fuel to burn, making it cheaper as well.
Thanks, Tamino!
Re 505 – Passive solar can be thought of either as renewable energy or as energy efficiency, so long as it is not double counted except where allowed (eg light turns into heat).
Passive solar is use of solar energy directly for light and heat, not including any equipment besides windows (thermally-insulating) and building design and materials (to add heat capacity where desired, so that daytime heating does not make the temperature too high in the day but prevents the temperature from getting too low at night). As I understand it, passive solar does not include any ‘active’ use of heat sinks and sources that would require directed flow of fluids (ie it doesn’t include solar water heating, geothermal heat storage). Obviously, though, passive solar can be combined with such things.
The comments on this thread seem to have taken up a groundhog day quality.
James –
I did not explicitly include the cost of storage in that scenario. The scenario will be approximately accurate if the total cost can come down to $10/average new W.
However, in the earlier portion of the scenario, there will not be so much need of storage because of the remaining non-renewable power sources. In the later portion of the scenario, energy spending is much reduced from now at $10/ average W, so additional costs could be tolerated. (Although it should also be pointed out that we may need those financial savings in order to pay for climate adaptation and compensate for climate-change damages.)
Ultimately, the variability of direct solar heat (high temperature, moderate temperature, and passive) and light, and solar photovoltaic electricity, and wind, waves, etc, can be complemented with the controllability of solar-thermal electric generation (where heat is stored), geothermal power, biofuels (and natural gas, etc, in the near future), hydroelectric, currents, OTEC, and geothermal power, as well as transmission across distances on the scale of cloud cover variations, the greater use of energy during the day, greater use of electricity in the summer (right? – although that could change when heat pumps replace furnaces ?), a tendency in some locations for wind power and solar power to have opposing seasonal variations, and – except where droughts are cloudy, a tendency for greater hydroelectric and biofuel power availability when there is less solar energy, and a greater need for desalination and water pumping when solar energy is more abundant. Some non-fossil fuel linked carbon sequestration could also be done when there are surpluses of variable energy sources.
————-
After your last comment, I would say that our positions are not so radically different from each other. I am ambivalent about nuclear power – I know Chernobyl was a bad design that was badly run, but I also know that there have been reports of poor maintenance (and why can’t they afford the maintenance/safety measures if it is affordable – well, it probably is, I guess, but there are always some people who will try to get away with stuff), and on site storage of waste has its risks.
It is important to note that both nuclear and coal have ecological footprints that are larger than what happens at the power plants (in addition to coal’s CO2 and other combustion emissions)
—
(with coal, consider the mountaintop removal mining of West Virginia (certainly it would be more environmentally friendly to line those ridges with wind turbines?) – and I know I should use an example for nuclear land use but I’m not as familiar with the specifics there).
—
This will be true to some degree for everything, but my impression is that the total land for solar power is either less than or comparable to coal and nuclear power, and the CO2 emissions (when fossil fuels are part of the supporting infrastructure) per unit energy are similar among solar photovoltaic, wind, and nuclear.
The cost (not just financial) of the area used depends on the scenic and ecological sensitivity and/or food or other value it would or does have. Part of what makes remaining praire and temperate forests so valuable is that we’ve made them more rare by displacing so much for food production and unrenewed wood. I certainly don’t think the desert is worthless for what it is, and changes in one location can have effects elsewhere (habitat quality depends in part on connectedness), but the sacrifice would tend to be reduced if areas are chosen that are similar, in species and/or landscape, etc, to other areas that are not used.
As for agricultural land, the actual footprint can be less than the area used in a way. From my own experience, lawn grass grows just fine on the north side of a two-story building. Solar panels and collectors that are tilted (tracking or fixed) and spaced out to get the most from each dollar spent on panels, will cast long shadows over the land in winter, but plants will tend to be dormant, possibly covered with snow, in that season; more sunlight will land in between devices in summer when the plants are growing. There are a couple of different ways that solar power plants on semiarid range land could increase the food or biofuel value of the land – by either concentrating moisture on sunny areas between shadows or outside the plant, or by slowing evaporation from underneath, where there could be shade-grown plants.
Mark – my statement “I would suspect that the US (like China) exports a great deal of energy in goods and that Sweden imports a great deal.”
was certainly made with no more than perception of US as car makers, steel producers etc. and sweden being largely service based. “Hope” is the right word – I did qualify with “suspect”. I also had figures showing US energy use dominated by industry and transportation so when trying to explain why US energy per capita was so high, it didnt make sense to be looking too hard and tumble dryers and insulation.
Some informative articles on solar energy:
Enjoy.
Re:514
“Another way of looking at it would be, that this means even more fossil fuel to burn, making it cheaper as well.”
That’s the downside of the equation,Bob. Hopefully,we’ll come to realize that fossil fuels,in any form, are a limited resource as well bad for the climate,and all which that entails. Or, given our track record, maybe not.
RE #499 where Patrick 027 Says:
You won’t get anything out of it now. We have to sacrifice now in order to prevent catastrophe in the future.
It is quite simple, with CO2 at current levels the Greenland ice sheet will melt and raise sea levels by 20 feet. The desertification of California as a result of wild fires will continue, etc. etc. Even if we stopped all fossil fuel burning now, these high levels of CO2 will persist for at least another 100 years, perhaps longer. These are the things Gavin is not telling you!
If we switch all current energy production over to renewables, we would still not be producing enough energy to supply the needs and wants of the developing world who would like to live in the same manner as those they see in the Hollywood films.
Either we have to reduce our per capita consumption to sustainable levels, or the global population will be reduced to a number that is sustainable. Sacrifice now or face catastrophe later!
Cheers, Alastair.
Patrick 027 Says (18 June 2009 at 3:48 PM):
“…with coal, consider the mountaintop removal mining of West Virginia (certainly it would be more environmentally friendly to line those ridges with wind turbines?)…”
Would it? Perhaps not if you consider time. The coal mine will eventually have all the coal removed from it, and if left to itself the land will recover in time. Those wind turbines, solar panels, and so on will have to be there “forever”.
“This will be true to some degree for everything, but my impression is that the total land for solar power is either less than or comparable to coal and nuclear power…”
I don’t see how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion. (Even though I know there is one poster who asserts it, though I don’t recall ever seeing supporting data and haven’t found any in my own searches.) IIRC that Scientific American article gave 30,000 square miles as the area needed to produce about a third of US power from solar, while the state of West Virginia is a bit over 24,000 square miles in area. Wouldn’t that much strip mined area be glaringly obvious on satellite images?
“There are a couple of different ways that solar power plants on semiarid range land could increase the food or biofuel value of the land – by either concentrating moisture on sunny areas between shadows or outside the plant, or by slowing evaporation from underneath, where there could be shade-grown plants.”
Do go back and read some of the links to the details of the actual construction of these plants (existing or planned). The area on which the mirrors/panels are installed is scraped bare, and regularly treated with herbicides to prevent anything from growing. And yet, some people still believe it’s “green” power.
523 James, Solar power in the desert INCREASES biological potential because water is the limiting nutrient, not sunlight. A solar power system concentrates water, which allows for more growth. The more desert we cover with solar systems, the better it is for the environment.
James (#345),
A number for the timescale of loss of hydrogen might be about 600 million years: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/venus_life_040826.html
Mars may still retail a lot of water in its soil. We’ll see.
Alistair – ” These are the things Gavin is not telling you!”
Um, I don’t know about Gavin specifically just off hand, but this site as a whole has told me such things. And I was refering to consequences over time – we agree on that.
James – well, I will have to look up more information on land use for coal and nuclear, but:
1. “regularly treated with herbicides to prevent anything from growing.”
Is that to prevent bird droppings from landing on the equipment and blocking light? I would think some short ground cover would keep the dust down… I don’t see why it has to be as you say, even if it is that way at the moment (?). Although light covered ground surface between panels (and reflective backsides of tilted panels in rows equatorward of other rows) could boost power from flat panels and non-geometric concentrators.
2. Perhaps not if you consider time. The coal mine will eventually have all the coal removed from it, and if left to itself the land will recover in time.
It takes mountains millions of years to grow, and the collisional part of the equation is not happening right now. There are water quality issues. It’s messy stuff.
But that reminds me of another point – in some cases, solar power plants might be put on top of old mines and landfills.
——
Area: the best roofs for solar power slope mainly toward the equator – because of the spacing between buildings, new building designs would enable panels to cover a larger area than the projection of the roof into a horizontal plane, without much shading of other panels. Especially if the tallest buildings are on the poleward sides of cities.
When panels are put closer together so that there is some shading, then the panels should be less tilted to make the most of the solar energy available when long shadows are not cast. That also reduces the shading. However, it also tends to make the difference between summer and winter power supply greater, so there is a tradeoff.
When solar power fields are initially filled, I’d suggest using only every other row initially, or more generally, wider spacing in some way. This reduces shading so that there is more energy per unit device. For the same degradation rate and efficiency variation with insolation (in proportion to the efficiency at a standard insolation – this relates to the fill factor for photovoltaic devices), reduced cost per peak W can allow for greater density of devices of a given tilt or tracking orientation per unit horizontal area – this increase the average power per unit area of land but decreases the average power per unit area of device.
Richard #524
“A solar power system concentrates water, which allows for more growth. The more desert we cover with solar systems, the better it is for the environment.”
Oh I hope not. The whole point about solar from the desert is the “desert” part, isn’t it? Merciless sun unencumbererd by clouds, fog, rain etc. – only a dust storm every once in a while.
You may already know – there is some development with DESERTEC, btw. They now seem to have a letter of understanding about the funding with the German media being all over it but a strange kind of silence from TREC themselves.
SecularAnimist #520
“Some informative articles on solar energy:”
Marketing…
Phil #519
“…no more than perception of US as car makers, steel producers etc. and sweden being largely service based.”
Actually – no. I don’t think anybody in Sweden would buy a US car, while there’s quite a lot of Volvo and Saab in the US. (Mind you, Saab belongs to GM and is now more or less dead and Volvo is really Ford, but whatever…)
See #480 for details about energy consumption (which, according to Mark, should show significantly more efficiency for Sweden but, for some reason, appear not to).
OK, Phil.
On this: “I also had figures showing US energy use dominated by industry and transportation so when trying to explain why US energy per capita was so high”
Uh the amount of power used doesn’t mean you’re doing it a lot, it can mean you’re doing it badly.
E.g. in the 1920’s (IIRC) the US produced 3600 calories of food per calorie of oil used in its production.
In the 1980’s it was 1 to 1.
Think on that.
PS if the US produces so much, why is Sweden not buying from them? Because it’s either them not buying from the US or Sweden aren’t importing a lot.
Alastair:
Come on.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/
(with:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/on-straw-men-and-greenland-tad-pfeffer-responds/
)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/irreversible-does-not-mean-unstoppable/
Re: 524 RichardC Says: “523 James, Solar power in the desert INCREASES biological potential because water is the limiting nutrient, not sunlight. A solar power system concentrates water, which allows for more growth. The more desert we cover with solar systems, the better it is for the environment.”
Excuse me RichardC, but the flora and fauna in our various deserts have evolved to flourish in their various desert environments. Solar systems which raid local groundwater supplies will have an impact both on the local area as well as downstream (or groundwater supplies down gradient).
Spraying water on mirrors to clean them will allow additional water to seep into the ground. But these solar plants are not intended to allow vegetation to take advantage of this water. The vegetation will be destroyed to maintain maximum solar efficiency.
Some concentrated solar power facilities may be necessary to meet our future needs, but we should not be fooled into thinking these plants will be good for the lands on which they are located. This is why we should choose as our first priorities desert lands that already have been disrupted due to agriculture or military uses. Our intact ecosystems should be left undisturbed as much as possible (as these ecosystems are sequestering CO2 as well).
Patrick,
We don’t agree on consequences over time. Jim Hansen doesn’t, James Lovelock doesn’t and I don’t.
We are like a crowd in a blazing cinema, with the usherettes afraid to yell fire because they have been told it will cause panic. The customers are staying in their seats because they want to see the whole of the film for which they have paid. They refuse to move until they get their money’s worth. (No sacrifice from them.) Meanwhile the roof is about to collapse.
This planet is held at a tolerable temperature by two large “air conditioning units” one at each pole which reflect solar heat back to space. One is about to break down. The Arctic ice has only a few years left. But RealClimate, rather than broadcast these facts loud and clear, play down the warnings from Hansen and Lovelock.
It is over five years since I was told by an important scientist that the Greenland ice sheet was about to pass the point of no return. Only 10% of the Greenland ice shelves remain. But have RealClimate reported that. No! There is a conspiracy of silence amongst all the scientists to keep the truth from the public. They are afraid they will be called alarmists!
Cheers, Alastair.
Captcha = dynamics Tempest
James says, “The coal mine will eventually have all the coal removed from it, and if left to itself the land will recover in time.”
You have obviously never been to Eastern KY or WV. Recovery after mountain-top removal is on geologic timescales.
The fact of the matter is that if we are to have a sustainable economy, it cannot be based on oil, or natural gas or coal or nuclear. Consumption has consequences. We can minimize consumption to what is necessary for welfare and a degree of comfort. We cannot bring it to zero.
James, the SciAm article you reference says “. . . installations in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-fired plant when factoring in land for coal mining.” (And yes, your memory is correct that their plan calls for 30,000 square miles of PV arrays. However, coal mining is not limited to West Virginia!)
By way of perspective, the book Lots of Parking states that “. . . the nation’s transportationscape comprises 38 million acres of roads, streets and parking lots.” This equates to around 59,000 square miles. I’ve not been able to verify or confute your descriptions of solar sites “scraped bare” and treated with herbicides, but photos of actual sites sure don’t look like environmental Gehenna to me.
527 Bob, 530 Jim… Ever been to a desert? Lots of sand and not much life. Most of the life seeks shade and water. Yep, solar plants will change the equation. Nope, nothing will go extinct because of them. My point is that all in all, the biodiversity and richness of the areas will increase. Or are you arguing that a lack of life (aka sand dunes) is incredibly important to maintain in the fullest?
Re #532 where Ray wrote:
What I am trying to say is that if we do not bring it to zero, it will end up as zero. With a finite resource that is inevitable.
This is why switching to nuclear is not the answer. Uranium is finite, and that mined on land will soon run out.
Solar collectors in the deserts may seem an endless source but the resources needed to collect are not. An occasional sand blast from a dust storm will soon shorten their useful lives.
Every one seems to be living in an Imaginary world.
Cheers, Alastair.
530 jim maintains, “Our intact ecosystems should be left undisturbed as much as possible (as these ecosystems are sequestering CO2 as well).”
Ludicrous. The baking of the soils in a desert negates any sequestering. Deserts are “life on the edge”. All effort goes into not dying. Any concentration of water via solar plant construction will provide areas where sequestration of CO2 can occur. Remember, we’re not talking about covering a majority of the deserts, just a percent or two. We have to disturb SOME land SOMEWHERE in order for humans to survive. It sounds like you are calling for extermination of the entire human race. You aren’t calling for the use of uranium and coal mining on well-populated by life lands so as to spare the nearly lifeless deserts from any encroachment, are you?
Kevin, or et al. I’m trying to follow this to check if my back of the envelope calculation (#398) were anywhere near accurate. I’m having troubles with SciAm’s units: the land area required to generate GWHr (energy) versus GW (power). This seems to give coal a distinct advantage: a solar array can probably produce an average of 1/2 of its peak power for roughly 8 hours per day; a coal plant can generate 100% of its peak power for 24 hours per day — looking at generation capacity, not demand. Or, put another way one can, given enough time, generate one GWHr with only, say, 10 square meters of PV panels. Can you shed some light on this?
re 530: “Excuse me RichardC, but the flora and fauna in our various deserts have evolved to flourish in their various desert environments.”
Excuse me, I don’t think you can call a dessert ecosystem “flourishing” without the unstated “in relative terms”.
Plant your petunias in the dessert.
Will they be thinking (in petunia, of course) “Lovely, just what I wanted, a bit of sun!”? Or will it be more “AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! It Buuurrrnnssss! Water! I need Water!!!”?
And given that the dessert areas are expanding anyway because of warming, the displaced dessicants can move to the newly available areas.
Alastair, Might I refer you to the work of The Club of Rome (e.g. Limits to Growth) and before them the right reverend Thomas Malthus to point out that you do not have priority in the discovery that the planet is finite.
I would point out, however, that we do have a rather large amount of sunshine blowing up our skirts for the next 3 billion years or so. It is up to us to figure out how to develop a sustainable economy with that. We can use nukes and even coal with CCS to tide us over, but sustainability within the solar power budget has to be the ultimate goal.
Richard #534
“527 Bob, 530 Jim… Ever been to a desert? Lots of sand and not much life. Most of the life seeks shade and water. Yep, solar plants will change the equation. Nope, nothing will go extinct because of them. My point is that all in all, the biodiversity and richness of the areas will increase. Or are you arguing that a lack of life (aka sand dunes) is incredibly important to maintain in the fullest?”
Yes, more often than I wanted to. In fact I fully agree. I was merely pointing out that if you put solar in a desert because thats where its most effective, it’ll better stay a desert (more or less) and not become a rainforest (for the collector’s effectiveness’ sake) – but I guess we can rule that out anyway. On the other hand – looking at the sheer enormity of DESERTEC (400 billion Euro have now been approved – at least they said so on the radio a minute ago) it just can’t be without some effect to the ecosystem although I guess it’ll be nothing on a scale that can’t be dealt with.
Alastair #535
“Uranium is finite…”
I’m sure they’ll find it a laughing matter in 3000something, when they scan through the archives and see, that back in 2009 people worried about something as stoneage (from their perspective) as Uranium being available for them. Fortunately our ancestors never bothered about conserving, say, flintstone in order for us not to freeze to death during the winter, but simply used it to survive and make our existance possible in the first place.
Apparently you’ve never been to the Mojave, which is not a desert of sand dunes. There are dunes in the Mojave, but the vast majority of the Mojave is covered with plants like the Joshua Tree, and there’s plenty of life, and plenty of biodiversity. Same is true of the Chihuahuan desert, and it’s even more true of the Sonoran.
My guess is you’re an engineer or physical scientist with little or no experience of the ecosystems you’re so cavalierly waving off as being nearly non-existent.
My first trip to a Mojave Desert sand dune yielded – in fact I almost accidently stepped on it, as its coloration mimicked the sand so nicely – a rare species of Mormon cricket endemic to the dune.
No life, indeed.
Plant a joshua tree in Portland, Oregon.
Mark (#538 or thereabouts): “Dessert areas are expanding anyway because of warming.” Yummy! But: “Plant your petunias in the dessert”? Yuck. And “the displaced dessicants can move”? A look in the dictionary under “des-” might be useful.
—
ReCaptcha getting violent: “Total somebody”
Praise be to God that I’m surviving life on the edge.
There’s a nice bit of ecological ignorance being demonstrated on this thread …
And somewhere up there the point was made that there’s plenty of already disturbed and screwed-over acres of land within the Mojave available that we should be able to build solar facilities without sacrificing increasingly rare areas where the various Mojave ecosystems are still largely intact.
In other words, the statement above, “Our intact ecosystems should be left undisturbed as much as possible”, is a no-brainer.
Brewer’s sparrow – very possibly the most numerous native bird in the lower 48 – do not need to drink water to maintain their metabolism.
Which of these two pictures were taken in an area averaging about 10 inches of rain a year?
Door #1
or
Door #2
?
(no fair looking at the URLs)
re 544.
Would you consider the biosphere of, say, the tropical rainforest to be “abundant”?
What is the density of life in there?
Now compare that to, say, the Australian Outback.
Now if you want to say “surprisingly abundant compared to what people think of as in the dessert” then *yes*.
Then again, someone with 10 arrows through the chest is surprisingly healthy if they aren’t actually *dead*. Doesn’t make “nearly dead” healthy.
There’s a bit of ignorance of what they’re saying going on here…
Take a look at the pictures:
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/desert.htm
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/rainforest.htm
Which one looks most abundant?
RichardC Says (19 June 2009 at 9:16 AM)
“Ever been to a desert? Lots of sand and not much life. Most of the life seeks shade and water.”
As a matter of fact, I happen to live in one. Or to be technical, in an oasis at the base of the Sierra Nevada, so going east just a little bit gets me into the actual Great Basin desert, and I’ve spent a good bit of time there. Where do you get your ideas of what a desert is like, old movies?
Here’s some real desert for you: http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/Ivanpah-Wildflowers.html
(19 June 2009 at 9:44 AM):
“Ludicrous. The baking of the soils in a desert negates any sequestering.”
Cure at least a little bit of your ignorance: http://www.celsias.com/article/are-deserts-hidden-carbon-sinks/ (news article) or http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120091813/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (link to abstract, the full text is behind a paywall).
Mark Says (19 June 2009 at 10:42 AM):
“Plant your petunias in the dessert.”
What kind? Chocolate cake or ice cream?
“Will they be thinking (in petunia, of course) “Lovely, just what I wanted, a bit of sun!”? Or will it be more “AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! It Buuurrrnnssss! Water! I need Water!!!”?”
And so? Ever try to grow dryland plants where it’s too wet for them? They drown. Plants & animals evolve to suit their environment. Move them to a different environment, and they usually don’t prosper, if they survive at all.