“could a computer that is a million times more powerful than today, tell us a geo-engeneering solution that would “work”?”
Interesting question. I would be surprised if there is not already substantial activity along those lines. Proposals that would generate substantial activity, to say nothing of profit, tend to attract much interest, whereas those that recommend reducing activity, to say nothing of profit, attract little interest. Space programs, military hardware, technology substitution, etc, don’t suffer for lack of support.
The problem I have with the extension to geo-engineering is that the results would be limited by the quality of the models and the quality of the data. While larger computers can obviously give you better accuracy in the solution fields, they will be limited by the functional relationships employed and the data used.
By all means, let’s keep the research going looking for improved geo-engineering options. Yes, it would be great to replace the stringent and disrupting measures my full plan requires with some doable technical ‘fix’. I wouldn’t bet the farm on one appearing.
DIOGENESsays
MartinJB #392,
“Just because you can’t imagine any other solution besides yours working, doesn’t mean you haven’t missed something or that you might not be seeing the whole picture.”
Where do I make a statement like that? Why do you think I have continually asked for constructive criticism on my plan (and unfortunately have received precious little)? I realize there are shortcomings, and look forward to people coming forth with ideas to correct the shortcomings. Where are these ideas???
“Your idea of reducing carbon use by 10-20% per year utterly guts that industrial base.”
My plan requires elimination of all non-essential uses of fossil energy, and trimming the fat off the essential uses. This both cuts the emissions radically in the earliest stages, when we need reductions the most, and cuts total energy requirements, so less low-carbon technologies need to be constructed to replace high-carbon technologies. The latter replacement will not be a carbon-free process, especially in the early stages when the main source available is fossil fuel.
Eliminating ski resorts guts the industrial base; riiight! Eliminating all non-essential travel guts the industrial base; riiight! Reducing thermostat settings in Winter and increasing them in Summer guts the industrial base; riiight! The other members of your tag team need to step back in; you’ve accomplished your diversion.
“I think that Diogenes is really wasting his talent on this blog and should take his message over to Wally World (see Walter’s recent posts above) where posting his inspired commentary anonymously will be welcomed. Besides, I think that Wally has only gotten a single response comment to his multiple essays and is lonely.”
So, we now have a new implied metric for gauging the quality of a climate blog: the number of hits. Well, I took a look at WUWT this morning. On articles posted since 20 March, he has received 1359 comments. You must be in awe.
ClimateCodeRed rarely gets comments, yet I have the highest regard for David Spratt’s articles. They are solidly referenced, and tell it like it is. They pull no punches, and offer no unpaid advertising. RobertScribbler posts a few articles per week, and gets about 40 comments per article. Again, pulls no punches, and has no unpaid advertising. Walter’s site is just a start-up, and most of his articles are well documented, with facts not all that easy to find elsewhere. His articles on BAU are first rate. In my view, he could have done without the article commenting on moderators and posters individually; that didn’t advance the technology or science for me. But, right now, his articles provide some much needed information.
MartinJBsays
Well DIOGENES, I think I’ve heard enough from you. If you think eliminating ski resorts, non-essential travel and moving thermostats around is gonna cut 10-20% of carbon usage (let alone continue to cut it that much in years going forward) then you are obviously more clueless than I originally thought. I gave it a shot (heck, I even tried being civil in the wake of your pot shots), but some deficits will just never be overcome. Cheerio.
My plan requires elimination of all non-essential uses of fossil energy, and trimming the fat off the essential uses.
— the Tea Party Method, applied to climate change.
Hey, if everybody would only …..
But remember Garrett Hardin’s advice.
Get a name, get a blog, set an example, show how you do it.
You’re not alone, although you will seem to be as long as you’re anonymous.
DIOGENESsays
MartinJB #402,
” If you think eliminating ski resorts, non-essential travel and moving thermostats around is gonna cut 10-20% of carbon usage…..I even tried being civil”
The feigned indignation never ends. I provide a few examples of what I mean by elimination of non-essential uses of fossil energy, and that is taken out of context as meaning the full extent of my plan. The chief perpetrators of this seem to be people who offer no plan of their own, or no other plan for which they will take ownership.
We in the advanced nations live a lifestyle that has a strong component based on the production of non-necessities; i.e., junk. Most of that production is energy intensive. When I talk about elimination of non-essentials, it means at some point getting rid of the junk to which we have become accustomed, including the seemingly endless fossil-based travel that seems to occupy the lives of many people. Junk food, junk toys and ornaments, and much of the non-necessities of life that we now take for granted. We would eliminate the energy intensive practice of raising cattle for food. Right now, I can buy food from all around the world at my supermarket, all of which consumes unnecessary energy for travel, and much of which is processed. Most of that processing would be eliminated, as well as the long-distance travel.
Is this a brutal plan; you bet! Am I happy about it; you bet not! Remember the stakes: we are trading off the non-necessities in our life for a chance of potential species survival. Show me another way, based on the numbers necessary for survival!!!
Steve Fishsays
Re- More comments by DIOGENES
You have misunderstood what is being asked, so I will try to make the question clearer. You have said that there must be a 5% – 95% split in solving our CO2 emission problem. You are saying that 100% of emissions must be stopped in just a few years with only a 5% compensation increase from renewables (relative to existing fossil energy). What this means is that in just a few years 7 billion people must live on something around 10% of currently required energy. The big question we are asking you is to demonstrate how this would be possible. I am very skeptical but prove me wrong.
So what you appear to be proposing is not only politically not feasible but is also a plan for mass extinction of humans, an apocalypse. If you disagree, then do what has been asked of you repeatedly and supply data. What would the average person have to live on? What would they have to give up? Are you prepared to undergo these privations and are you currently practicing them in your own life?
Again, please answer the question. No more vague references to fat trimming and trivial examples like ski lifts and thermostats. Talk in some detail about food, housing, heating, clothing, transportation, and how the vast majority of our 7 billion who live in cities are going to survive on less than 10% of current energy use. All you have to do is provide a doable explanation of this problem, otherwise your proposal of a politically and practically impossible “plan” can be accurately described as a proposal for apocalypse and thereby trolling and a form of climate denial. Proposing an impossible plan is saying that nothing can be done and therefore there is no real reason to do anything. Big oil (and coal etc.) wins.
Steve
Pete Dunkelbergsays
Dio, let’s give Martin credit (I do anyway) for trying, just like you, to aid in our deliberations. That said, I too wonder about this:
Martin, Suppose, even if we don’t get up to 10% in the first year due to dependence on carbon energy for building new things, we embark on a program of building, installing, retrofitting for conservation and so on to match the carbon reduction year by year. Wouldn’t that be an economic stimulus? Could it be that the real problem is that even though the economy and regular folks would prosper, some large current cash flows would be altered?
Radge Haverssays
On Theology and Geometry
“I don’t hide the truth.”
~ DIOGENES says
Oh, come off it. Do you hear yourself? Do you really think the people here are so unsophisticated that they’ll be impressed by this sort of posturing?
“I dust a bit…in addition, I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip.”
~ Ignatius J. Reilly
DIOGENESsays
Hank Roberts #403,
“Get a name, get a blog, set an example, show how you do it.”
I don’t see how starting my own blog will make a difference. Most of what I submit gets posted, so what is to be gained by my own blog?
What’s the bigger picture? This blog has been around for almost a decade. It has world-class climate scientists as moderators, and some sharp commenters. Yet, with all this mental firepower, when I read the comments, I’m essentially looking at a circular firing squad. I see no plan presented that will meet the requirements necessary to avoid the climate Apocalypse that is salable.
Now, if this blog had been devoted to e.g. looking for a cuure for cancer for nine years, I could understand the lack of a potential solution. Some problems inherently take a long time to solve. For climate change amelioration, do we not know what has to be done? We know the answers, and they are relatively straight-forward. Killian has provided some examples of what is ultimately required. The key is living locally; acquiring resources locally, and depositing waste locally. Living simply, without all the accoutrements of modern energy-intensive technology. There are communities in the USA and across the world that function this way. Yes, this is not the world of highly processed foods and things, of jet-set travel, of massive militaries that travel around the world continuously. But, if most people reject this necessary lifestyle version, we probably won’t last much longer as a species. No more complicated than that. I have shown that the more popular possibly-acceptable plans like Ceres Clean Trillion are not adequate. They may buy us an extra generation, but that’s a blink of the eye in human existence terms. So, if I repeat this statement on my own blog, how will that change this larger perhaps insoluble picture?
Maybe, but on the other hand the whole point of getting such monstrosities for many people is exactly to parade their conspicuous consumption. If that is someone’s goal, then the higher gas prices are, the more everyone knows just how much you are able and willing to throw at such absurdities.
Price is sometimes a more perverse motivator than you seem be considering here.
I realize we’re substantively in agreement, but it’s important IMO to understand why it’s called the tragedy of the commons: paraphrasing Whitehead, “the essence of tragedy resides in the remorseless working of things.” I presume this is old hat for most RC-ers, but let’s review anyway:
An individual exploiter of an unregulated commons has sound economic incentive to continue or even intensify his exploitation, as long as he gains direct benefit greater than the sum of his direct cost plus his perceived share of the externalized cost.
Appeals to conscience or fashion work, to the extent they do, by reducing the fossil-fuel consumer’s perceived benefit of consumption (or equivalently, by increasing his perceived share of the externalized cost), for only a sub-population of consumers. Tragically, the net effect on the global atmospheric commons will be negligible, because if enough consumers respond to non-price incentives to reduce their consumption, the direct price of fossil fuels will decline, making it economic for others to increase their consumption. By the same logic, increasing the direct price, as through a carbon tax, will motivate all “rational economic agents” to reduce their fossil fuel consumption by increasing efficiency or by substituting alternative energy sources. That’s all standard Environmental Economics.
Again, I’m not saying that no-one should voluntarily reduce their individual carbon footprint in the absence of a carbon tax. I just don’t expect it to have much effect on the course of AGW by itself. I do understand that wili isn’t advocating for only voluntary individual decarbonization:
But again, I am not against national or international tax or (better) regulation. But we can no longer wait around for these things to happen. We have to be pursuing multiple strategies at once, and hope for unexpected breakthroughs in these crucial but so far mostly intransigent macro-levels.
The literature on global climate change has largely ignored the small but positive steps that many public and private actors are taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A global policy is frequently posited as the only strategy needed. It is important to balance the major attention on global solutions as the only strategy for coping with climate change. Positive actions are underway at multiple, smaller scales to start the process of climate change mitigation. Researchers need to understand the strength of polycentric systems where enterprises at multiple levels may complement each other. Building a global regime is a necessity, but encouraging the emergence of a polycentric system starts the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and acts as a spur to international regimes to do their part.
That’s hard to argue against, and it’s enough to fend off abject despair for now.
Pete Dunkelbergsays
I think many here will not agree with my reply to Martin, and one reason may be an implicit assumption that BAU will not hurt the economy. You will probably not want to make this explicit.
Anyway note this article by Nafeez Ahmed in the Guardian. Don’t chase squirrels like the commenters do. Read at least down to this section of the article:
“An academic conference paper on the HANDY model by a cross-disciplinary team of natural and social scientists led by Dr Rodrigo Castro of the Department of Environmental Systems Science at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, delivered earlier this month, explains in detail why the HANDY model is so useful: …”
The paper is linked in the article.
wilisays
If any one is really interested in the latest developments of Hardin’s theories, they could do worse than to examine the works of Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel laureate who has done more than anyone to increase our understand how real world commons have been managed badly or well. I had the great privilege of hearing her speak months before she left us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
Diogenes,
based on some rough numbers (?), cutting fossil fuel carbon energy use to only 10% of 2011 levels by 2050 is the action required to stay under ~2 C.
To achieve this I figure that Non-Carbon Energy has to replace an extra 17,500 Mtoe of Carbon energy on top of that already forecast in 2050.
To do this an average of 500 Mtoe in global energy demand needs to be replaced by Non-Carbon Energy every year for 35 years (2050). That equates per year, to 5% of the Fossil Fuel energy supply in 2011.
That amount of energy is equal to supplying 2.5 x 6,000 MW Non-Carbon power stations per Week for 35 years. This is what is needed to replace both the energy demand growth and retire most of the fossil fuel carbon energy supply as well.
What are the barriers?
What can supply an extra 15 GWe of clean energy every week?
The fossil fuel business is a good profitable business to be in.
Governments are quite attached to the big stream of ‘carbon royalties’
Coal is cheap.
BAU is easier.
NIMBY Syndrome
PS What can supply an extra 15 GWe of non-carbon energy every week?
15 GWe is 3 x large nuclear power plants
15 GWe is 3 x large hydro power plants
15 GWe is 15 x biggest Wind farms
15 GWe is 30 x biggest PV solar plants
15 GWe is 40 x Ivanpah CS solar plants
if my numbers are close… each week.
cheers
DIOGENESsays
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING
A comment was posted on ClimateCodeRed that summarizes the credibility predicament of the climate advocates. I quote verbatim from the front end of Gail’s comment: “One reason people are not motivated to change their behavior is that activists and scientists have tried to placate them with the myth that no sacrifice is required, and we can have all our toys by switching to “green” energy sources. Deniers know in a visceral way that is simply not possible. No “sustainable” energy can replace the concentrated power of fossil fuels. That’s why they ask, what, do you want us to go back to living in caves? The fact is, if we are to avert our own extinction, we would have to drastically reduce our population and developed country standards of consumption. Pretending otherwise has doomed civilization.”
There you have it, in a nutshell. No hype, no magic, only the pure unadorned harsh truth! The members of the general public are not stupid. They understand from real world experience that the recovery from serious financial problems or even bankruptcy is not associated with prosperity or other similar fantasies. Recovery typically involves serious pulling back of activity, reining in expenditures, and seriously tightening our belt. When we see messages posted on this blog to the effect that prosperity will flow during the process of recovering from carbon bankruptcy, with no analytical backup to support such nonsense, all they do is demolish our credibility with the general public readership. The time has come for truth in advertising!
The researchers, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (University of East Anglia, Norwich), Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (London School of Economics and Political Science, London), and Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (McGill University, Montreal), arrived at their results using the global crop model PEGASUS to simulate crop yield responses to 72 climate change scenarios spanning the 21st century.
The study also identified particular areas where heat waves are expected to have the largest negative effects on crop yields. Some of the largest affected areas are key for crop production, for example the North American corn belt for maize. When the CO2 fertilisation effects are not taken into account, the researchers found a net decrease in yields in all three crops, intensified by extreme heat stress, for the top-five producing countries of each crop.
“Our results show that maize yields are expected to be negatively affected by climate change, while the impacts on wheat and soybean are generally positive, unless CO2 fertilisation effects have been overestimated” ….
“However, extreme heat stress reinforced by ‘business-as-usual’ reduces the beneficial effects considerably in these two crops….
… this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034011/article
DIOGENESsays
Kevin McKinney #389,
There is a small sub-set of posters here who have the characteristics of a dysfunctional family. They have their own rituals, their own language, their own view of reality completely disconnected from reality. In their world, the abnormal is the norm!
If the Internet and blogging had existed in the 16th century, Galileo would have been called a ‘troll’ by the Kevin McKinney’s of the day.
NOAA-ESRL report the first +400ppm week of the year at MLO – 400.76ppm. (Scripps Institute, who run different week-beginnings (and day-beginnings) posted their first +400ppm week a few days back.) Because of the mini-CO2 “hiatus” of the last couple of months, March will not be the first month in 13 million years to top 400ppm (or 3.5 million years if you prefer). That will fall to April. And July may yet give us 4 months above 400ppm this year.
Also, with the end of the mini-“hiatus”, the annual CO2 rise is back up to the high levels seen at the end of last year – and not an El Nino in sight.
Garrett Hardin, from Wikipedia: “advocating eugenics by forced sterilization, and strict limits to non-western immigration…..drew heavy criticism from the left for his alleged indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing…..published the article “Living on a Lifeboat” in BioScience magazine, arguing that contributing food to help the Ethiopian famine would add to overpopulation, which he considered the root of Ethiopia’s problems.”
This is your hero?
DIOGENESsays
Steve Fish #405,
“You have misunderstood what is being asked, so I will try to make the question clearer. You have said that there must be a 5% – 95% split in solving our CO2 emission problem.”
I have understood quite well what you have asked, and have answered it in some detail in #388. I have appended the key parts of that response to this post. I didn’t say there must be a 95/5% split; read the initial part of the appended response. In fact, in the appended, I allow for the possibility of rapidly accelerating the implementation of low carbon technologies, and thereby easing somewhat the requirement for hard front-end remaining fossil reductions. As I state, this is not my first choice, but if it is anyway feasible and makes the overall plan more salable, then it would be acceptable to me. I’m interested in solving the problem, not pushing any ideology.
“You are saying that 100% of emissions must be stopped in just a few years with only a 5% compensation increase from renewables (relative to existing fossil energy). What this means is that in just a few years 7 billion people must live on something around 10% of currently required energy. The big question we are asking you is to demonstrate how this would be possible. I am very skeptical but prove me wrong.”
I have addressed that in the previous paragraph.
“So what you appear to be proposing is not only politically not feasible but is also a plan for mass extinction of humans, an apocalypse. If you disagree, then do what has been asked of you repeatedly and supply data. What would the average person have to live on? What would they have to give up? Are you prepared to undergo these privations and are you currently practicing them in your own life?
Again, please answer the question. No more vague references to fat trimming and trivial examples like ski lifts and thermostats. Talk in some detail about food, housing, heating, clothing, transportation, and how the vast majority of our 7 billion who live in cities are going to survive on less than 10% of current energy use. All you have to do is provide a doable explanation of this problem, otherwise your proposal of a politically and practically impossible “plan” can be accurately described as a proposal for apocalypse and thereby trolling and a form of climate denial. Proposing an impossible plan is saying that nothing can be done and therefore there is no real reason to do anything. Big oil (and coal etc.) wins.”
You misunderstand the nature of my plan/proposal. It is in the spirit of Hansen’s plan/proposal. If you read Hansen’s recent Plos One article, he proposes a MASSIVE reforestation effort and demand reductions on the order of 6-9%, along with implementation of renewable and nuclear technologies. The massive reforestation is not a nice-to-have; it is the major difference between what he proposes and Kevin Anderson proposes (along with the different temperature targets), and is a must-have if he wants to keep the demand reduction below ten percent. Now, Hansen hasn’t done (or at least reported) a full scale operations research model showing how this reforestation effort would be accomplished in detail, how much fossil fuel would be involved in the total reforestation, how many people would be required and how many dollars would be required. This component of his plan is the reforestation REQUIRED to meet the targets. Can it be done in the time frame identified, with minimal carbon expenditure, with acceptable costs and carbon removal performance; who knows? But, if we want to survive as a species, this is what is required, according to Hansen.
What I am giving in my plan/proposal are the temperature targets required to offer any chance of avoiding catastrophe, and the components required to meet these targets. I am starting with the same reforestation required as Hansen, and adding other potential approaches such as ‘artificial trees’ to reduce risk. Can they be implemented; who knows? Without them, forget about meeting the ~1 C targets. In the appended, I allow for a partial tradeoff between hard demand reduction based on elimination of non-essential fossil energy expenditure and reduced emissions due to accelerated low-carbon source implementation. These levels of total emissions reductions are what is required to avoid the catastrophe. Going all out on the hard front end emissions reductions provides these reductions when needed most and also means less low carbon technologies need to be implemented as replacements, thereby reducing the carbon expenditures that will be required for the implementation. That’s what the numbers tell you is needed. If all you want to do is implement a less stringent alternative like the Ceres Clean Trillion plan, which will yield ~1.5% non-compounded annual reductions in emissions for decades, and give you an 80% chance of staying below 2 C (based on models that do not include the major carbon feedbacks, which means an underestimation of the danger), recognize that you are proposing entre into a regime that has been described as Extremely Dangerous. To me, that’s a code word for carbon feedbacks that may go on autopilot.
The key point of my plan/proposal is that ALL THREE MAJOR COMPONENTS ARE REQUIRED IN AN INTEGRATED MANNER; any component by itself is insufficient. Each component will be extremely challenging to implement, even with some of the tradeoffs suggested. Implementation of the full plan will not be without its casualties, as you rightly point out. We are too far down the road to avoid those.
FROM POST #388
“As I have shown, present low carbon technology implementation proposals (Ceres) provide minimal fossil emissions reduction (~1-2% per year). However, if avoiding the climate Apocalypse is the goal, there is no reason that such implementation could not be accelerated. For example, assume (for discussion purposes) that all present fossil use could be completely converted to low carbon. If this conversion takes place over 100 years, then there would be a non-compounded reduction of 1% per year; 50 years, 2% per year; 20 years, 5% per year; 10 years, 10% per year. At five years, the 20% per year reduction starts getting close to the demand reduction I used for my posted examples. So, the question becomes how rapidly we could make the transition IF WE WERE 100% SERIOUS ABOUT HAVING ANY CHANCE TO AVOID THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE. Additionally, especially in the early stages, how much fossil fuel expenditure would be necessary to effect this transition?
The data on answering this question is sparse. Jacobson and DeLucchi had a two part paper on what it would take to convert the energy economy completely to renewables. While their approach was admirable, decades would be required under their plan, too little to offset demand reduction appreciably. In addition, they were roundly criticized as being far more expensive than a nuclear-based option, and in total too expensive for anything other than a wartime effort. The question in my mind is, if we viewed our present global situation with extreme wartime urgency, how rapidly could conversion to low carbon technology be done, almost irrespective of cost as has been the case with some major wartime efforts.
For salability, the demand reduction component would have to be partially offset by the demand reduction from the enhanced transition to low carbon technology. This is not my first choice, since it would allow much unnecessary consumption to be continued, and would raise the risk of the targets not being achieved. Additionally, the greater the demand reduction component, the less is the amount of low carbon technologies that would have to be installed, and the faster the installation could be completed. Nevertheless, there would still be elimination of the non-essential uses of fossil energy, with modest easing of the restrictions on essential uses. The sum of the fossil fuel usage reductions of the lifestyle maintenance component and the demand reduction component should be in the 20%-25% per year range. Thus, if the low carbon technology substitution could be done on the order of a decade (I have no idea about the practicality of this level of intense effort), then additional demand reduction could be on the order of 10-15% per year. Any further easing of this demand reduction would trade off economic adversity for increased chances of survival.”
Ray Ladburysays
Diogenes,
Wow, that’s all you took from that biography? Really? That is just sad.
Ostrom is certainly worth reading. As was pointed out, she was a promoter of “the small but positive steps that many public and private actors are taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Questions for the RC community: how would we measure the efficacy of the polycentric approach? Are estimates of annual CO2 emissions accurate enough to detect reductions on that scale? Estimates aside, how large would actual emissions reductions have to be to show up in the Keeling curve, even in the 2nd derivative?
DIOGENESsays
Ray Ladbury #422,
“Wow, that’s all you took from that biography?”
No, that’s all I posted here. He did many brilliant things, but these statements/actions I posted negate the good. LBJ had many courageous and important accomplishments in his time as President, but his actions on Vietnam canceled them out, and then some. At least for me.
Many analyses of future renewable energy scenarios appear to overlook the technical and economic dynamism of the sector: that is, cost and capability trends seem always to be underestimated. It makes a difference; Jacobson and Delucchi, for instance, was published in 2009. But according to NREL (just as an instance), reported US costs for solar had already declined by about 25% by 2011. They have continued to drop since, and no-one expects that to change much, as the declines are driven by the increasing scale of deployment (and hence, manufacturing.)
It would be an interesting exercise to redo J & D’s costs assumptions on the basis of what 2013 costs were, and possibly quite illuminating.
Challenging! That’s why I prefer the hard front-end reduction of all non-essential uses, and trimming of the fat from the essential uses. Less replacement to build later. Trouble is, at least in the USA, we have substantial energy waste built into our infrastructure: suburbia, long commutes, etc. Just the opposite of what I projected we need: simple lifestyle, obtain resources locally, deposit wastes locally. Changing to a more energy efficient infrastructure will be fossil energy intensive in itself, and the process of change will be brutal.
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by DIOGENES — 24 Mar 2014 @ 9:45 AM
You have not answered my question here or in #388. The question is- After the five, or ten, or whatever year elimination of fossil carbon pollution is accomplished in your “plan” to avoid APOCALYPSE, what energy resources will be available to minimally sustain seven billion people, much less “lifestyle maintenance?” You claim to provide accurate numbers for carbon release to avoid an APOCALYPSE, so provide numbers for kilowatt hours, or whatever, that will be available to avoid APOCALYPSE by starvation and war if your “plan” was implemented.
Your answer looks like a very long essay that an undergrad student writes when they have no answer to the question. Just write whatever and hope. What does Hansen’s suggestions for reforestation over a five or ten year period have to do with the question? What does anyone else’s plan have to do with the question? I am asking you to provide your estimate of what resources will be available to sustain human life and society after your targets have been met, and to make this realistic, what are you willing to give up and have already given up in your own life. Your inability, so far, to provide the answers to these questions completely undermines all your complaints about the scientists who run this website and the ideas of other commenters here.
Steve
MartinJBsays
Pete,
good question in 406. First, a quick note on 411. I doubt anyone who pays much attention to climate change believes that BAU is a recipe for a pain-free economic. I think it’s pretty apparent we’re already feeling some of the pain now to some extent and that the pain will just get worse. However, that will be a relatively gradual process, and I think it’s safe to say that our actions over the next few years would be unlikely to have any impact on that BAU path of pain for some time… couldn’t say how long that is.
As for your question about my statement that the path set out by the prolific poster would bring economic ruin, I think I can explain that fairly easily. The numbers here are somewhat arbitrary, but I think they demonstrate the order of magnitude
First, remember the context. Evidently we are supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 10-20% (I think 25% even came up once) per year for the next 5-10 years, with the use of renewables accounting for only a minor part of that (and given the timescale to ramp up renewables, that is certainly realistic in the early years). Let’s say renewables is 10% of that. That leaves us having to find reductions of 9% to 18% per year.
Second, how much could efficiency (in all its forms) get us? Total, given plenty of time to implement, maybe 25%? I really don’t know, but I would doubt it’s that much more. And we’re not talking long term… we’re talking about what we could do pretty much immediately (by the standards of changing a global economy!) based on the schedule we’ve been given. Maybe some low-hanging fruit gets us a quick 5% in the first year, but I think that’s pretty farfetched. No way we average 5% over an extended period of time as the easy stuff gets done quickly.
Third, how much of economic production is truly unnecessary? Let’s say 25% again (I don’t know, but no-one does). But again, implementing these things takes serious time. You can’t just turn a switch. And this is totally ignoring the point that there is not and never will be a governing body on the planet with the authority to make these decisions. But let’s pretend that suddenly we’re all reasonable, rational people.
So, where does that leave us? An all-out effort to increase efficiency and reduce excess uses of energy. And maybe over a long period that reduces our emissions by 50%? Maybe a bit more. I won’t quibble. But it won’t be that much more. Oh, and one more complication… the world’s least-developed countries are going to keep growing. You CAN NOT ask them not to! Which just means that there is that much more for the rich world to do.
To go much further than that, especially over a short period of time, will basically require turning off fossil fuel generation. And in a big way. And that will involve halting essential parts of the economy. You can argue that the “essential” part of the economy is actually much smaller, but to get to this hypothetical back-to-basics economy (what, pastoralists?) would involve rewriting most of our industrial, transportation and agricultural infrastructure. Probably have to move lots of people too. Either way, there’s no way these things are not epically disruptive if done over the period of a decade (or probably even two or three decades!). And a crash course gives us no time to adapt.
If you want to preserve the industrial base to transform the economy to carbon-free power, you can’t disrupt global supply chains that abruptly. Because that transformation will take time (especially if we’re simultaneously going all-out on efficiency). And there would inevitably be missteps (it’s practically axiomatic that infrastructure projects go over schedule and over budget!).
Yes, at some point climate change would be every bit as disruptive if left unchecked (or even not checked enough – though what that threshold is not certain by any means), but the more we do developing renewables (which is actually Hansen’s main thrust) sooner than later, the more time we have to adapt and hopefully reduce the inevitable impacts.
I am as gungho about preventing the worst effects of climate change as anyone you are likely to meet. And I talk to a lot of people who are actively working on a lot of the things that might help us get there: the people who develop renewable projects and do cutting-edge research. I talk to folks trying to find more efficient ways to heat homes and manufacture goods. I talk to activists who are out there trying to convince people that we have to do all we can. And they ARE making progress. In the end, it might not be enough, but by gum we’re going to give it all we can.
And that is the longest post I have ever done or will ever do. I am abjectly ashamed of myself.Pete,
good question in 406. First, a quick note on 411. I doubt anyone who pays much attention to climate change believes that BAU is a recipe for a pain-free economic. I think it’s pretty apparent we’re already feeling some of the pain now to some extent and that the pain will just get worse. However, that will be a relatively gradual process, and I think it’s safe to say that our actions over the next few years would be unlikely to have any impact on that BAU path of pain for some time… couldn’t say how long that is.
As for your question about my statement that the path set out by the prolific poster would bring economic ruin, I think I can explain that fairly easily. The numbers here are somewhat arbitrary, but I think they demonstrate the order of magnitude
First, remember the context. Evidently we are supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 10-20% (I think 25% even came up once) per year for the next 5-10 years, with the use of renewables accounting for only a minor part of that (and given the timescale to ramp up renewables, that is certainly realistic in the early years). Let’s say renewables is 10% of that. That leaves us having to find reductions of 9% to 18% per year.
Second, how much could efficiency (in all its forms) get us? Total, given plenty of time to implement, maybe 25%? I really don’t know, but I would doubt it’s that much more. And we’re not talking long term… we’re talking about what we could do pretty much immediately (by the standards of changing a global economy!) based on the schedule we’ve been given. Maybe some low-hanging fruit gets us a quick 5% in the first year, but I think that’s pretty farfetched. No way we average 5% over an extended period of time as the easy stuff gets done quickly.
Third, how much of economic production is truly unnecessary? Let’s say 25% again (I don’t know, but no-one does). But again, implementing these things takes serious time. You can’t just turn a switch. And this is totally ignoring the point that there is not and never will be a governing body on the planet with the authority to make these decisions. But let’s pretend that suddenly we’re all reasonable, rational people.
So, where does that leave us? An all-out effort to increase efficiency and reduce excess uses of energy. And maybe over a long period that reduces our emissions by 50%? Maybe a bit more. I won’t quibble. But it won’t be that much more. Oh, and one more complication… the world’s least-developed countries are going to keep growing. You CAN NOT ask them not to! Which just means that there is that much more for the rich world to do.
To go much further than that, especially over a short period of time, will basically require turning off fossil fuel generation. And in a big way. And that will involve halting essential parts of the economy. You can argue that the “essential” part of the economy is actually much smaller, but to get to this hypothetical back-to-basics economy (what, pastoralists?) would involve rewriting most of our industrial, transportation and agricultural infrastructure. Probably have to move lots of people too. Either way, there’s no way these things are not epically disruptive if done over the period of a decade (or probably even two or three decades!). And a crash course gives us no time to adapt.
If you want to preserve the industrial base to transform the economy to carbon-free power, you can’t disrupt global supply chains that abruptly. Because that transformation will take time (especially if we’re simultaneously going all-out on efficiency). And there would inevitably be missteps (it’s practically axiomatic that infrastructure projects go over schedule and over budget!).
Yes, at some point climate change would be every bit as disruptive if left unchecked (or even not checked enough – though what that threshold is not certain by any means), but the more we do developing renewables (which is actually Hansen’s main thrust) sooner than later, the more time we have to adapt and hopefully reduce the inevitable impacts.
I am as gungho about preventing the worst effects of climate change as anyone you are likely to meet. And I talk to a lot of people who are actively working on a lot of the things that might help us get there: the people who develop renewable projects and do cutting-edge research. I talk to folks trying to find more efficient ways to heat homes and manufacture goods. I talk to activists who are out there trying to convince people that we have to do all we can. And they ARE making progress. In the end, it might not be enough, but by gum we’re going to give it all we can.
And that is the longest post I have ever done or will ever do. I am abjectly ashamed of myself and apologetic.
wilisays
Martin @#432: Your post was so good, I had to read it twice! :-D
Ultimately we have to ask very basic questions: What is an economy for? How do we judge whether it is a ‘good’ economy? Providing basic food, water, clothing, shelter, fuel for cooking and heat, basic education and healthcare… and then enough time to have a life beyond work, seem like some of the essentials for an economy. A minimum requirement of a economy that comes at least close to doing that for almost all people (which ours doesn’t) would also be that it does not foreclose the possibility that future generation can partake in any kind of life at all (or any life remotely close to these minimums), and that it does not destroy or massively reduce the vitality of the living earth and the systems that sustain it (a minimum standard which again our industrial system has utterly failed to meet).
As a number of ‘third world’ countries and provinces have shown, societies can fulfill these basic requirements at a tiny fraction of the cost that the US spends to _not_ fulfill many of them.
I don’t want to be accused of writing super long posts, so I’ll stop there for now, and just add that we have created a culture that validates consumption and accumulation, especially capital accumulation by the few. We have to start more strongly validating other equally human propensities.
DIOGENESsays
Steve Fish #431,
You’re still missing the point, so I’ll try to explain it from another perspective. Assume you’re the CEO of a corporation that has 1000 employees. Your Board of Directors evaluates your operations and your books. The BOD Chairman tells you that unless you reduce staff by 40% over the next two years, the company won’t survive.
At the next BOD meeting, you announce that you agree with their assessment of the seriousness of the situation and the targets they have identified, and you will reduce staff by 40% over two years. You have taken the most important step in the process. You have identified the requirements for your company to survive, and you have announced you will do what is necessary to meet those requirements. You haven’t presented them with the details of your actions.
You then assemble your planning staff, and charge them with the responsibility of restructuring operations compatible with a 40% reduced staff. When they are finished, you commission an evaluation of each employee, rank them by how essential they would be to the revised organization, and issue ‘pink slips’ to the bottom 200. One year later, repeat the evaluation process, and issue pink slips again to the bottom 200.
That’s the same process required to implement my plan. The first step is to get buy-in by the leaders of at least the major countries in the world. ‘Buy-in’ means agreement on choice of targets required to avoid the Apocalypse, and then agreement to do whatever is necessary to meet those targets. Assume there is buy-in on the massive reforestation, and that the combination of emissions reduction due to substitution of low carbon technologies for fossil and hard additional demand reduction has to total about 20% per year for a few years. Assume the low carbon component provides about 5% (~twenty year full replacement). This means demand reduction for fossil fuels over and above the replacement component would have to be about fifteen percent a year.
Now, the process becomes mechanistic similar to the company analog provided above. There would be teams from the countries working together on identifying how the infrastructure and activities would be restructured to be compatible with the large fossil draw-down and, hopefully, an accompanying large draw-down in all energy and resource use. When these plans gain some consensus, then, all the energy end-uses would be identified, including the sources of energy for those end-uses, and decision-makers would rank them for essentiality. Then, starting at the bottom, they would work their way up the list until ~fifteen percent had been identified. It would be a continuous process. Much of the truly non-essential could probably be eliminated very early.
Now, back to the company example. Firing those 400 people will not be a pleasant process. Not pleasant for the decision-maker, and far less pleasant for those on the receiving end. Some people are on the psychological thin edge; they may go over upon being fired. Some may be supporting sick relatives; loss of a paycheck could be life-threatening. Some may have kids in college, who may have to drop out without parental support. The point is, if survival of the company is the primary objective, and the decision is made to do whatever is necessary to guarantee survival, there may be substantial collateral damage. That’s the price to be paid for survival!
I see the same potential for collateral damage in the fossil energy reduction case. Even the simplest examples that I have presented, such as closing the ski resorts, eliminating ALL non-essential travel, etc, will have massive collateral damage. There are major industries built upon the waste of many resources, including energy. What will happen to these people? Some can be reassigned to help in the reforestation or in the production/implementation of the low carbon substitutes. Can all find such alternative (albeit probably lower paid) employment; highly doubtful? The focus is on cutting back; doing less, reducing the activities that got us into this critical situation in the first place.
It all boils down to whether we want to pay a high price now or the ultimate price later. I have proposed a plan at high-level that will provide a reasonable chance to avoid the Apocalypse. I have never stated that it would be free from collateral damage. I understand quite well the effects. You/SA/MartinJB/McKinney have proposed nothing that would even come close. The best of what I have seen, which SA posted but for which none of you have taken ownership, is the Ceres Clean Trillion plan. It would reduce emissions by a non-compounded average of ~1.5% per year for decades, would cost $36 TRILLION by 2050, and would provide an 80% chance that global mean temperature increase does not exceed 2 C. The 2 C is a number that has been characterized by all variants of dangerous by leading climate experts, which I interpret to mean that the carbon feedbacks could go on autopilot.
So, you have come up with NOTHING that would avoid the Apocalypse, yet you keep trying to perpetuate the image that my plan is non-workable. For someone who professes to be interested in saving the biosphere rather than promoting a Windfall, I find your comments rather strange. Why, instead, don’t you do what I requested in the first place: PROVIDE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM THAT WILL IMPROVE THE PLAN. So far, none of the members of the tag team have provided such criticism. Tell us how you would achieve the required targets without collateral damage. Ceres might avoid the collateral damage, but won’t achieve the required targets that I (and Hansen and many others) have identified.
Well I think the best way to mark down the future is as “unknown”.
The ‘energy’ of a ‘Mtoe’ equals a million tonnes of Oil equivalent
In 2011 total global energy demand was 13,000 Mtoe
Non-Carbon energy was 17% and Fossil Fuels was 83% or 10,000 Mtoe.
Clean green renewable energy from Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Tidal was 2%, Hydro 3%, Biomass 4%, and Nuclear 8% which totals 17% Non-Carbon energy.
On current fossil fuel energy use forecasts we run out of the remaining 250 GtC Carbon Budget to remain under a 2 C rise around 2033 or in 20 years.
Business as usual energy forecasts include realistic plans for an expanding Non-Carbon energy sector into the future. They estimate by 2040 a total global energy demand of 20,000 Mtoe.
Non-Carbon energy is forecast to be 22% and Fossil Fuels 78% or 15,600 Mtoe.
Clean green renewable energy from Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Tidal rises to 3%, Hydro stays 3%, Biomass rises to 7% and Nuclear to 9% which totals 22% for all Non-Carbon energy.
The 25 year forecast up to 15,600 Mtoe of fossil fuel carbon energy use by 2040 is 50% larger than the 10,000 Mtoe used globally in 2011.
In order to remain under 2 C rise, Hansen et al papers and others have shown that carbon energy use needs to be down under 1,500 Mtoe (~10% of current levels) by 2050.
Fact is we are going in the completely opposite direction towards 15,600 Mtoe from fossil fuels in 2040. This equals 179,000 TW-h of energy capacity (electric generation). To put that 179,000 figure into perspective, it’s 20% more than all the energy we used in 2011
179,000 TW-h is equivalent to the energy from 3,580 large sized 6,000 MW power stations! It would take 25 years to replace all this energy by adding 140 new large 6,000 MW Non-Carbon power stations every year.
That means on average building 2.5 x 6,000 MW Non-Carbon power stations per week, every week. This would add 15 GWe of clean energy supply every week.
The average large power station today is 5,000 to 6,000 MW in capacity. Large generators are powered by hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas.
I can’t see how it is possible to build this amount of Non-Carbon energy power stations.
I can’t see how it is possible to achieve a Carbon emissions target anywhere close to 10% of 1990 emission levels by 2050.
And I can’t even see how it would be possible to hold carbon emissions at the current 2013 levels into the near future, let alone cut them back.
But I can see business as usual unfolding easy enough with fossil fuel carbon emissions still rising ever higher into 2040 and beyond. The energy gap is much bigger than I had believed it was.
The core of any climate change amelioration are the targets that should not be exceeded and the risk for such targets being exceeded by the actions proposed. Yet, we see almost no comments on these temperature target issues on a climate science Web site.
*Around +1.5ºC warming may be the tipping point for the Greenland Ice Sheet and for the large-scale release of Arctic carbon permafrost stores. At +1.5ºC, coral reefs would be reduced to remnant systems.
*Holocene CO2 levels have varied between 270 and 330 ppm. The higher figure occurred in the early Holocene around 10,000 years ago when temperatures were around 0.5°C warmer (known as the Holocene maximum) than pre-industrial levels, when the CO2 level was around 280 ppm.
*A safe climate would not exceed the Holocene maximum. The notion that +1.5ºC is a safe target is contradicted by the evidence, and even +1ºC degree is not safe given what we now know about the Arctic.
*In June 2013, a German research institute which advises Angela Merkel’s government concluded that “policy makers must come up with a new global target to cap temperature gains because the current goal… limiting the increase in temperature to 2°C since industrialization is unrealistic”. It recommended that “world leaders either allow the 2°C goal to become a benchmark that can be temporarily overshot, accept a higher target, or give up on such an objective altogether”.
*International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol calls the 2°C goal “a nice Utopia”: “It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2°C. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”
*The World Bank and PriceWaterhouseCoopers have recently published reports which complement a wide range of scientific research which concludes that the world is presently heading for 4ºC or more of warming this century, and as soon as 2060. Reuters correspondent Michael Rose (2012) quotes IEA Chief Economist, Fatih Birol as saying that emission trends are “perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6°C, which would have devastating consequences for the planet”.
*Anderson says there is a widespread view amongst scientists that “a 4°C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of eco-systems and has a high probability of not being stable”.
*YET THE 2ºC GOAL IS NOT AN OPTION EITHER, BECAUSE, WITH CLIMATE AND CARBON CYCLE POSITIVE FEEDBACKS IN FULL SWING, IT IS LESS A STABLE DESTINATION THAN A SIGNPOST ON A HIGHWAY TO A MUCH HOTTER PLACE. The real choice now is to try and keep the planet under a series of big tipping points by getting it back to a Holocene-like state, or accept that a 3-6ºC “catastrophe” is at hand.
DIOGENESsays
Walter #435,
I really appreciate what you are doing by researching and posting the numbers. Each post reduces the ‘wiggle-room’ for the arm-wavers and their unpaid advertisements.
One note of caution. For each temperature target and plan of action, there is an associated risk. It is usually phrased as ‘chance of staying under x degrees C’. There are a lot of games being played with proposed plans and associated temperature targets, especially when the risk associated with the plans is not stated. When you state “On current fossil fuel energy use forecasts we run out of the remaining 250 GtC Carbon Budget to remain under a 2 C rise around 2033 or in 20 years.”, what is the risk associated with remaining under 2 C while expending 250 GtC? As I posted previously concerning Spratt’s article on Tony Abbott (http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/as-tony-abbott-launches-all-out-war-on.html#more)”
In his point #6 (Scale of Task), he states: “Scientists describe warming of two degrees Celsius (2C) not as the boundary for dangerous climate change, but as representing a boundary between dangerous and extremely dangerous CLIMATE CHANGE, pointing to a safe boundary as being under 350 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e), more than 120 ppm CO2e below the current level. Our stated purpose is to prevent dangerous climate change, but the current level of greenhouse gases is already extremely dangerous. Even for 2C, there is no carbon budget left if one wants a low risk (less than 10%) of exceeding 2C…… As the graph shows, based on a chart from Mike Raupach at the ANU, at a 66% probability of not exceeding 2C, the carbon emissions budget remaining is around 250 petagrams (PtG or billion tonnes) of CO2. However this “carbon budget” also has a 17% chance of exceeding 2.5C and an 8% chance of exceeding 3C, which is clearly a risk we would be mad to accept. If one wants a 90% chance of not exceeding 2C, there is NO “carbon budget” left”.”
Thus, if you are using the same source, then expending 250 PtG of CO2 gives only a 66% chance of not exceeding 2 C. One could also phrase this as an 8% chance of exceeding 3 C. Even though both numbers place us in Extremely Dangerous territory, the latter becomes Extremely Extremely Dangerous! If you want at least 90% chance of staying under 2 C, we have ZERO CARBON BUDGET LEFT. If I tell you there is a 90% chance of making it across the street to buy some chewing gum at the store, would you take it? Why, then, would even only 90% be acceptable when it comes to survival of our species?
So, as intimidating as your numbers look, the reality may even be far worse. But, in presenting these numbers, you are doing far more than all the arm-wavers here combined!!!
Diogenes,
Great. All we have to do is convince the CEO. Now who is that? Got his number?
rocketeersays
Haven’t seen any mention on any of my favorite climate sites of the American Physical Society appointing Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen to a committee to study the APS position on Climate Change. They are part of a six-member panel so a deadlock might seem like the most likely outcome. I find this baffling unless the intention is to provoke an outcry from the rank and file members to demonstrate that climate denial is not something the average physicist endorses. Interested in everyone else’s thoughts here.
DIOGENESsays
Ray #439,
“Got his number?”
It’s unlisted!
DIOGENESsays
Walter #438,
The wind energy growth rates seem impressive, but, again, unless they come at the expense of legacy fossil, they are useful for ornamental purposes only. From the 2013 IEA 2035 projections:
“Global energy demand will grow to 2035, but government policies can influence the pace. In the New Policies Scenario, our central scenario, global energy demand increases by one-third from 2011 to 2035. Demand grows for all forms of energy, but the share of fossil fuels in the world’s energy mix falls from 82% to 76% in 2035. Low-carbon energy sources (renewables and nuclear) meet around 40% of the growth in primary energy demand. Nearly half of the net increase in electricity generation comes from renewables.”
That means that fossil grows by ~20% in 2035 over that in 2011. Since we have run out of carbon budget if we want any kind of a chance to avoid the climate Apocalypse, ANY fossil fuel expenditures from now on decrease even our present limited chances. So, we have ~25 years of fossil fuel emissions averaging 110% of 2011 from now until 2035 from the IEA estimates (and they tend to be low relative to other projecting organizations such as EIA, etc); that spells disaster no matter what renewables do. If you can show me credible estimates where the growth in low carbon technologies offsets LEGACY fossil, then I’m mildly impressed. Even under those circumstances, far too many emissions will have been expended compared to the allowable budget (zero). Right now, even they are a pipe dream!
Growth is impressive (though not in the USA, thanks to Congress allowing incentives to lapse). And solar is coming on very nicely as well, though of course from a lower baseline (but with greater opportunities for continuing price drops.)
However, growth needs to be quite a bit greater still, as we are all agreed. As Prok suggests, we need to have carbon properly priced, so that we are not playing ‘whack a mole’ quite so much with our emissions. Again, we are all agreed, I think, that the point of renewable energy from a climatic POV is to replace carbon-emitters, not to accommodate increased energy use.
Practical operation Capacity factors play a larger role in energy use mix than the top line plant output numbers. A 350 MWe coal fired plant will have a far higher MWh energy output "capacity" than a 350 MWe solar plant could – 58% vs 15%. The best is Nuclear at 90% output capacity.
James Hansen says the "Assumed capacity factors: fossil (58% per IEA WEO 2013) hydro (34% per IEA WEO 2013); wind (33%); nuclear ( 90%); solar (15%)." see Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo
Therefore Wind Farms have a real world capacity 50% less than a coal fired power plant. Short term projections have new Wind farm capacity increasing by +20 GW per year only being able to replace maybe 2 x 5 GWe Coal Fired power stations per year.
Which Diogenes describes accurately as being 'ornamental' at best. The world is chasing 179,000,000 Gigawatt hours of fossil fuel energy replacement by 2040.
dougsays
Diogenes,
Hank made the comment that (paraphrasing) that in order for your ideas to stick, or get some traction. Lose your anonymity, and start your own blog. You responded by saying essentially what good would that do, because you are already “publishing” here. (again paraphrasing)
I would say it is not good enough in this society unfortunately for someone just to type ideas and expect them to gain traction. You have to sell YOURSELF. People learn after awhile to trust the opinions of certain individuals, and they want to associate ideas with names. I for example almost by routing now, believe just about everything the scientists write here, and that is with little scientific expertise on my part. I have learned to trust their opinions. I think this was Hank’s point. He might not of been saying it explicitly, but we are a society that focuses on people, and to get about anywhere one has to “sell” oneself. So, if you really believe all the stuff you are writing, and want to be effective, maybe taking Hank’s advice would be a good idea. Somebody has to step up. It might as well be you.
“The largest growth of CO2 emissions and energy use was in China, where provision of electricity expanded to more than 90% of the population, lifting several hundred million people out of poverty.6 Coal use caused most of the emissions growth and coal is now the source of nearly half of global fossil fuel carbon emissions (Fig. 1a).
“Fossil fuels provide more than 85% of the world’s energy (Fig. 1b). One misconception discussed below concerns the fallacy that renewable energy is rapidly supplanting conventional energy. Total non-hydro renewables today offset only about one year’s growth (3%) of energy use.”
rocketeer @440.
The American Physical Society revisit of its 2007 AGW statement (a standard 5-year review) has certainly spread across the deniosphere in recent days. I’m not sure why (but then I couldn’t be bothered to look). The trio Curry. Christy & Lindzen were actually in action back in January, the other half of the six “experts” being Ben Santer, William Collins, and Isaac Held.
There is a 573 page transcript of the meeting back in January. It appears not much was achieved, which is no great surprise given the composition of the “experts” present. The final 100 page discussion would likely be a useful trawl for those attempting to understand the thinking processes of denialist science.
DIOGENESsays
Pk #443,
Excellent post! Mann’s statements about the ‘unknown unknowns’ and the high uncertainties mean the Precautionary Principle must predominate in any plans of action we generate. We need to take all possible actions that will minimize the risk of exceeding those stringent targets for avoiding the climate Apocalypse, no matter what deprivation and hardships are incurred by the planet’s citizens.
Doug #394,
“could a computer that is a million times more powerful than today, tell us a geo-engeneering solution that would “work”?”
Interesting question. I would be surprised if there is not already substantial activity along those lines. Proposals that would generate substantial activity, to say nothing of profit, tend to attract much interest, whereas those that recommend reducing activity, to say nothing of profit, attract little interest. Space programs, military hardware, technology substitution, etc, don’t suffer for lack of support.
The problem I have with the extension to geo-engineering is that the results would be limited by the quality of the models and the quality of the data. While larger computers can obviously give you better accuracy in the solution fields, they will be limited by the functional relationships employed and the data used.
By all means, let’s keep the research going looking for improved geo-engineering options. Yes, it would be great to replace the stringent and disrupting measures my full plan requires with some doable technical ‘fix’. I wouldn’t bet the farm on one appearing.
MartinJB #392,
“Just because you can’t imagine any other solution besides yours working, doesn’t mean you haven’t missed something or that you might not be seeing the whole picture.”
Where do I make a statement like that? Why do you think I have continually asked for constructive criticism on my plan (and unfortunately have received precious little)? I realize there are shortcomings, and look forward to people coming forth with ideas to correct the shortcomings. Where are these ideas???
“Your idea of reducing carbon use by 10-20% per year utterly guts that industrial base.”
My plan requires elimination of all non-essential uses of fossil energy, and trimming the fat off the essential uses. This both cuts the emissions radically in the earliest stages, when we need reductions the most, and cuts total energy requirements, so less low-carbon technologies need to be constructed to replace high-carbon technologies. The latter replacement will not be a carbon-free process, especially in the early stages when the main source available is fossil fuel.
Eliminating ski resorts guts the industrial base; riiight! Eliminating all non-essential travel guts the industrial base; riiight! Reducing thermostat settings in Winter and increasing them in Summer guts the industrial base; riiight! The other members of your tag team need to step back in; you’ve accomplished your diversion.
#396–“Moral suasion aimed at Hummer drivers?”
Just illustrative, I know, but methinks that ship has sailed:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/09/hummer-sales-figures-usa-canada.html
Steve Fish #303,
“I think that Diogenes is really wasting his talent on this blog and should take his message over to Wally World (see Walter’s recent posts above) where posting his inspired commentary anonymously will be welcomed. Besides, I think that Wally has only gotten a single response comment to his multiple essays and is lonely.”
So, we now have a new implied metric for gauging the quality of a climate blog: the number of hits. Well, I took a look at WUWT this morning. On articles posted since 20 March, he has received 1359 comments. You must be in awe.
ClimateCodeRed rarely gets comments, yet I have the highest regard for David Spratt’s articles. They are solidly referenced, and tell it like it is. They pull no punches, and offer no unpaid advertising. RobertScribbler posts a few articles per week, and gets about 40 comments per article. Again, pulls no punches, and has no unpaid advertising. Walter’s site is just a start-up, and most of his articles are well documented, with facts not all that easy to find elsewhere. His articles on BAU are first rate. In my view, he could have done without the article commenting on moderators and posters individually; that didn’t advance the technology or science for me. But, right now, his articles provide some much needed information.
Well DIOGENES, I think I’ve heard enough from you. If you think eliminating ski resorts, non-essential travel and moving thermostats around is gonna cut 10-20% of carbon usage (let alone continue to cut it that much in years going forward) then you are obviously more clueless than I originally thought. I gave it a shot (heck, I even tried being civil in the wake of your pot shots), but some deficits will just never be overcome. Cheerio.
— the Tea Party Method, applied to climate change.
Hey, if everybody would only …..
But remember Garrett Hardin’s advice.
Get a name, get a blog, set an example, show how you do it.
You’re not alone, although you will seem to be as long as you’re anonymous.
MartinJB #402,
” If you think eliminating ski resorts, non-essential travel and moving thermostats around is gonna cut 10-20% of carbon usage…..I even tried being civil”
The feigned indignation never ends. I provide a few examples of what I mean by elimination of non-essential uses of fossil energy, and that is taken out of context as meaning the full extent of my plan. The chief perpetrators of this seem to be people who offer no plan of their own, or no other plan for which they will take ownership.
We in the advanced nations live a lifestyle that has a strong component based on the production of non-necessities; i.e., junk. Most of that production is energy intensive. When I talk about elimination of non-essentials, it means at some point getting rid of the junk to which we have become accustomed, including the seemingly endless fossil-based travel that seems to occupy the lives of many people. Junk food, junk toys and ornaments, and much of the non-necessities of life that we now take for granted. We would eliminate the energy intensive practice of raising cattle for food. Right now, I can buy food from all around the world at my supermarket, all of which consumes unnecessary energy for travel, and much of which is processed. Most of that processing would be eliminated, as well as the long-distance travel.
Is this a brutal plan; you bet! Am I happy about it; you bet not! Remember the stakes: we are trading off the non-necessities in our life for a chance of potential species survival. Show me another way, based on the numbers necessary for survival!!!
Re- More comments by DIOGENES
You have misunderstood what is being asked, so I will try to make the question clearer. You have said that there must be a 5% – 95% split in solving our CO2 emission problem. You are saying that 100% of emissions must be stopped in just a few years with only a 5% compensation increase from renewables (relative to existing fossil energy). What this means is that in just a few years 7 billion people must live on something around 10% of currently required energy. The big question we are asking you is to demonstrate how this would be possible. I am very skeptical but prove me wrong.
So what you appear to be proposing is not only politically not feasible but is also a plan for mass extinction of humans, an apocalypse. If you disagree, then do what has been asked of you repeatedly and supply data. What would the average person have to live on? What would they have to give up? Are you prepared to undergo these privations and are you currently practicing them in your own life?
Again, please answer the question. No more vague references to fat trimming and trivial examples like ski lifts and thermostats. Talk in some detail about food, housing, heating, clothing, transportation, and how the vast majority of our 7 billion who live in cities are going to survive on less than 10% of current energy use. All you have to do is provide a doable explanation of this problem, otherwise your proposal of a politically and practically impossible “plan” can be accurately described as a proposal for apocalypse and thereby trolling and a form of climate denial. Proposing an impossible plan is saying that nothing can be done and therefore there is no real reason to do anything. Big oil (and coal etc.) wins.
Steve
Dio, let’s give Martin credit (I do anyway) for trying, just like you, to aid in our deliberations. That said, I too wonder about this:
“Your idea of reducing carbon use by 10-20% per year utterly guts that industrial base. Thus, those lifestyle maintenance activities just could not happen in the wake of the economic devastation your plan would probably cause.” – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-8/#comments
Martin, Suppose, even if we don’t get up to 10% in the first year due to dependence on carbon energy for building new things, we embark on a program of building, installing, retrofitting for conservation and so on to match the carbon reduction year by year. Wouldn’t that be an economic stimulus? Could it be that the real problem is that even though the economy and regular folks would prosper, some large current cash flows would be altered?
On Theology and Geometry
“I don’t hide the truth.”
~ DIOGENES says
Oh, come off it. Do you hear yourself? Do you really think the people here are so unsophisticated that they’ll be impressed by this sort of posturing?
“I dust a bit…in addition, I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip.”
~ Ignatius J. Reilly
Hank Roberts #403,
“Get a name, get a blog, set an example, show how you do it.”
I don’t see how starting my own blog will make a difference. Most of what I submit gets posted, so what is to be gained by my own blog?
What’s the bigger picture? This blog has been around for almost a decade. It has world-class climate scientists as moderators, and some sharp commenters. Yet, with all this mental firepower, when I read the comments, I’m essentially looking at a circular firing squad. I see no plan presented that will meet the requirements necessary to avoid the climate Apocalypse that is salable.
Now, if this blog had been devoted to e.g. looking for a cuure for cancer for nine years, I could understand the lack of a potential solution. Some problems inherently take a long time to solve. For climate change amelioration, do we not know what has to be done? We know the answers, and they are relatively straight-forward. Killian has provided some examples of what is ultimately required. The key is living locally; acquiring resources locally, and depositing waste locally. Living simply, without all the accoutrements of modern energy-intensive technology. There are communities in the USA and across the world that function this way. Yes, this is not the world of highly processed foods and things, of jet-set travel, of massive militaries that travel around the world continuously. But, if most people reject this necessary lifestyle version, we probably won’t last much longer as a species. No more complicated than that. I have shown that the more popular possibly-acceptable plans like Ceres Clean Trillion are not adequate. They may buy us an extra generation, but that’s a blink of the eye in human existence terms. So, if I repeat this statement on my own blog, how will that change this larger perhaps insoluble picture?
RC: your books page refers to Ray’s Paleoclimatology 2nd edition but the third is out:
http://www.amazon.com/Paleoclimatology-Reconstructing-Quaternary-Raymond-Bradley-ebook/dp/B00HR7GTWW/
wili:
I realize we’re substantively in agreement, but it’s important IMO to understand why it’s called the tragedy of the commons: paraphrasing Whitehead, “the essence of tragedy resides in the remorseless working of things.” I presume this is old hat for most RC-ers, but let’s review anyway:
An individual exploiter of an unregulated commons has sound economic incentive to continue or even intensify his exploitation, as long as he gains direct benefit greater than the sum of his direct cost plus his perceived share of the externalized cost.
Appeals to conscience or fashion work, to the extent they do, by reducing the fossil-fuel consumer’s perceived benefit of consumption (or equivalently, by increasing his perceived share of the externalized cost), for only a sub-population of consumers. Tragically, the net effect on the global atmospheric commons will be negligible, because if enough consumers respond to non-price incentives to reduce their consumption, the direct price of fossil fuels will decline, making it economic for others to increase their consumption. By the same logic, increasing the direct price, as through a carbon tax, will motivate all “rational economic agents” to reduce their fossil fuel consumption by increasing efficiency or by substituting alternative energy sources. That’s all standard Environmental Economics.
Again, I’m not saying that no-one should voluntarily reduce their individual carbon footprint in the absence of a carbon tax. I just don’t expect it to have much effect on the course of AGW by itself. I do understand that wili isn’t advocating for only voluntary individual decarbonization:
Sounds like he’s been reading Ostrom:
That’s hard to argue against, and it’s enough to fend off abject despair for now.
I think many here will not agree with my reply to Martin, and one reason may be an implicit assumption that BAU will not hurt the economy. You will probably not want to make this explicit.
Anyway note
this article by Nafeez Ahmed in the Guardian. Don’t chase squirrels like the commenters do. Read at least down to this section of the article:
“An academic conference paper on the HANDY model by a cross-disciplinary team of natural and social scientists led by Dr Rodrigo Castro of the Department of Environmental Systems Science at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, delivered earlier this month, explains in detail why the HANDY model is so useful: …”
The paper is linked in the article.
If any one is really interested in the latest developments of Hardin’s theories, they could do worse than to examine the works of Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel laureate who has done more than anyone to increase our understand how real world commons have been managed badly or well. I had the great privilege of hearing her speak months before she left us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
Diogenes,
based on some rough numbers (?), cutting fossil fuel carbon energy use to only 10% of 2011 levels by 2050 is the action required to stay under ~2 C.
To achieve this I figure that Non-Carbon Energy has to replace an extra 17,500 Mtoe of Carbon energy on top of that already forecast in 2050.
To do this an average of 500 Mtoe in global energy demand needs to be replaced by Non-Carbon Energy every year for 35 years (2050). That equates per year, to 5% of the Fossil Fuel energy supply in 2011.
That amount of energy is equal to supplying 2.5 x 6,000 MW Non-Carbon power stations per Week for 35 years. This is what is needed to replace both the energy demand growth and retire most of the fossil fuel carbon energy supply as well.
see table/details
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GUtc1LRdCnk/Uy-6ueWIqWI/AAAAAAAAAKE/t7r61_fxraI/s1600/table+2+Non-carbon+energy+supply+and+the+energy+gap+2050.png
What are the barriers?
What can supply an extra 15 GWe of clean energy every week?
The fossil fuel business is a good profitable business to be in.
Governments are quite attached to the big stream of ‘carbon royalties’
Coal is cheap.
BAU is easier.
NIMBY Syndrome
PS What can supply an extra 15 GWe of non-carbon energy every week?
15 GWe is 3 x large nuclear power plants
15 GWe is 3 x large hydro power plants
15 GWe is 15 x biggest Wind farms
15 GWe is 30 x biggest PV solar plants
15 GWe is 40 x Ivanpah CS solar plants
if my numbers are close… each week.
cheers
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING
A comment was posted on ClimateCodeRed that summarizes the credibility predicament of the climate advocates. I quote verbatim from the front end of Gail’s comment: “One reason people are not motivated to change their behavior is that activists and scientists have tried to placate them with the myth that no sacrifice is required, and we can have all our toys by switching to “green” energy sources. Deniers know in a visceral way that is simply not possible. No “sustainable” energy can replace the concentrated power of fossil fuels. That’s why they ask, what, do you want us to go back to living in caves? The fact is, if we are to avert our own extinction, we would have to drastically reduce our population and developed country standards of consumption. Pretending otherwise has doomed civilization.”
There you have it, in a nutshell. No hype, no magic, only the pure unadorned harsh truth! The members of the general public are not stupid. They understand from real world experience that the recovery from serious financial problems or even bankruptcy is not associated with prosperity or other similar fantasies. Recovery typically involves serious pulling back of activity, reining in expenditures, and seriously tightening our belt. When we see messages posted on this blog to the effect that prosperity will flow during the process of recovering from carbon bankruptcy, with no analytical backup to support such nonsense, all they do is demolish our credibility with the general public readership. The time has come for truth in advertising!
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/iop-fhw031814.php
Kevin McKinney #389,
There is a small sub-set of posters here who have the characteristics of a dysfunctional family. They have their own rituals, their own language, their own view of reality completely disconnected from reality. In their world, the abnormal is the norm!
If the Internet and blogging had existed in the 16th century, Galileo would have been called a ‘troll’ by the Kevin McKinney’s of the day.
NOAA-ESRL report the first +400ppm week of the year at MLO – 400.76ppm. (Scripps Institute, who run different week-beginnings (and day-beginnings) posted their first +400ppm week a few days back.) Because of the mini-CO2 “hiatus” of the last couple of months, March will not be the first month in 13 million years to top 400ppm (or 3.5 million years if you prefer). That will fall to April. And July may yet give us 4 months above 400ppm this year.
Also, with the end of the mini-“hiatus”, the annual CO2 rise is back up to the high levels seen at the end of last year – and not an El Nino in sight.
Apologies if this, Tim Jackson’s TED talk, has already been linked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZsp_EdO2Xk
Hank Roberts #403,
Garrett Hardin, from Wikipedia: “advocating eugenics by forced sterilization, and strict limits to non-western immigration…..drew heavy criticism from the left for his alleged indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing…..published the article “Living on a Lifeboat” in BioScience magazine, arguing that contributing food to help the Ethiopian famine would add to overpopulation, which he considered the root of Ethiopia’s problems.”
This is your hero?
Steve Fish #405,
“You have misunderstood what is being asked, so I will try to make the question clearer. You have said that there must be a 5% – 95% split in solving our CO2 emission problem.”
I have understood quite well what you have asked, and have answered it in some detail in #388. I have appended the key parts of that response to this post. I didn’t say there must be a 95/5% split; read the initial part of the appended response. In fact, in the appended, I allow for the possibility of rapidly accelerating the implementation of low carbon technologies, and thereby easing somewhat the requirement for hard front-end remaining fossil reductions. As I state, this is not my first choice, but if it is anyway feasible and makes the overall plan more salable, then it would be acceptable to me. I’m interested in solving the problem, not pushing any ideology.
“You are saying that 100% of emissions must be stopped in just a few years with only a 5% compensation increase from renewables (relative to existing fossil energy). What this means is that in just a few years 7 billion people must live on something around 10% of currently required energy. The big question we are asking you is to demonstrate how this would be possible. I am very skeptical but prove me wrong.”
I have addressed that in the previous paragraph.
“So what you appear to be proposing is not only politically not feasible but is also a plan for mass extinction of humans, an apocalypse. If you disagree, then do what has been asked of you repeatedly and supply data. What would the average person have to live on? What would they have to give up? Are you prepared to undergo these privations and are you currently practicing them in your own life?
Again, please answer the question. No more vague references to fat trimming and trivial examples like ski lifts and thermostats. Talk in some detail about food, housing, heating, clothing, transportation, and how the vast majority of our 7 billion who live in cities are going to survive on less than 10% of current energy use. All you have to do is provide a doable explanation of this problem, otherwise your proposal of a politically and practically impossible “plan” can be accurately described as a proposal for apocalypse and thereby trolling and a form of climate denial. Proposing an impossible plan is saying that nothing can be done and therefore there is no real reason to do anything. Big oil (and coal etc.) wins.”
You misunderstand the nature of my plan/proposal. It is in the spirit of Hansen’s plan/proposal. If you read Hansen’s recent Plos One article, he proposes a MASSIVE reforestation effort and demand reductions on the order of 6-9%, along with implementation of renewable and nuclear technologies. The massive reforestation is not a nice-to-have; it is the major difference between what he proposes and Kevin Anderson proposes (along with the different temperature targets), and is a must-have if he wants to keep the demand reduction below ten percent. Now, Hansen hasn’t done (or at least reported) a full scale operations research model showing how this reforestation effort would be accomplished in detail, how much fossil fuel would be involved in the total reforestation, how many people would be required and how many dollars would be required. This component of his plan is the reforestation REQUIRED to meet the targets. Can it be done in the time frame identified, with minimal carbon expenditure, with acceptable costs and carbon removal performance; who knows? But, if we want to survive as a species, this is what is required, according to Hansen.
What I am giving in my plan/proposal are the temperature targets required to offer any chance of avoiding catastrophe, and the components required to meet these targets. I am starting with the same reforestation required as Hansen, and adding other potential approaches such as ‘artificial trees’ to reduce risk. Can they be implemented; who knows? Without them, forget about meeting the ~1 C targets. In the appended, I allow for a partial tradeoff between hard demand reduction based on elimination of non-essential fossil energy expenditure and reduced emissions due to accelerated low-carbon source implementation. These levels of total emissions reductions are what is required to avoid the catastrophe. Going all out on the hard front end emissions reductions provides these reductions when needed most and also means less low carbon technologies need to be implemented as replacements, thereby reducing the carbon expenditures that will be required for the implementation. That’s what the numbers tell you is needed. If all you want to do is implement a less stringent alternative like the Ceres Clean Trillion plan, which will yield ~1.5% non-compounded annual reductions in emissions for decades, and give you an 80% chance of staying below 2 C (based on models that do not include the major carbon feedbacks, which means an underestimation of the danger), recognize that you are proposing entre into a regime that has been described as Extremely Dangerous. To me, that’s a code word for carbon feedbacks that may go on autopilot.
The key point of my plan/proposal is that ALL THREE MAJOR COMPONENTS ARE REQUIRED IN AN INTEGRATED MANNER; any component by itself is insufficient. Each component will be extremely challenging to implement, even with some of the tradeoffs suggested. Implementation of the full plan will not be without its casualties, as you rightly point out. We are too far down the road to avoid those.
FROM POST #388
“As I have shown, present low carbon technology implementation proposals (Ceres) provide minimal fossil emissions reduction (~1-2% per year). However, if avoiding the climate Apocalypse is the goal, there is no reason that such implementation could not be accelerated. For example, assume (for discussion purposes) that all present fossil use could be completely converted to low carbon. If this conversion takes place over 100 years, then there would be a non-compounded reduction of 1% per year; 50 years, 2% per year; 20 years, 5% per year; 10 years, 10% per year. At five years, the 20% per year reduction starts getting close to the demand reduction I used for my posted examples. So, the question becomes how rapidly we could make the transition IF WE WERE 100% SERIOUS ABOUT HAVING ANY CHANCE TO AVOID THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE. Additionally, especially in the early stages, how much fossil fuel expenditure would be necessary to effect this transition?
The data on answering this question is sparse. Jacobson and DeLucchi had a two part paper on what it would take to convert the energy economy completely to renewables. While their approach was admirable, decades would be required under their plan, too little to offset demand reduction appreciably. In addition, they were roundly criticized as being far more expensive than a nuclear-based option, and in total too expensive for anything other than a wartime effort. The question in my mind is, if we viewed our present global situation with extreme wartime urgency, how rapidly could conversion to low carbon technology be done, almost irrespective of cost as has been the case with some major wartime efforts.
For salability, the demand reduction component would have to be partially offset by the demand reduction from the enhanced transition to low carbon technology. This is not my first choice, since it would allow much unnecessary consumption to be continued, and would raise the risk of the targets not being achieved. Additionally, the greater the demand reduction component, the less is the amount of low carbon technologies that would have to be installed, and the faster the installation could be completed. Nevertheless, there would still be elimination of the non-essential uses of fossil energy, with modest easing of the restrictions on essential uses. The sum of the fossil fuel usage reductions of the lifestyle maintenance component and the demand reduction component should be in the 20%-25% per year range. Thus, if the low carbon technology substitution could be done on the order of a decade (I have no idea about the practicality of this level of intense effort), then additional demand reduction could be on the order of 10-15% per year. Any further easing of this demand reduction would trade off economic adversity for increased chances of survival.”
Diogenes,
Wow, that’s all you took from that biography? Really? That is just sad.
wili:
Ostrom is certainly worth reading. As was pointed out, she was a promoter of “the small but positive steps that many public and private actors are taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Questions for the RC community: how would we measure the efficacy of the polycentric approach? Are estimates of annual CO2 emissions accurate enough to detect reductions on that scale? Estimates aside, how large would actual emissions reductions have to be to show up in the Keeling curve, even in the 2nd derivative?
Ray Ladbury #422,
“Wow, that’s all you took from that biography?”
No, that’s all I posted here. He did many brilliant things, but these statements/actions I posted negate the good. LBJ had many courageous and important accomplishments in his time as President, but his actions on Vietnam canceled them out, and then some. At least for me.
The cost of living in the Anthropocene
News on the economy of solar–apparently, grid parity has officially arrived in some important markets:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/24/italy-spain-germany-hit-commercial-solar-grid-parity-2013/
Many analyses of future renewable energy scenarios appear to overlook the technical and economic dynamism of the sector: that is, cost and capability trends seem always to be underestimated. It makes a difference; Jacobson and Delucchi, for instance, was published in 2009. But according to NREL (just as an instance), reported US costs for solar had already declined by about 25% by 2011. They have continued to drop since, and no-one expects that to change much, as the declines are driven by the increasing scale of deployment (and hence, manufacturing.)
It would be an interesting exercise to redo J & D’s costs assumptions on the basis of what 2013 costs were, and possibly quite illuminating.
NREL paper:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf
Walter #413-414,
Challenging! That’s why I prefer the hard front-end reduction of all non-essential uses, and trimming of the fat from the essential uses. Less replacement to build later. Trouble is, at least in the USA, we have substantial energy waste built into our infrastructure: suburbia, long commutes, etc. Just the opposite of what I projected we need: simple lifestyle, obtain resources locally, deposit wastes locally. Changing to a more energy efficient infrastructure will be fossil energy intensive in itself, and the process of change will be brutal.
Re- Comment by DIOGENES — 24 Mar 2014 @ 9:45 AM
You have not answered my question here or in #388. The question is- After the five, or ten, or whatever year elimination of fossil carbon pollution is accomplished in your “plan” to avoid APOCALYPSE, what energy resources will be available to minimally sustain seven billion people, much less “lifestyle maintenance?” You claim to provide accurate numbers for carbon release to avoid an APOCALYPSE, so provide numbers for kilowatt hours, or whatever, that will be available to avoid APOCALYPSE by starvation and war if your “plan” was implemented.
Your answer looks like a very long essay that an undergrad student writes when they have no answer to the question. Just write whatever and hope. What does Hansen’s suggestions for reforestation over a five or ten year period have to do with the question? What does anyone else’s plan have to do with the question? I am asking you to provide your estimate of what resources will be available to sustain human life and society after your targets have been met, and to make this realistic, what are you willing to give up and have already given up in your own life. Your inability, so far, to provide the answers to these questions completely undermines all your complaints about the scientists who run this website and the ideas of other commenters here.
Steve
Pete,
good question in 406. First, a quick note on 411. I doubt anyone who pays much attention to climate change believes that BAU is a recipe for a pain-free economic. I think it’s pretty apparent we’re already feeling some of the pain now to some extent and that the pain will just get worse. However, that will be a relatively gradual process, and I think it’s safe to say that our actions over the next few years would be unlikely to have any impact on that BAU path of pain for some time… couldn’t say how long that is.
As for your question about my statement that the path set out by the prolific poster would bring economic ruin, I think I can explain that fairly easily. The numbers here are somewhat arbitrary, but I think they demonstrate the order of magnitude
First, remember the context. Evidently we are supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 10-20% (I think 25% even came up once) per year for the next 5-10 years, with the use of renewables accounting for only a minor part of that (and given the timescale to ramp up renewables, that is certainly realistic in the early years). Let’s say renewables is 10% of that. That leaves us having to find reductions of 9% to 18% per year.
Second, how much could efficiency (in all its forms) get us? Total, given plenty of time to implement, maybe 25%? I really don’t know, but I would doubt it’s that much more. And we’re not talking long term… we’re talking about what we could do pretty much immediately (by the standards of changing a global economy!) based on the schedule we’ve been given. Maybe some low-hanging fruit gets us a quick 5% in the first year, but I think that’s pretty farfetched. No way we average 5% over an extended period of time as the easy stuff gets done quickly.
Third, how much of economic production is truly unnecessary? Let’s say 25% again (I don’t know, but no-one does). But again, implementing these things takes serious time. You can’t just turn a switch. And this is totally ignoring the point that there is not and never will be a governing body on the planet with the authority to make these decisions. But let’s pretend that suddenly we’re all reasonable, rational people.
So, where does that leave us? An all-out effort to increase efficiency and reduce excess uses of energy. And maybe over a long period that reduces our emissions by 50%? Maybe a bit more. I won’t quibble. But it won’t be that much more. Oh, and one more complication… the world’s least-developed countries are going to keep growing. You CAN NOT ask them not to! Which just means that there is that much more for the rich world to do.
To go much further than that, especially over a short period of time, will basically require turning off fossil fuel generation. And in a big way. And that will involve halting essential parts of the economy. You can argue that the “essential” part of the economy is actually much smaller, but to get to this hypothetical back-to-basics economy (what, pastoralists?) would involve rewriting most of our industrial, transportation and agricultural infrastructure. Probably have to move lots of people too. Either way, there’s no way these things are not epically disruptive if done over the period of a decade (or probably even two or three decades!). And a crash course gives us no time to adapt.
If you want to preserve the industrial base to transform the economy to carbon-free power, you can’t disrupt global supply chains that abruptly. Because that transformation will take time (especially if we’re simultaneously going all-out on efficiency). And there would inevitably be missteps (it’s practically axiomatic that infrastructure projects go over schedule and over budget!).
Yes, at some point climate change would be every bit as disruptive if left unchecked (or even not checked enough – though what that threshold is not certain by any means), but the more we do developing renewables (which is actually Hansen’s main thrust) sooner than later, the more time we have to adapt and hopefully reduce the inevitable impacts.
I am as gungho about preventing the worst effects of climate change as anyone you are likely to meet. And I talk to a lot of people who are actively working on a lot of the things that might help us get there: the people who develop renewable projects and do cutting-edge research. I talk to folks trying to find more efficient ways to heat homes and manufacture goods. I talk to activists who are out there trying to convince people that we have to do all we can. And they ARE making progress. In the end, it might not be enough, but by gum we’re going to give it all we can.
And that is the longest post I have ever done or will ever do. I am abjectly ashamed of myself.Pete,
good question in 406. First, a quick note on 411. I doubt anyone who pays much attention to climate change believes that BAU is a recipe for a pain-free economic. I think it’s pretty apparent we’re already feeling some of the pain now to some extent and that the pain will just get worse. However, that will be a relatively gradual process, and I think it’s safe to say that our actions over the next few years would be unlikely to have any impact on that BAU path of pain for some time… couldn’t say how long that is.
As for your question about my statement that the path set out by the prolific poster would bring economic ruin, I think I can explain that fairly easily. The numbers here are somewhat arbitrary, but I think they demonstrate the order of magnitude
First, remember the context. Evidently we are supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 10-20% (I think 25% even came up once) per year for the next 5-10 years, with the use of renewables accounting for only a minor part of that (and given the timescale to ramp up renewables, that is certainly realistic in the early years). Let’s say renewables is 10% of that. That leaves us having to find reductions of 9% to 18% per year.
Second, how much could efficiency (in all its forms) get us? Total, given plenty of time to implement, maybe 25%? I really don’t know, but I would doubt it’s that much more. And we’re not talking long term… we’re talking about what we could do pretty much immediately (by the standards of changing a global economy!) based on the schedule we’ve been given. Maybe some low-hanging fruit gets us a quick 5% in the first year, but I think that’s pretty farfetched. No way we average 5% over an extended period of time as the easy stuff gets done quickly.
Third, how much of economic production is truly unnecessary? Let’s say 25% again (I don’t know, but no-one does). But again, implementing these things takes serious time. You can’t just turn a switch. And this is totally ignoring the point that there is not and never will be a governing body on the planet with the authority to make these decisions. But let’s pretend that suddenly we’re all reasonable, rational people.
So, where does that leave us? An all-out effort to increase efficiency and reduce excess uses of energy. And maybe over a long period that reduces our emissions by 50%? Maybe a bit more. I won’t quibble. But it won’t be that much more. Oh, and one more complication… the world’s least-developed countries are going to keep growing. You CAN NOT ask them not to! Which just means that there is that much more for the rich world to do.
To go much further than that, especially over a short period of time, will basically require turning off fossil fuel generation. And in a big way. And that will involve halting essential parts of the economy. You can argue that the “essential” part of the economy is actually much smaller, but to get to this hypothetical back-to-basics economy (what, pastoralists?) would involve rewriting most of our industrial, transportation and agricultural infrastructure. Probably have to move lots of people too. Either way, there’s no way these things are not epically disruptive if done over the period of a decade (or probably even two or three decades!). And a crash course gives us no time to adapt.
If you want to preserve the industrial base to transform the economy to carbon-free power, you can’t disrupt global supply chains that abruptly. Because that transformation will take time (especially if we’re simultaneously going all-out on efficiency). And there would inevitably be missteps (it’s practically axiomatic that infrastructure projects go over schedule and over budget!).
Yes, at some point climate change would be every bit as disruptive if left unchecked (or even not checked enough – though what that threshold is not certain by any means), but the more we do developing renewables (which is actually Hansen’s main thrust) sooner than later, the more time we have to adapt and hopefully reduce the inevitable impacts.
I am as gungho about preventing the worst effects of climate change as anyone you are likely to meet. And I talk to a lot of people who are actively working on a lot of the things that might help us get there: the people who develop renewable projects and do cutting-edge research. I talk to folks trying to find more efficient ways to heat homes and manufacture goods. I talk to activists who are out there trying to convince people that we have to do all we can. And they ARE making progress. In the end, it might not be enough, but by gum we’re going to give it all we can.
And that is the longest post I have ever done or will ever do. I am abjectly ashamed of myself and apologetic.
Martin @#432: Your post was so good, I had to read it twice! :-D
Ultimately we have to ask very basic questions: What is an economy for? How do we judge whether it is a ‘good’ economy? Providing basic food, water, clothing, shelter, fuel for cooking and heat, basic education and healthcare… and then enough time to have a life beyond work, seem like some of the essentials for an economy. A minimum requirement of a economy that comes at least close to doing that for almost all people (which ours doesn’t) would also be that it does not foreclose the possibility that future generation can partake in any kind of life at all (or any life remotely close to these minimums), and that it does not destroy or massively reduce the vitality of the living earth and the systems that sustain it (a minimum standard which again our industrial system has utterly failed to meet).
As a number of ‘third world’ countries and provinces have shown, societies can fulfill these basic requirements at a tiny fraction of the cost that the US spends to _not_ fulfill many of them.
I don’t want to be accused of writing super long posts, so I’ll stop there for now, and just add that we have created a culture that validates consumption and accumulation, especially capital accumulation by the few. We have to start more strongly validating other equally human propensities.
Steve Fish #431,
You’re still missing the point, so I’ll try to explain it from another perspective. Assume you’re the CEO of a corporation that has 1000 employees. Your Board of Directors evaluates your operations and your books. The BOD Chairman tells you that unless you reduce staff by 40% over the next two years, the company won’t survive.
At the next BOD meeting, you announce that you agree with their assessment of the seriousness of the situation and the targets they have identified, and you will reduce staff by 40% over two years. You have taken the most important step in the process. You have identified the requirements for your company to survive, and you have announced you will do what is necessary to meet those requirements. You haven’t presented them with the details of your actions.
You then assemble your planning staff, and charge them with the responsibility of restructuring operations compatible with a 40% reduced staff. When they are finished, you commission an evaluation of each employee, rank them by how essential they would be to the revised organization, and issue ‘pink slips’ to the bottom 200. One year later, repeat the evaluation process, and issue pink slips again to the bottom 200.
That’s the same process required to implement my plan. The first step is to get buy-in by the leaders of at least the major countries in the world. ‘Buy-in’ means agreement on choice of targets required to avoid the Apocalypse, and then agreement to do whatever is necessary to meet those targets. Assume there is buy-in on the massive reforestation, and that the combination of emissions reduction due to substitution of low carbon technologies for fossil and hard additional demand reduction has to total about 20% per year for a few years. Assume the low carbon component provides about 5% (~twenty year full replacement). This means demand reduction for fossil fuels over and above the replacement component would have to be about fifteen percent a year.
Now, the process becomes mechanistic similar to the company analog provided above. There would be teams from the countries working together on identifying how the infrastructure and activities would be restructured to be compatible with the large fossil draw-down and, hopefully, an accompanying large draw-down in all energy and resource use. When these plans gain some consensus, then, all the energy end-uses would be identified, including the sources of energy for those end-uses, and decision-makers would rank them for essentiality. Then, starting at the bottom, they would work their way up the list until ~fifteen percent had been identified. It would be a continuous process. Much of the truly non-essential could probably be eliminated very early.
Now, back to the company example. Firing those 400 people will not be a pleasant process. Not pleasant for the decision-maker, and far less pleasant for those on the receiving end. Some people are on the psychological thin edge; they may go over upon being fired. Some may be supporting sick relatives; loss of a paycheck could be life-threatening. Some may have kids in college, who may have to drop out without parental support. The point is, if survival of the company is the primary objective, and the decision is made to do whatever is necessary to guarantee survival, there may be substantial collateral damage. That’s the price to be paid for survival!
I see the same potential for collateral damage in the fossil energy reduction case. Even the simplest examples that I have presented, such as closing the ski resorts, eliminating ALL non-essential travel, etc, will have massive collateral damage. There are major industries built upon the waste of many resources, including energy. What will happen to these people? Some can be reassigned to help in the reforestation or in the production/implementation of the low carbon substitutes. Can all find such alternative (albeit probably lower paid) employment; highly doubtful? The focus is on cutting back; doing less, reducing the activities that got us into this critical situation in the first place.
It all boils down to whether we want to pay a high price now or the ultimate price later. I have proposed a plan at high-level that will provide a reasonable chance to avoid the Apocalypse. I have never stated that it would be free from collateral damage. I understand quite well the effects. You/SA/MartinJB/McKinney have proposed nothing that would even come close. The best of what I have seen, which SA posted but for which none of you have taken ownership, is the Ceres Clean Trillion plan. It would reduce emissions by a non-compounded average of ~1.5% per year for decades, would cost $36 TRILLION by 2050, and would provide an 80% chance that global mean temperature increase does not exceed 2 C. The 2 C is a number that has been characterized by all variants of dangerous by leading climate experts, which I interpret to mean that the carbon feedbacks could go on autopilot.
So, you have come up with NOTHING that would avoid the Apocalypse, yet you keep trying to perpetuate the image that my plan is non-workable. For someone who professes to be interested in saving the biosphere rather than promoting a Windfall, I find your comments rather strange. Why, instead, don’t you do what I requested in the first place: PROVIDE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM THAT WILL IMPROVE THE PLAN. So far, none of the members of the tag team have provided such criticism. Tell us how you would achieve the required targets without collateral damage. Ceres might avoid the collateral damage, but won’t achieve the required targets that I (and Hansen and many others) have identified.
Well I think the best way to mark down the future is as “unknown”.
The ‘energy’ of a ‘Mtoe’ equals a million tonnes of Oil equivalent
In 2011 total global energy demand was 13,000 Mtoe
Non-Carbon energy was 17% and Fossil Fuels was 83% or 10,000 Mtoe.
Clean green renewable energy from Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Tidal was 2%, Hydro 3%, Biomass 4%, and Nuclear 8% which totals 17% Non-Carbon energy.
On current fossil fuel energy use forecasts we run out of the remaining 250 GtC Carbon Budget to remain under a 2 C rise around 2033 or in 20 years.
Business as usual energy forecasts include realistic plans for an expanding Non-Carbon energy sector into the future. They estimate by 2040 a total global energy demand of 20,000 Mtoe.
Non-Carbon energy is forecast to be 22% and Fossil Fuels 78% or 15,600 Mtoe.
Clean green renewable energy from Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Tidal rises to 3%, Hydro stays 3%, Biomass rises to 7% and Nuclear to 9% which totals 22% for all Non-Carbon energy.
The 25 year forecast up to 15,600 Mtoe of fossil fuel carbon energy use by 2040 is 50% larger than the 10,000 Mtoe used globally in 2011.
In order to remain under 2 C rise, Hansen et al papers and others have shown that carbon energy use needs to be down under 1,500 Mtoe (~10% of current levels) by 2050.
Fact is we are going in the completely opposite direction towards 15,600 Mtoe from fossil fuels in 2040. This equals 179,000 TW-h of energy capacity (electric generation). To put that 179,000 figure into perspective, it’s 20% more than all the energy we used in 2011
179,000 TW-h is equivalent to the energy from 3,580 large sized 6,000 MW power stations! It would take 25 years to replace all this energy by adding 140 new large 6,000 MW Non-Carbon power stations every year.
That means on average building 2.5 x 6,000 MW Non-Carbon power stations per week, every week. This would add 15 GWe of clean energy supply every week.
The average large power station today is 5,000 to 6,000 MW in capacity. Large generators are powered by hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas.
I can’t see how it is possible to build this amount of Non-Carbon energy power stations.
I can’t see how it is possible to achieve a Carbon emissions target anywhere close to 10% of 1990 emission levels by 2050.
And I can’t even see how it would be possible to hold carbon emissions at the current 2013 levels into the near future, let alone cut them back.
But I can see business as usual unfolding easy enough with fossil fuel carbon emissions still rising ever higher into 2040 and beyond. The energy gap is much bigger than I had believed it was.
http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-energy-gap.html
In a series of outstanding well-documented articles (http://www.climatecodered.org/2013/09/is-climate-change-already-dangerous-1.html), David Spratt outlines the case for climate change to be already in the Dangerous regime. A few important takeaways are reproduced below.
The core of any climate change amelioration are the targets that should not be exceeded and the risk for such targets being exceeded by the actions proposed. Yet, we see almost no comments on these temperature target issues on a climate science Web site.
*Around +1.5ºC warming may be the tipping point for the Greenland Ice Sheet and for the large-scale release of Arctic carbon permafrost stores. At +1.5ºC, coral reefs would be reduced to remnant systems.
*Holocene CO2 levels have varied between 270 and 330 ppm. The higher figure occurred in the early Holocene around 10,000 years ago when temperatures were around 0.5°C warmer (known as the Holocene maximum) than pre-industrial levels, when the CO2 level was around 280 ppm.
*A safe climate would not exceed the Holocene maximum. The notion that +1.5ºC is a safe target is contradicted by the evidence, and even +1ºC degree is not safe given what we now know about the Arctic.
*In June 2013, a German research institute which advises Angela Merkel’s government concluded that “policy makers must come up with a new global target to cap temperature gains because the current goal… limiting the increase in temperature to 2°C since industrialization is unrealistic”. It recommended that “world leaders either allow the 2°C goal to become a benchmark that can be temporarily overshot, accept a higher target, or give up on such an objective altogether”.
*International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol calls the 2°C goal “a nice Utopia”: “It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2°C. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”
*The World Bank and PriceWaterhouseCoopers have recently published reports which complement a wide range of scientific research which concludes that the world is presently heading for 4ºC or more of warming this century, and as soon as 2060. Reuters correspondent Michael Rose (2012) quotes IEA Chief Economist, Fatih Birol as saying that emission trends are “perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6°C, which would have devastating consequences for the planet”.
*Anderson says there is a widespread view amongst scientists that “a 4°C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of eco-systems and has a high probability of not being stable”.
*YET THE 2ºC GOAL IS NOT AN OPTION EITHER, BECAUSE, WITH CLIMATE AND CARBON CYCLE POSITIVE FEEDBACKS IN FULL SWING, IT IS LESS A STABLE DESTINATION THAN A SIGNPOST ON A HIGHWAY TO A MUCH HOTTER PLACE. The real choice now is to try and keep the planet under a series of big tipping points by getting it back to a Holocene-like state, or accept that a 3-6ºC “catastrophe” is at hand.
Walter #435,
I really appreciate what you are doing by researching and posting the numbers. Each post reduces the ‘wiggle-room’ for the arm-wavers and their unpaid advertisements.
One note of caution. For each temperature target and plan of action, there is an associated risk. It is usually phrased as ‘chance of staying under x degrees C’. There are a lot of games being played with proposed plans and associated temperature targets, especially when the risk associated with the plans is not stated. When you state “On current fossil fuel energy use forecasts we run out of the remaining 250 GtC Carbon Budget to remain under a 2 C rise around 2033 or in 20 years.”, what is the risk associated with remaining under 2 C while expending 250 GtC? As I posted previously concerning Spratt’s article on Tony Abbott (http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/as-tony-abbott-launches-all-out-war-on.html#more)”
In his point #6 (Scale of Task), he states: “Scientists describe warming of two degrees Celsius (2C) not as the boundary for dangerous climate change, but as representing a boundary between dangerous and extremely dangerous CLIMATE CHANGE, pointing to a safe boundary as being under 350 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e), more than 120 ppm CO2e below the current level. Our stated purpose is to prevent dangerous climate change, but the current level of greenhouse gases is already extremely dangerous. Even for 2C, there is no carbon budget left if one wants a low risk (less than 10%) of exceeding 2C…… As the graph shows, based on a chart from Mike Raupach at the ANU, at a 66% probability of not exceeding 2C, the carbon emissions budget remaining is around 250 petagrams (PtG or billion tonnes) of CO2. However this “carbon budget” also has a 17% chance of exceeding 2.5C and an 8% chance of exceeding 3C, which is clearly a risk we would be mad to accept. If one wants a 90% chance of not exceeding 2C, there is NO “carbon budget” left”.”
Thus, if you are using the same source, then expending 250 PtG of CO2 gives only a 66% chance of not exceeding 2 C. One could also phrase this as an 8% chance of exceeding 3 C. Even though both numbers place us in Extremely Dangerous territory, the latter becomes Extremely Extremely Dangerous! If you want at least 90% chance of staying under 2 C, we have ZERO CARBON BUDGET LEFT. If I tell you there is a 90% chance of making it across the street to buy some chewing gum at the store, would you take it? Why, then, would even only 90% be acceptable when it comes to survival of our species?
So, as intimidating as your numbers look, the reality may even be far worse. But, in presenting these numbers, you are doing far more than all the arm-wavers here combined!!!
Is this right?
Global energy use ~13,000 Mtoe = 151,190 TWh energy = ~18,142 GW capacity
That global wind power capacity totals 318 GWe or 1.75% in 2013?
http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/01_glob-inst-wp-cap-reg-dist.jpg
http://www.wwindea.org/webimages/Half-year_report_2013.pdf
Diogenes,
Great. All we have to do is convince the CEO. Now who is that? Got his number?
Haven’t seen any mention on any of my favorite climate sites of the American Physical Society appointing Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen to a committee to study the APS position on Climate Change. They are part of a six-member panel so a deadlock might seem like the most likely outcome. I find this baffling unless the intention is to provoke an outcry from the rank and file members to demonstrate that climate denial is not something the average physicist endorses. Interested in everyone else’s thoughts here.
Ray #439,
“Got his number?”
It’s unlisted!
Walter #438,
The wind energy growth rates seem impressive, but, again, unless they come at the expense of legacy fossil, they are useful for ornamental purposes only. From the 2013 IEA 2035 projections:
“Global energy demand will grow to 2035, but government policies can influence the pace. In the New Policies Scenario, our central scenario, global energy demand increases by one-third from 2011 to 2035. Demand grows for all forms of energy, but the share of fossil fuels in the world’s energy mix falls from 82% to 76% in 2035. Low-carbon energy sources (renewables and nuclear) meet around 40% of the growth in primary energy demand. Nearly half of the net increase in electricity generation comes from renewables.”
That means that fossil grows by ~20% in 2035 over that in 2011. Since we have run out of carbon budget if we want any kind of a chance to avoid the climate Apocalypse, ANY fossil fuel expenditures from now on decrease even our present limited chances. So, we have ~25 years of fossil fuel emissions averaging 110% of 2011 from now until 2035 from the IEA estimates (and they tend to be low relative to other projecting organizations such as EIA, etc); that spells disaster no matter what renewables do. If you can show me credible estimates where the growth in low carbon technologies offsets LEGACY fossil, then I’m mildly impressed. Even under those circumstances, far too many emissions will have been expended compared to the allowable budget (zero). Right now, even they are a pipe dream!
Let’s Put a Price on Carbon with Fee and Dividend
Michael Mann: The irreversible impacts from Climate Change
#438–Yes, that seems about right.
Growth is impressive (though not in the USA, thanks to Congress allowing incentives to lapse). And solar is coming on very nicely as well, though of course from a lower baseline (but with greater opportunities for continuing price drops.)
However, growth needs to be quite a bit greater still, as we are all agreed. As Prok suggests, we need to have carbon properly priced, so that we are not playing ‘whack a mole’ quite so much with our emissions. Again, we are all agreed, I think, that the point of renewable energy from a climatic POV is to replace carbon-emitters, not to accommodate increased energy use.
Uncovering, Collecting, and Analyzing Records to Investigate the Ecological Impacts of Climate Change: A Template from Thoreau’s Concord
Richard B. Primack and Abraham J. Miller-Rushing
BioScience (2012) 62 (2): 170-181. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.10
A word about Wind
A 1 Gigawatt wind farm would have 200 x 5 Megawatt wind turbine towers. Total worldwide Wind capacity was 318 Gigawatt in 2013 adding over 15 GW (<5%) of new installations per year recently. Total worldwide Energy capacity is well over 19,000 GW in 2013, whereas the 318 GW from Wind equals only 1.7%.
http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/01_glob-inst-wp-cap-reg-dist.jpg
http://www.wwindea.org/webimages/Half-year_report_2013.pdf
Practical operation Capacity factors play a larger role in energy use mix than the top line plant output numbers. A 350 MWe coal fired plant will have a far higher MWh energy output "capacity" than a 350 MWe solar plant could – 58% vs 15%. The best is Nuclear at 90% output capacity.
James Hansen says the "Assumed capacity factors: fossil (58% per IEA WEO 2013) hydro (34% per IEA WEO 2013); wind (33%); nuclear ( 90%); solar (15%)." see Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo
Therefore Wind Farms have a real world capacity 50% less than a coal fired power plant. Short term projections have new Wind farm capacity increasing by +20 GW per year only being able to replace maybe 2 x 5 GWe Coal Fired power stations per year.
Which Diogenes describes accurately as being 'ornamental' at best. The world is chasing 179,000,000 Gigawatt hours of fossil fuel energy replacement by 2040.
Diogenes,
Hank made the comment that (paraphrasing) that in order for your ideas to stick, or get some traction. Lose your anonymity, and start your own blog. You responded by saying essentially what good would that do, because you are already “publishing” here. (again paraphrasing)
I would say it is not good enough in this society unfortunately for someone just to type ideas and expect them to gain traction. You have to sell YOURSELF. People learn after awhile to trust the opinions of certain individuals, and they want to associate ideas with names. I for example almost by routing now, believe just about everything the scientists write here, and that is with little scientific expertise on my part. I have learned to trust their opinions. I think this was Hank’s point. He might not of been saying it explicitly, but we are a society that focuses on people, and to get about anywhere one has to “sell” oneself. So, if you really believe all the stuff you are writing, and want to be effective, maybe taking Hank’s advice would be a good idea. Somebody has to step up. It might as well be you.
Dr James Hanson, 21 Feb 2014 says:
“The largest growth of CO2 emissions and energy use was in China, where provision of electricity expanded to more than 90% of the population, lifting several hundred million people out of poverty.6 Coal use caused most of the emissions growth and coal is now the source of nearly half of global fossil fuel carbon emissions (Fig. 1a).
“Fossil fuels provide more than 85% of the world’s energy (Fig. 1b). One misconception discussed below concerns the fallacy that renewable energy is rapidly supplanting conventional energy. Total non-hydro renewables today offset only about one year’s growth (3%) of energy use.”
from Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
rocketeer @440.
The American Physical Society revisit of its 2007 AGW statement (a standard 5-year review) has certainly spread across the deniosphere in recent days. I’m not sure why (but then I couldn’t be bothered to look). The trio Curry. Christy & Lindzen were actually in action back in January, the other half of the six “experts” being Ben Santer, William Collins, and Isaac Held.
There is a 573 page transcript of the meeting back in January. It appears not much was achieved, which is no great surprise given the composition of the “experts” present. The final 100 page discussion would likely be a useful trawl for those attempting to understand the thinking processes of denialist science.
Pk #443,
Excellent post! Mann’s statements about the ‘unknown unknowns’ and the high uncertainties mean the Precautionary Principle must predominate in any plans of action we generate. We need to take all possible actions that will minimize the risk of exceeding those stringent targets for avoiding the climate Apocalypse, no matter what deprivation and hardships are incurred by the planet’s citizens.