This month’s open thread. Some interesting trends in ocean heat content, surface temperatures, multiple oddly reported papers (which are often linked to ambiguous press releases…) etc. But at least we aren’t working in political science…
Climate science from climate scientists...
> nukeeeees — go to bravenewclimate. Apology for commenting at all. This issue is what’s called a “ladder” in the game of Go — alternate stones are placed on the board until the line hits the edge, or, the players see that’s happening and don’t run out the inevitable by agreement.
> “tuning” — seems to me the point Kevin misses is the definition of parameterization: it’s what’s done for models to approximate numbers for those factors where the actual physical reality, for various reasons, as of now, can’t be measured.
See “parametrisation” or “parameterization” — any climate model is false, some are useful, and when there are no actual numbers (where would you get them? fund those satellites …) — one “tunes” by parameterization.
Barton Paul Levenson wrote (#186): “I predict our civilization will collapse in 2028, give or take six years (1 standard deviation), due to increasing drought and subsequent agricultural collapse. I was intrigued to see that computer models at a UK ministry are now estimating 2040 for essentially the same effect.”
Joe Romm has an article about a UK study that I believe is the one BPL referred to:
Society Risks Mid-Century Collapse From Climate-Driven Food Shortages
By Joe Romm
June 23, 2015
ThinkProgress.org
The “good news”, according to Joe, is “that only happens if humanity doesn’t actually do any serious planning for this outcome — and doesn’t do any serious reacting as it plays out.”
Recommended:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2015/06/how-to-build-climate-model.html
And the beat goes on: the public health community weighs in on the benefits of tackling climate change:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/climate-change-threatens-50-years-of-progress-in-global-health-study-says
I am looking at the heat wave in Pakistan
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33236067?ocid=global_bbccom_email_23062015_top+news+stories
and the forest fires in AK
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/alaskas_climate_hell_record_heat_wildfires_and_melting_glaciers_signal_a_scary_new_normal/
and wondering if the scientists that read, write and lurk here have immediate thoughts about the implications of these events.
I appreciate that science is driven by the practice of longitudinal studies, good data gathering and management and peer review, but I also think that the record is quite clear that the actual progression of climate warming has pretty consistently been on the high end of the modeling estimates.
I did a quick search here on RC and find that this website carries a piece on ice-free arctic that suggests that 2037 is the year at which an ice-free arctic is anticipated by mainstream modeling. I suspect that the ice-free arctic will occur well before 2037, but of course, my suspicions and expectations are not scientific, they are intuitive, so easily discounted, but I do not see the scientific community resolving its tendency to create consensus models that consistently underestimate the actual progress of climate warming.
The underestimation is probably not linear, it is likely to more exponential due to the known feedback loops such as albedo changes with loss of sea ice, related warming of the arctic ocean, increased release of methane from thawing permafrost and a warmer arctic, etc.
Despite the Pope’s notable observations on global warming, the pace of change in our species’ global impact is likely to be driven primarily by economic and political concerns rather than by concerns about maintaining a resilient and reliable habitat for large mammals on the planet.
Are the scientists here worried yet? If yes, can you afford to sound an alarm commensurate with your level of alarm or would that likely be a poor career decision?
DS at 194. A global civilization is not necessary to toast the earth. That’s just how we’ve mostly been doing it so far. Local mining and burning in various locations can do the job. As can incessant widespread wars, which are likely to ensue and/or help precipitate the collapse.
So, with the latest adjustments in temperatures, where are we in our seemingly inevitable march towards 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels? Have we hit 1 degree yet? Are we about to? Is there some agreed-upon standard measure for this?
Bart: Some people are agreeing with you, except for the date, that famine will collapse civilization. They are saying 2040.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/23/3672339/society-collapse-climate-food-shortages/
https://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/extreme-weather-extreme-prices
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-foreign-officefunded-study-10336406.html
http://ww2.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/global_sustainability_institute/our_research/resource_management.html
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/uk-government-backed-scientific-model-flags-risk-of-civilisation-s-collapse-by-2040-4d121e455997
http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/files/news%20and%20insight/risk%20insight/2015/food%20system%20shock/food%20system%20shock_june%202015.pdf
The moderators have repeatedly asked ALL OF US to refrain from arguing about nuclear power, solar power, etc. because the economic, environmental and technological issues of electricity generation are OFF-TOPIC for this site. The moderators are world-class climate scientists who generously donate their time, work and expertise to maintain RealClimate as a CLIMATE SCIENCE site. They have made it clear that they have neither the interest nor the expertise to host an ENERGY TECHNOLOGY site, and they certainly have no interest in moderating acrimonious arguments about nuclear power or renewable energy. There are MANY other sites where such discussions are appropriate.
With all due respect to other commenters, it strikes me as rude, boorish and self-absorbed when people REPEATEDLY ignore those requests, especially when their comments are not only off-topic, but belligerent, inflammatory and insulting towards other commenters.
Comment by SecularAnimist — 23 Jun 2015 @
Thar’s a new Sheriff in these parts an we gonna quit all this here talkn’ bout Nukulear Energe. Got it?
#180 Brian Dodge incorrectly asserted The idea that renewable is unsustainable is like the idea that I can’t get to the grocery store without gasoline since that’s what my current car requires
Renewables ARE unsustainable. You seem to mean, “The idea renewables cannot become sustainable…”
That is something I don’t recall anyone saying here. As for myself, I used to try to remember to always add the phrase, “as currently produced” so as to avoid comments like yours. FACT: They ARE unsustainable. That does not mean they will always be, though that is likely.
Setting aside the analogy itself is faulty in structure, the attempted implication is also incorrect. You are confusing improved efficiency and/or reduced emissions as equaling achieving sustainability. This makes no sense. Better concrete with no direct CO2 emissions? Great. Zero emissions does not equal sustainable. While no CO2 emissions is nice, to be sustainable, every bit of everything involved must be available to make more of the product for eons, if not longer. Stretching out resources does not equal sustainable. Assuming something will come along to replace a depleting resource if we slow down consumption of it is not sustainability, it is wishful thinking. It might happen. But it also might not.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
Re #202 Secular Animist
Killian said in 2013
Old Post
But, no, I’m always just blowin smoke…. till the science catches up.
Gotta laugh…
I need to check grain production vs consumption 2012-14 to see if we’ve had more negative net grain since 2012. Last info was 8 of previous ten years less produced than eaten.
K: While no CO2 emissions is nice, to be sustainable, every bit of everything involved must be available to make more of the product for eons, if not longer . . . . Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
BPL: Because we think your definition of “sustainable” is extreme, tendentious and verges on delusional.
> food production the primary first major disruption
Catton, Overshoot (1982), op. cit.
From plots-spectrometry@googlegroups.com
Chuck Hughes wrote: “Thar’s a new Sheriff in these parts an we gonna quit all this here talkn’ bout Nukulear Energe. Got it?”
I’m not trying to play “sheriff”. I’m simply noting what the moderators have repeatedly said. Discussions of energy technologies are off-topic here, so please take them to an appropriate forum, and focus on climate science, which is the purpose of this site.
I suspect that the overabundance of fact-free ideological rants about “sustainability”, ill-informed attacks on renewable energy, and gloom-and-doomism that have come to dominate these discussions may be one reason that there seems to less participation by the moderators in the comment pages. They have no interest in arguing about such matters, and even less interest in baby-sitting the belligerent arguments that such comments (perhaps intentionally) spawn.
I’m not trying to play “sheriff”. I’m simply noting what the moderators have repeatedly said. Discussions of energy technologies are off-topic here, so please take them to an appropriate forum, and focus on climate science, which is the purpose of this site. – Secular Animist
I was just messing with you S.A. This site is starting to get depressing so I was trying to lighten the mood a little.
It sounds to me like some sort of collapse is inevitable. That’s not good news of course but I’m wondering if Pope Francis’ Encyclical will have a positive effect on government policy? I’m out here in Colorado and the thing I’m really noticing is that the night time lows are staying in the low 50’s. I remember it getting down in the 30’s not too long ago. It’s hotter overall in the daytime but the night time temperatures have dramatically shifted over the last 20 years. We’re at about 9000ft elevation and it’s not getting below freezing in the high country at night.
That and the bugs are much worse. Especially wood eating bugs.
Just some observations.
> bugs are much worse. Especially wood eating bugs.
Fortunately the forest management people have a clue, and are at least aware that leaving snags when doing salvage logging lets the booming population of woodpeckers develop nicely over three or four years after a big fire.
Got to watch the loggers to make sure that happens, of course.
A Myth Being Foisted on you:
Fact: Renewable Energy mandates cause more CO2 to be produced, not less, and renewable energy doubles or more your electric bill. The reasons are as follows:
Since solar “works” 15% of the time and wind “works” 20% of the time, we need either energy storage technology we don’t have or ambient temperature superconductors and we don’t have them either. Wind and solar are so intermittent that electric companies are forced to build new generator capacity that can load-follow very fast, and that means natural gas fired gas turbines. The gas turbines have to be kept spinning at full speed all the time to ramp up quickly enough. The result is that wind and solar not only double your electric bill, wind and solar also cause MORE CO2 to be produced. There is some overlap between wind and solar.
We do not have battery or energy storage technology that could smooth out wind and solar at a price that would be possible to do. The energy storage would “cost” in the neighborhood of a QUADRILLION dollars for the US. That is an imaginary price because we could not get the materials to do it if we had that much money.
MYTHS: There are myths being perpetrated by wind turbine marketers. The truth is:
Wind and solar energy are not free and will raise your electric bill
and
Wind and solar energy are not CO2 free and will increase the total CO2 produced by electricity generation.
Examples:
Californians are paying twice as much for electricity as I am and Germans are paying 4 times as much as I am. The reason is renewables mandates. I am paying 7&1/2 cents /kilowatt hour. What are you paying?
And
Californians and Germans are making more CO2 per kilowatt hour than they would without renewables mandates. It turns out that even without burning natural gas or coal to make up for the intermittency of wind and solar, wind turbines and large scale solar collectors require more concrete and steel per kilowatt hour than some alternatives.
FALLACIES: The fallacies in the myth are failure to do the math and failure to do all of the engineering required. The myth is easy to propagate among most people because there is quite a lot of math to do and there is a lot of engineering to learn. University electrical engineering departments offer electrical engineering degrees with specialization in power transmission [electric grids]. That is only part of the engineering that needs to be done to figure the whole thing out. So “Puleeze” go to school and get degrees in the power transmission option of electrical engineering.
The devil is in the grid compatibility problem. We have a lot of technology for matching voltage, phase, frequency and so on, but not enough. All of those parameters must be matched at once. We can convert AC to DC and then back to AC, but: The semiconductors involved must dissipate a lot of heat [energy]. Even so, there is a limit of around 8.6% intermittent energy that can be used without destabilizing the grid. A phase difference is a short circuit.
Denmark and Germany solve the grid incompatibility problem by selling electricity at negative prices. They pay other European countries to take the excess wind and solar electricity. That is after paying an input tariff of 57 cents per kilowatt hour for renewable energy that is not needed.
The mandate that would actually reduce CO2 per kilowatt hour is to either put a legal limit on CO2 production per kilowatt hour or to put a fee and 100% dividend on carbon fuels. In either case, you let the electric generating companies figure out how to do it. So we don’t have to figure out the details.
“Adaptive” forest management can help maintain forests, but in a warming climate the margins of forests will shift, northward or upward. Where conditions become too dry or too warm, the shift will occur through tree death. In western North America, that will be by fire and insect attack.
For many people, the first visible manifestation of AGW will be nearby forests burning or dying off from bark beetle irruptions. IMO, we who understand what’s happening should take every opportunity to make that connection publicly, through letters to the editor and/or online comments on news articles if nothing else. If you can link to refereed scientific publications like this one, so much the better.
Edward Greisch wrote: “A Myth Being Foisted on you …”
Your comment is off-topic and is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the moderators of this site have REPEATEDLY asked us NOT TO POST HERE.
And you are very well aware of this. Yet you continue to post off-topic rants attacking renewable energy, as well as personal attacks against anyone who says anything in support of renewable energy.
Yeah, people need to be aware that burning and beetles are consequences, not causes, of forest loss. Time and resources spent on fire prevention and misguided spraying for beetle control won’t stop dieoff due to water and heat stress.
Useful, cautionary paper; it’s http://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144.full
PNAS vol. 102 no. 42
David D. Breshears, 15144–15148,
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0505734102
I still want to see studies on woodpecker populations, as the different ways of dealing with dead and dying trees can either promote or prevent them from reproducing successfully and they’re a keystone making cavities other species use.
A lot of things change very fast.
186 BPL, 194 DS, 202 SA, 206 wili, 208 EG
Yes, wili, local burning of fossil fuel can still “toast” the planet. However, I find it difficult to believe that countries with fossil fuel to burn will continue to do so unabated when they see global civilization collapsing about them as a result of such burning. Also, violence will undoubtedly accompany any collapse.
Intuitively, I nevertheless feel that any collapse would result in a marked drop in emissions. This seems to happen with just an ordinary economic downturn. I admit though that intuition is no substitute for expertise.
This whole business is part of a wider problem involving both climate science and sociology: How is global society affected by climate change and how is climate change affected by the reaction of global society to climate change?
As far as I know, climate models are run assuming either a business-as-usual scenario or some planned reduction in emissions. I’m not aware of any studies that assume an inadvertent decline in emissions resulting from the collapse of global civilization. A study of this nature would be really interesting.
Re misc comments and 2020 re:
“The results show that based on plausible climate trends, and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots. In this scenario, global society essentially collapses as food production falls permanently short of consumption.”
Surely, no one is surprised about that “paper conclusion” are they?
Surely, this scenario was self-evident and obvious more than a decade ago at least to everyone?
Eg fish stocks, reefs collapse, more droughts, extreme storms, sea-level rise flooding tide surges; no monsoons, freezing spring in nth america; out of control fires and heat waves …. means the continued failure of crops on a global scale – Yes/No?
2040+ … (not 2020)
Re #212BPL said ,Because we think your definition of “sustainable” is extreme
Unintelligent. You have an apple tree. For fifty years, it feeds you, slowly winding down in production. One year, you are out of preserves. No new fruit grows. Three more weeks pass. Now you die.
That is the kind of “sustainable” you, and most, mean.
Me? I grow a new tree about ten years before I expect the old one to die using seeds from the current tree. I use the old tree for mulch, compost, etc. I get to eat forever. You’re dead. Bye-bye.
But, you’re right, a correct definition of sustainable simply isn’t important.
tendentious
Childish, ironic, hypocritical.
and verges on delusional.
Your lack of insight and awareness is your problem. “My” definition is correct. That is the word you should have been looking for. But, hey, keep defining sustainability via economics.
Killian is the tendentious one
“You have an apple tree. For fifty years, it feeds you, slowly winding down in production.”
“I grow a new tree about ten years before I expect the old one to die using seeds from the current tree.”
Apple trees can live productively well over a hundred years and will produce as the pollinators and climate allow, ending production when they fall over or die [like from drought], not “slowly winding down”. In addition, if you think that “seeds from the current tree” will provide you with identical, or even similar fruit -or any fruit at all- you really need to expand your ag studies.
Your definition of sustainable is not only opaque and mobile, but ignores the completely unpredictable future climate, regardless of economics or human reactions to the ongoing existential crises.
“You have an apple tree. For fifty years, it feeds you, slowly winding down in production. One year, you are out of preserves. No new fruit grows. Three more weeks pass. Now you die…
“Me? I grow a new tree about ten years before I expect the old one to die using seeds from the current tree. I use the old tree for mulch, compost, etc. I get to eat forever.”
– See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/unforced-variations-june-2015/comment-page-5/#comment-633269
The advocacy in question seems more nearly analogous to insisting that any potential ‘apple tree’ live forever.
I suspect that perception will be rejected as “tendentious” or maybe “Childish, ironic, hypocritical”, but honestly, that’s what it looks like to me.
If anybody cares what I think, the salient issue *right now* is to decarbonize as rapidly and thoroughly as possible.
Based upon what I see (which mostly means ‘read about’) in the world, I think that rapid deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and intelligent demand management is the most likely route to success, together with the concurrent enactment of mechanisms to price carbon externalities.
We must also address widespread but dysfunctional land use patterns, and continue researching and deploying other technologies enabling decarbonization (this will probably include nuclear power generation, at least as legacy capacity, and possibly also more advanced technologies which will likely come to mind.)
This may not be ‘sustainable’ in the longer term, but as I see it, it’s what we need to do in order to take care of the largest possible proportion of the population over the next few decades. As this intermediate future takes shape, we also need to look ahead to more sustainable futures beyond–new ‘apple trees’, if you will.
At least, that’s how it looks to me.
K 225: “My” definition is correct.
BPL: No, your definition is so extreme as to be insane. You’re saying that if my system will keep humanity going for ten million years, and yours will keep it going for ten billion years, that my system is not noticeably different from the present business as usual, and only yours can save humanity. Sorry, but in real life, an undetectable difference between 0.0000001% per year wastage and 0.0000000001% per year simply does not matter on a human time scale.
Killian says:
Surprised yet by your results?
@222 “Intuitively, I nevertheless feel that any collapse would result in a marked drop in emissions. This seems to happen with just an ordinary economic downturn. I admit though that intuition is no substitute for expertise.”
There are problems with the collapse of civilization that extend beyond emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
From Scientific American, March 11, 2011
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cool-a-nuclear-reactor/
Tokyo Electric Power confirmed that pressure had been rising inside reactor No. 1 at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the northeast coast, one of the largest nuclear power plants in the world. That means cooling water is not getting to the reactor core, causing a build up of steam inside the containment vessel. The problem, according to Japanese media reports, is a loss of grid electricity to run the pumps that bring in cooling water. The backup diesel generators that are supposed to provide emergency power in that case are out of order, according to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, but replacements were being taken to the plant. (Similar diesel generators were providing power to the nation’s Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which recycles spent nuclear fuel.)
I think that’s just one of a number of nightmare scenarios that come along with collapse of civilization (especially if you are fond of the dominant species on the planet)
I think there are some properties for sale near the Chernobyl plant as well as near Fukushima at prices that are like a firesale. Nuff said?
Edward Greisch, the problem with you comment #218 is, it is not verifiable. Mind sharing a recent credible study to back up your claims? On the contrary there have been dozens of studies which show that clean tech is part of the solution to emissions reductions. Thus, the only myth i see here is in your comment content.
I notice that Edward Greisch’s rant is not only off-topic, but completely devoid of references. We’re just supposed to take his word for it.
For as long as I typically follow these threads, have to admit. This is getting a little mean.
230 Mike
Of course there are more problems with a collapse of global civilization than just a drop in emissions. My thought is simply that the business-as-usual scenarios I’ve seen all assume that emissions continue unabated to the end of the century, resulting in a catastrophic amount of warming. But if we get a collapse before mid-century, the cumulative emissions would be much lower, resulting in a planetary environment that is rather more habitable for the survivors of the collapse. Is this plausible?
220 SecularAnimist, 232 Nick Gotts and the other renewable energy advocates: There is a very simple solution: Quit being off-topic yourself. And prove your own case. Here are some new references for you to rant about:
Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar
Germany’s Green Energy Destabilizing Electric Grids
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/
We’re Not Betting the Farm, We’re Betting the Planet | The Energy Reality Project
http://energyrealityproject.com/were-not-betting-the-farm-were-betting-the-planet/
Germany’s Energy Policy: Man-Made Crisis Now Costing Billions
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-energy-policy-man-made-crisis-now-costing-billions/
Again: The thing the EPA, Congress and the state legislature should do is very simple: Mandate either a limit on CO2 per kilowatt hour that decreases year by year; or do the James Hansen fee and 100% dividend on carbon fuels. Let the engineers do the engineering.
re: 225 et al. The continual use of the Institute for Energy Research as some supposedly objective think tank is truly laughable and quit disingenuous. Any organization which issues a press release such as http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/press/more-scare-tactics-from-the-white-house/ is a. not objective, b. not based on science, and c. clearly agenda driven (just read their comments regarding free markets, government, and their continual attacks against President Obama. All of which completely destroys the idea that they are a legitimate source of information regarding alternative/renewable energy. In short, the commenter has been utterly “busted”.
EG (@235): You do realize that those “references” you cite (The Institute for Energy Resrarch, really?) support virtually NONE of your claims?
There are three claims you make for which some actual reference would be useful:
1) Higher CO2 emissions with renewables (in particular in CA and Germany), but keep in mind that it is the reduction in nuclear generation in Germany that has caused increased coal use
2) Limit of 8.6% on renewables/intermittent sources in a grid
3) $Quadrillions to provide adequate storage
Thanks!
Don’t feed the trolls.
Dang. A while back I was mocking the notion that the big ice caps could just suddenly collapse in an “ice cube catastrophe” — and shortly after that the idea turned out to be consistent with some observations, and now it turns out rather large “icequakes” can be adding cracks throughout the mass of ice.
I assume any icecap/glacial ice mass is under tension and compression all throughout, as it slowly moves and bends — presumably many areas are as stressed as they can be without having already broken.
And then — rather suddenly adding a lot of significantly large magnitude icequakes to the ice model — does what?
More fractures, more drainage channels — ice cube emergency rush to the sea?
@234 “if we get a collapse before mid-century, the cumulative emissions would be much lower, resulting in a planetary environment that is rather more habitable for the survivors of the collapse. Is this plausible?”
I think it may be implausible, but for me it is unthinkable because of the danger of nuclear weapons, the meltdown of the 400 plus nuclear power plants on the planet, the dangers of unilateral intentional disastrous geo-engineering as food production falls and populations migrate to access basic resources like water and to retreat as sea level rise reduces our over-developed habitat.
But if you are a well-armed, well-stocked survivalist and you like the notion of hand to mouth existence and hand to hand combat in a ruined landscape, then it makes sense to ask questions about whether survivors of a collapse will have a more habitable planetary environment.
On the psycho-social front, I am more inclined to encourage folks to recognize that wealth is essentially the heat of civilization. If there is a stable, happy, less wealthy lifestyle that you can engineer for yourself, you may be doing everything you can to address global warming and possible civilization collapse.
But, I think Gandhi was asked what he thought about western civilization and he is reported to have thought it would be a good idea (or something to that effect).
Another model result:
McCusker, K.E., D.S. Battisti, and C.M. Bitz (2015)
Inability of stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to preserve the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Geophys. Res. Lett., 42,
doi:10.1002/2015GL064314
Geophysical Research Letters
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064314/abstract
(paragraph breaks added for online readability — hr)
I’m sorry i know its off topic but i had a question, is Nuclear Energy clean. from what I understand it’s heating up metal rods in water, how can its waste be so devastating on the ecosystems?
Edward Greisch wrote: “Quit being off-topic yourself. And prove your own case.”
That’s pretty hilarious since those two suggestions are mutually exclusive.
I’m not going to make any “case” for anything to do with electricity generation technologies precisely because the moderators have repeatedly asked that commenters not engage in such discussions here, and stick to climate science topics.
Your comments are a perfect illustration of why that is a wise policy.
It’s a policy that I will respect, out of a respect for our hosts, which you seem to lack.
So as long as you choose to disrespectfully ignore their repeated requests, and as long as they allow your off-topic comments to stand, then you have the floor to yourself.
#235–I’m not impressed with those links. Representatively, the “Betting the Planet” one pushes the idea that there *could* be problems with renewable energy because that would be like:
“…an orchestra with no conductor. A perfect example is the famous cacophony in The Beatles’ song A Day in the Life. The conductor told the London Symphony, “Every instrument plays for 16 bars. Start on this note and end on this note.”
And, boy:
Yet they fail to present *one* actual piece of evidence that any such issue even exists!
‘But it *could*, and wouldn’t it be awful if it actually *did*, and we didn’t find out until we’d built an entire *planet’s worth* of renewable energy infrastructure?’
To which I can only respond, ‘Uh-huh.’
And the links relating to Germany’s experience are presented as somehow showing that renewable energy isn’t viable, yet what they actually say is that there are problems with market structures (in that German-Austrian markets sometimes trade more energy than can be physically transmitted over existing links) and that Germany needs to build more transmission lines, and faces political challenges in doing so.
Well, sure. Whoever said that transforming the energy economy would be simple, straightforward, and cheap?
On the other hand, new nuclear capacity is assumed to be installable at will, at prices that are, er, unrealistic:
http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2015-03-12/story/georgia-power-warns-more-time-costs-plant-vogtle-reactors
http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/2015/02/06/plant-vogtle-to-be-delayed-by-18-more-months-as-taxpayers-pay-the-bills/
Yet “Run the Numbers” blithely tells us that” “Two are under construction in Vogtle, GA for $7 Billion apiece.”
Another interesting aspect is the land required: “Run the Numbers” gives the required space for their notional “AP-500” reactor as “0.04 km2” (generously, this is “the same as an AP-1000.”) Converting to acres, that’s 9.8842153–let’s call it 10, shall we? So, simplistically, that’s 100 MW per acre.
OK, what does the real Fort Vogtle campus take in? Well, according to the official website:
http://www.southerncompany.com/about-us/our-business/southern-nuclear/pdfs/vogtleBrochure_2010.pdf
Assuming Units 3 & 4 are completed, the compound will be producing a tad over 4 GW–call it 1.3 MW per acre.
Why the discrepancy? We don’t need to think that every bit of the actual reservation is needed to produce the power–the brochure, for instance, makes much of the 600 acres of loblolly pine and bluebird habitat. Yet by comparison, the Virgil C. Summer facility in South Carolina says that:
“The exclusion area boundary represents the ultimate site boundary and encompasses approximately 2,560 acres.”
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1019/ML101930214.pdf
So my question is, why do the writers of ‘Run the Numbers’ need to use a number that has nothing do do with reality? (They also, as far as I could see, utterly ignore the land, energy, and embodied carbon of the fuel side of the operation.)
I know that the cost and land use figures for nuclear used by “Run the Numbers” are just not realistic. I know that they don’t honestly address fuel production and disposal issues and costs. I know that they don’t address financing costs in a realistic way, and they don’t address personnel needs at all (which I suspect would be a killer in terms of scalability.)
So, how I am supposed to trust their assertions, many of which are quite opaque, on matters that are harder to assess?
Stefan Rahmstorf: I read something from a source I lost. I was wondering if you could tell me whether it is true or not. The claim was that all Germans believe that a nuclear power plant is a nuclear bomb that is kept barely in check and could explode at any minute. If that is what they believe, it would explain a lot of things about the Germans. Clearly reactors are nothing like bombs and cannot be made to explode like a bomb. Misapprehensions could explain a lot of what goes on here at RC.
From
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
The following words are entirely the words of James Hansen, the recently retired head of NASA-GISS:
“People who entreat the government to solve global warming but offer support only for renewable energies will be rewarded with the certainty that the U.S. and most of the world will be fracked-over, the dirtiest fossil fuels will be mined, mountaintop removal and mechanized long-wall coal mining will continue, the Arctic, Amazon and other pristine public lands will be violated, and the deepest oceans will be ploughed for fossil fuels. Politicians are not going to let the lights go out or stop economic growth. Don’t blame Obama or other politicians. If we give them no viable option, we will be fracked and mined to death, and have no one to blame but ourselves.
……………………………………….
The asymmetry finally hit me over the head when a renewable energy advocate told me that the main purpose of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) was to “kill nuclear”. I had naively thought that the purpose was simply to kick-start renewables. Instead, I was told, because utilities were required to accept intermittent renewable energies, nuclear power would become less economic, because it works best if it runs flat out. What to do when the wind is not blowing? The answer was: have a gas plant ready as back-up. In other words, replace carbon free nuclear power with a dual system, renewables plus gas. With this approach CO2 emissions will increase and it is certain that fracking will continue and expand into larger regions. If we care about climate, a “carbon-free portfolio standard” would make more sense than RPS. However, the best approach is a rising carbon fee that allows efficiency, renewables, nuclear power, and carbon capture to compete fairly.”
#227 Kevin McKinney said “You have an apple tree. For fifty years…
The advocacy in question seems more nearly analogous to insisting that any potential ‘apple tree’ live forever.
If the respondent is a moron, I suppose. Otherwise, it’s just intentionally argumentative. The tree was not the point of the post, nor agriculture, nor forestry, nor tree care, nor any other number of things. It was a simple analogy about sustainable systems. To even mention that tree and its lifespan in response is unintelligent and/or argumentative… which is unintelligent, so…
I suspect that perception will be rejected as “tendentious” or maybe “Childish, ironic, hypocritical”, but honestly, that’s what it looks like to me.
By your own petard, then.
If anybody cares what I think, the salient issue *right now* is to decarbonize as rapidly and thoroughly as possible.
Of course. And no. Such a response ignores such sources as Limits to Growth, Jared Diamond and others who see real dangers of collapse this century even without climate issues. I suggest you will fail if you attempt to fractionate your response, separating systems and responses.
Based upon what I see (which mostly means ‘read about’) in the world, I think that rapid deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and intelligent demand management is the most likely route to success, together with the concurrent enactment of mechanisms to price carbon externalities.
See above. Separate climate from resources you will find the system breaking along resource lines. If, for example, you ignore the limits to phosphorus and only do decarbonization, starvation kicks in. E.g.
We must also address widespread but dysfunctional land use patterns, and continue researching and deploying other technologies enabling decarbonization (this will probably include nuclear power generation, at least as legacy capacity, and possibly also more advanced technologies which will likely come to mind.)
This may not be ‘sustainable’ in the longer term
Then why do it? If simplification alone reduces emissions 90%, why limit that by keeping consumption high and using up carbon budget building out unneeded power generation? That makes no sense. You will get *less* mitigation via your route.
The lowest hanging fruit is reduced consumption. And it moves you toward sustainability by definition, whereas building out presently unsustainable technology does not.
#246, Killian–“The lowest hanging fruit is reduced consumption.”
Tendentious and pejorative verbiage aside, no. Reduced consumption is not the lowest hanging fruit.
Not in a world where economic inequality is extreme, and debilitating to entire nations; not in a world where cultural and economic assumptions include the absurdity of unlimited growth; and not in a world where the powerful and wealthy love their power enough to routinely lie, cheat, and kill in order to maintain it. Not in a world where jealousy, envy, and self-interest are dominant strains in human psychology.
I’m not such a pessimist as to deny that there can be (or has been) ethical progress. But the transition to a a sustainable world isn’t going to come by simply ‘saying no’ to consumption. Real climate solutions must reckon with ‘real politik.’
Killian, dear heart, you’ve confused apples and oranges.
The Poetry Home Repair Manual and how metaphors work.
If he didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.
#1245 Edward Greisch said The following words are entirely the words of James Hansen, the recently retired head of NASA-GISS:
“People who entreat the government to solve global warming but offer support only for renewable energies will be rewarded with the certainty that the U.S. and most of the world will be fracked-over…
While Hansen has acknowledged some degree of soil building and re-/aforestation, etc., as a part of sequestration, he is not a designer of regenerative systems. He’s never designed a homestead or neighborhood to be sustainable, so, like most, doesn’t understand how far this can go. Naturally, he follows the same logic as most others: We have X consumption and must meet that demand. This is a perfect example why an entirely rational definition of sustainability is needed. Understanding this is a threshold, and non-negotiable, and implies a very simplified society in the main, leads to different conclusions. We cannot possibly continue this level of consumption with any kind of tech now known. The *only* option, and first line of defense being the lowest-lying fruit, is simplification.
We only need to meet 10% or so of current U.S. demand. When one understands and accepts this, additional nuclear is superfluous and clearly not worth the risk.
Instead, I was told, because utilities were required to accept intermittent renewable energies, nuclear power would become less economic, because it works best if it runs flat out. What to do when the wind is not blowing? The answer was: have a gas plant ready as back-up.
The entire is moot. We should not be building out utility scale power generation, but local and home generation. There is no need for a backbone to maintain. And, if you want one, given that 10% scale, then a diverse local grid would be fine with battery backup or pumped storage or… freaking candles.
Wrapping one’s head around the idea we simply won’t be doing much of what we do now, and much of what we do keep doing will be done differently is vital to understanding appropriate solutions.