Happy New Year, and happy new open thread.
As per usual, nuclear energy is off-topic – it’s not that it’s uninteresting, but it ends up dominating conversation to the total exclusion of everything else and just becomes repetitive and dull. Recent excursions on this topic shows what happens when we relax the moderation, so back to being strict about this. If you want to discuss this, please go somewhere else.
347 Ray Ladbury: “When it comes to solar particle events” EMP has nothing to do with particle events. It is a gamma ray event.
I didn’t say I was a solar physicist. I said I was a physicist working in the Army’s lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. I also said, if you use the name “EMP” for a solar event, you borrowed the name from nuclear weapons effects.
The bomb produces a lot of prompt gamma rays. The gamma rays ionize a layer of air in the upper atmosphere. The electrons so kicked out of their atoms travel downward about a meter and in a curve, traveling sideways a similar distance. The sudden separation of charges produces an electromagnetic pulse with a very fast rise time. The electrons return more slowly, giving us the slower return undershoot. It is all over very quickly. In the 1960s, we did not have a picosecond rise time real time oscilloscope, so we don’t know how much faster than a nanosecond the rise time is.
I do not pontificate on solar particle events. I have not said anything about solar particle events except that they are not “EMPs” in the original meaning of EMP, they are very slow compared to EMP, and NASA predicts solar events before they arrive. Solar particles are definitely not gamma rays from a bomb.
Do I have to clarify by saying NEMP for Nuclear EMP to satisfy Ray Ladbury? Meaning Nuclear [weapons] EMP?
“When it comes to solar particle events” is the difference. Ray Ladbury is talking about protons and other ions emitted from the sun. I am not talking about such large particles. I am talking about electromagnetic waves. Look up Starfish Prime.
Oceans fished out: There are a lot of jelly fish but not many fish that we want to eat. Do you know any recipes for jellyfish?
Comment by Edward Greisch — 21 Jan 2016 @ 3:39 AM
Yes but it involves large amounts of toast.
Edward Greisch,
Yes, I am familiar with the mechanisms behind the EMP from nukes. I am also familiar with the mechanism behind EMP for solar particle events. Are you?
EMP merely stands for electromagnetic pulse. The induced EMF from geomagnetic changes from a SPE certainly fall into that category. And, since, in terms of precedence, the Carrington Event certainly predates the first nuke and Starfish Prime by over 100 years, one could call the weapons community the new kids on the block.
BTW, it might interest you to know that one of my colleagues was the one who did the environmental modeling of Starfish Prime.
Don’t be a pedantic pratt.
Last Call for Killian and EdwardG:
A Parable:
This team of engineers (social or hardware) works long and hard on their project, but in the end, the competing paradigm is chosen, because higher ups think it is more likely to get funded. The team goes out for a well-deserved night of excess, where they down lots of beer, pound the table, and repeat over and over what #@$% idiots management is. The next morning, though, they sit down bleary-eyed, with large cups of coffee, across from the other team, and start talking about how to realize the chosen concept. (That’s a good “engineering” term, I think, EG. If you can’t realize your solution, it isn’t a solution.)
But you and K– you’re still in the bar, running up a tab and sitting uninvited at people’s tables, and boring them to death until they call for the bouncer.
Anyway, this would be fine with me except for the thing that motivated my very first comment. However sincere you might be in your concern about climate, your arguments are indistinguishable from those of many fossil-fuel trolls. You are giving aid and comfort, as they say. Not a mature attitude, just because you have failed to show a path for your own ideas to be implemented.
EG, you wandered off into this self-promotion from your original assertion the grid can’t handle solar and wind because it can’t because assertion.
Please come back to the conversation. We know you have a self-published book. We know you’re important and out standing in your own field.
You’ve given no support for your persistent arguing — over and over — that the electrical grid won’t be fixed to handle solar and wind and other inputs.
You can look this stuff up and see how strong your arguments are among the many other discussions.
This is not the place to find the people you are arguing with.
Thomas #339: “China w Russia along for the ride, could do to Africa what the Brits and French did 200-300 years ago in North America. Bring some sanity, some human rights, intelligent development and more ethics to the place.”
Haha! Now, Thomas, you know better than that. China’s relationship to Africa, if it is imperialism, is a flavor of imperialism very far removed from the atrocious 19th century varieties. So far removed that it is probably too much of a stretch to call it “imperialism”. See:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/07-china-aid-to-africa-sun
“China’s comprehensive, multi-dimensional agenda of its aid to Africa defies any simplistic categorization.”
There’s also the matter of: what is the realistic alternative? The underdeveloped areas must be developed to at least some extent, and this goes doubly for the high-fertility areas of Africa. Who is going to put their shoulders behind this project and get it done? After centuries of being looted by the North/West, Africa is still in such a retarded state that it needs all the help it can get, even if that help is not perfectly altruistic. Can you point out unacceptable costs and risks to China’s aid to Africa? Can you point out a realistic alternative for development in Africa? I am open to any suggestions. The only suggestion that I reject, in advance, is the one that goes: “let it languish, undeveloped, a festering mess, and let them slowly, agonizingly inch their way into modernity over the next two centuries.”
Another “Oh, shit” item for the Cassandra file:
http://www.dispatchtribunal.com/rising-co2-levels-in-oceans-may-intoxicate-fish-sooner/11978/
Nature | Letter
Future ocean hypercapnia driven by anthropogenic amplification of the natural CO2 cycle
Nature 529, 383–386 (21 January 2016)
doi:10.1038/nature16156
Received 31 March 2015
Accepted 13 October 2015
Published online 20 January 2016
____________________________________
Have the climate scientists ever gotten together with the public health scientist who’ve tried to raise awareness of, oh, lead in gasoline and paint and water supplies, or beryllium dust, or so many other known toxins and problems that could be controlled?
Pertinent:
https://www.google.com/search?q=“public+health”+early+warning+late+lesson
e.g.: https://ccst.us/projects/smart/documents/013009Late_Lessons_EMF.pdf
Edward Greisch@312 said
If you want truth you need religion. The best that science can is to give you evidence that your assumptions might align with reality.
K 350: Because we must have our lattes. Yes, I am making a point. Let’s see if anyone susses it out.
BPL: Yes, anyone who doesn’t agree with your back-to-simpler-lifestyles dystopia is a latte-sipping limousine liberal. STFU.
zebra, Hank, go over to http://bravenewclimate.com/2015/10/25/open-thread-23/?replytocom=444796#respond
Where you can hear DBB say “The Northwest Power and Conservation Council sets policy for the Bonneville Power Administration. The draft 7th 5 year power plan states “At present, it’s not possible to entirely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the power system without the use of nuclear power or emerging technology breakthroughs …”
I’m not outnumbered there and mitigation tools are analyzed.
EdwardG 360,
You want me to go to a site where there are more people like you playing rhetorical games like strawman? Sure, I’ll be right over…
EG: “At present, it’s not possible to entirely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the power system without the use of nuclear power or emerging technology breakthroughs …”
Zebra never said anything to the contrary, and has never taken a position on such vague nonsense one way or the other.
1. If that statement is 100% correct, zebra’s policy will optimize the non-FF energy mix.
2. If that statement is 100% incorrect, zebra’s policy will optimize the non-FF energy mix.
What’s your plan?
The challenge: to evolve.
EG, over at BNC you’re posting invitations for people to come into the RC thread to further discuss your stuff. This is impolite to both sites.
The two sites exist because people concerned about climate issues need to focus. You’re working against that attempt to focus. Please don’t continue.
You don’t need to post your stuff _everywhere_.
Though a brief ‘oogle shows you’re well along doing just that.
Tom Toles — always worth reading in full, he’s a thoughtful writer as well as a cartoonist:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/01/22/can-climate-change-cause-earthquakes-too/
Looks like China cut emissions last year. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/01/19/china-emissions-likely-fell-in-2015/
Comment by Chris Dudley — 21 Jan 2016 @
“Likely”, “suggests’, “Probably”, “looks like” etc.
Unless it changes the direction of the Keeling Curve I’m not buying it. Somebody made up the difference somewhere.
358 Bill Bedford: No, I did not say that. I would never say anybody needs religion to find truth. But I used a figure of speech to try to make it understandable to more people. What Bill Bedford is doing is a perfect example of “provoking,” trying to get me upset. Sorry Bill Bedford, it didn’t work.
Science is where you find reality. Science is the only place where you find reality.
Bill Bedford: Perhaps Bill Bedford is getting off topic into religion. Bill Bedford: You are wrong. And Bill Bedford is not going to get me off track. Bill Bedford, you don’t want to hear what else I would say about that someplace else. It is unfortunate that clarifying language is used to obfuscate. Notice that I said and say nothing about my opinion on religion.
Bill Bedford is on ignore.
re: 360 and Ed G’s never-ending nuclear fixation story part infinity
“At present, it’s not possible to entirely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the power system without the use of nuclear power or emerging technology breakthroughs …”
‘Or’ is a conjunction used to link alternatives, usually implying some level of equivalence; nothing in that quote implies nuclear power is the only rational choice. If you were to remove your blinders for just a brief moment or two, you’d find that relevant renewable tech breakthroughs ARE occurring, in at least steady (lately accelerating) increments. Most of the folks you target here with endless goading have essentially been trying to tell you that nuclear power is not the only option. Few of us expect immediate fixes by the renewable route, but more nuclear plants would also not be quick…
Your ending comment suggests that you have found an appropriate, maybe even welcoming, forum elsewhere to vent your obsession. Our pooled responses (and ‘honor system’ terms of service proscriptions by busy moderators) here should be good indication that Real Climate is NOT an equivalent option. Continued insistence on arguing here is clear indication that your motive is negative attention, and not illuminating discussion. Please, post where your input is appropriate. We can be happy for you. Those of us so moved can go there to observe, learn, and participate.
Oppositional defiant disorder in adults often becomes a permanent personality disorder, with little hope of cure. Add a dash of narcissism, and internet access – tada! – we got us one more self-righteous ranting troll.
359 Barton Paul Levenson says:
22 Jan 2016 at 5:40 PM
K 350: Because we must have our lattes. Yes, I am making a point. Let’s see if anyone susses it out.
BPL: Yes, anyone who doesn’t agree with your back-to-simpler-lifestyles dystopia is a latte-sipping limousine liberal. STFU.
You truly are a fool, for only a fool refuses the knowledge of others. So, yes, let’s do shut the fool up. Go drink your latte. Let us talk without your tantrums.
Fyi, for the non-impaired: The problem FPL, Zebra, and most others have here is not being willing to start from reality. One thing Greisch gets right is that Nature does bat last. It has the ultimate veto. Yet, none of your plans starts from the premise of what Nature can support. If you don’t start there, you can’t end there. This is quite simple, about that FBL is correct. Simple is the only solution. But to call simplicity a dystopia simply speaks to the illness in his own mind: He cannot conceive of not having those lattes, so he insults those who would point out that Nature doesn’t make lattes.
REGARDLESS where you want to end up – be it some impossible nuclear powered or tech-dominated fantasy that is impossible, or some more sane, but still not sustainable facsimile of today powered by (non)renewables – you have zero chance of getting even to that truly dystopian future if you don’t start with an accounting of what the planet can actually support.
It *is* possible to get the planet to be more productive and even into abundance, maybe even with up to 12 billion, but only by enhancing Nature. It’s called speeding up succession so that you produce more in shorter time periods than natural processes would left to themselves. And that is only done by following Nature’s blueprints. If you seek to ignore those plans, then you seek suicide.
Does it seem over-simple? It’s not. It’s just simple. But it’s a complex type of simple. Or do any here care to claim Nature’s grandeur is simple?
Let fools howl. There is work to be done.
The market will do the job of deciding about mitigation and adaptation just fine, as long as there is an actual free market, rather than the paternalistic/feudalistic approach you appear to favor. The role of government should be to create and maintain that market.
Comment by zebra
Dear Z,
You think markets are the solution. How cute. Economics is voodoo. Go talk to Steve Keen for a year or two, then come back for a real discussion of sustainable solutions because a sane discussion of sustainability with a free market evangelist is, quite literally, impossible. It’s no more a real conversation than discussing what psychedelic bugs a psychotic sees crawling on the walls.
Start, Dear Z, with natural limits, then come see me again. Not before: You won’t understand a single word till you sort that out.
However, you start with local food, local energy, local autonomy, local governance. That alone gets you a good ways down the road. Add “regenerative” systems, and you’re a good bit further.
See if you can work through that first.
local food, local energy:
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/blogs/rob-hopkins
http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen/2011/09/transition_pdx_preparing_for_a.html
http://transitionculture.org/shop/the-transition-handbook/
Portland, Oregon is trying to do renewables only.
Wishful reading: Is it possible that some extreme misinterpretation is wishful reading? As in: the reader wanted you to say something else, so the reader acts as if you had said whatever the reader wishes you had said? That makes it very difficult to communicate.
This could explain some extreme misinterpretations. But it would be difficult to tell wishful reading from provoking. The problem remains that it is difficult or impossible to break through the wishful barrier. It would help a lot if all high school students were required to take 4 years of physics. Since that isn’t about to happen, the prognosis is grave.
I have heard teachers talk about teaching physics in the first year of high school. “PhysicsFirst” would mean that students would start getting science before the Great Bugaboo in biology was encountered.
@Killian 369,
This is indeed the last call: “However, you start with local food, local energy…”
No. You start with a policy that will get you from where we are now to where you want to be. You, like EG, have no idea how to achieve your goal. That’s what makes you irrelevant.
Instead of pie-in-the-sky sci-fi fantasies, try reading basic history. What you describe, without a strong government to ensure balance among the players, is feudalism, in one manifestation or another. It always devolves into corruption and inefficiency, until one of your “local” entities devours all the others. Through what we in the reality-based community call “war”. Look it up.
And again, your ranting is only objectionable (to me at least) because you are indistinguishable from fossil fuel trolls trying to make mischief.
Recommended reading for those interested in reducing CO2 emissions from electricity generation:
Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions
Alexander E. MacDonald, Christopher T. M. Clack, Anneliese Alexander, Adam Dunbar, James Wilczak & Yuanfu Xie
Nature Climate Change (2016) | doi:10.1038/nclimate2921
Published online 25 January 2016
Abstract:
Phil Mattheis @ 367 — “emerging technology breakthroughs” to me implies some research has to be successful and the “emerging technology’ is not ready for deployment. Possibly it never will as breakthroughs are not guaranteed.
Florida Drowning
https://richarddawkins.net/2016/01/florida-drowning/
sea level rise in Florida
“This is already happening. The Florida of today, Kolbert reports, has water “bubbling out of the turf” and neighborhoods of multi-million-dollar homes with water “creeping under the security gates and up the driveways.””
“Even as residents slosh ankle-deep in the new sea level, they don’t seem to get it.”
“The Netherlands indeed has an extensive system of dikes and levees, protecting areas sitting below sea level; however, this kind of armored coastline won’t work in Florida, because the underlying rocks are so porous that rising water will simply seep underneath dikes and levees.”
“they don’t seem to get it.” is the amazing and important part. Nothing will be done after it is too late. If anything is done, it wouldn’t have worked anyway.
373 SecularAnimist: Paywall. But the supplementary information is free. “when using future anticipated costs” Yes, that’s a problem. You can anticipate whatever you want, including technology we don’t have and may not [probably won’t] have. Example: A switch that can turn off this million volt DC grid repeatedly. The problem can be in those “little” details.
If SecularAnimist will pay for it, fine. Don’t tax me for it until it actually works.
@Secular Animist 373,
I’m going to continue on this because I want to demonstrate that I really am an equal opportunity noodge. EG and Killian have failed the test, but to be fair you must have the same opportunity.
How do you get there? What policy would be instituted by the next US government that would lead to this impressive achievement?
I’m not objecting to the concept, any more than I object to “nukes all the way down” or “magical hippie mega-communes” from those other guys. But it’s the same kind of stew-recipe problem– first, you have to catch the rabbit. What’s the plan?
Re #372 zebra said Wuh?
Feudal. :-)
What a nincompoop.
FYI, the closest thing to feudal we have is what we have, which is what you are slavering over, ya maroon.
Now, since you’ve never seen my governance model, please shut up about it. You’re making yourself look like an assumptive mental midget. Be advised, it’s tied absolutely to resources. You know, that whole resource-based economy thing, except not some ridiculous keep-my-lattes-coming hybrid, but the real thing: Work with what you got, not what you wish you could have.
The governance itself would make feudalism impossible, so for you to call it feudalism is just this side of completely moronic. Ah, that’s right, you have zero awareness of the model.
Finally, oh virulent one, if you think sustainability can be cookie cuttered, you’ve zero right to be speaking on this issue at all, let alone casting judgment and aspersions on others. I’ve done more to forward the world into sustainability than you can even dream. The ripples from what I have already laid down will expand exponentially. When you teach people to fish, they teach others. People like me are the solution. You? I’ve yet to see you make a single useful contribution to this site. I expect I never will.
373 SecularAnimist’s reference is discussed in
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-gird-renewables-key-cutting-emissions-19953
The problem is “in addition to some natural gas power plants”. Same old same old cheating. Not really a plan to eliminate CO2 production. It is really a plan to continue burning a fossil fuel, natural gas.
zebra wrote: “How do you get there? What policy would be instituted by the next US government that would lead to this impressive achievement?”
I have a suggestion.
Read the study.
Edward Greisch of course won’t read it, because as his responses make clear, he is not interested in learning anything about what is actually happening in the real world with solar and wind and new grid technology. He is only interested in denigrating, disparaging and attacking solar and wind energy because he sees them as “Public Enemy Number One” because they eliminate any need to expand nuclear power.
How about you? Will you actually READ the study? Or do you prefer to launch into a discussion based on presumptions, assumptions and guesses?
Killian sez:
“You start with local food, local energy, local autonomy, local governance.”
and: “Work with what you got, not what you wish you could have.”
and: “I’ve done more to forward the world into sustainability than you can even dream.”
So how’s that working out in Michigan, K? Teaching those folks in Flint how to fish in their local river? Or are you teaching them to quit wishing for local water?
You are FAR from the “solution”, K – as zebra is saying, you have proffered no plan to achieve your buzzwords, you simply keep repeating meaningless screeds about your superiority.Show your work. Show us how you’ve improved Detroits “sustainability”.
Oops.
High basal melting forming a channel at the grounding line of Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica
Authors
Oliver J. Marsh, Helen A. Fricker, Matthew R. Siegfried, Knut Christianson, Keith W. Nicholls, Hugh F. J. Corr, Ginny Catania
First published: 14 January 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2015GL066612
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066612/abstract
Abstract
Antarctica’s ice shelves are thinning at an increasing rate, affecting their buttressing ability. Channels in the ice shelf base unevenly distribute melting, and their evolution provides insight into changing subglacial and oceanic conditions. Here we used phase-sensitive radar measurements to estimate basal melt rates in a channel beneath the currently stable Ross Ice Shelf.
Melt rates of 22.2 ± 0.2 m a−1 (>2500% the overall background rate) were observed 1.7 km seaward of Mercer/Whillans Ice Stream grounding line, close to where subglacial water discharge is expected. Laser altimetry shows a corresponding, steadily deepening surface channel.
Two relict channels to the north suggest recent subglacial drainage reorganization beneath Whillans Ice Stream approximately coincident with the shutdown of Kamb Ice Stream. This rapid channel formation implies that shifts in subglacial hydrology may impact ice shelf stability.
________________
(para. breaks added for online readability — hr)
Re- Comment by Edward Greisch — 26 Jan 2016 @ 7:13 AM, ~#376
Ed, your comment- “technology we don’t have and may not [probably won’t] have. Example: A switch that can turn off this million volt DC grid repeatedly,” along with a previous comment about how variable or low power wind generators can’t be voltage and phase matched to the grid suggest that your vaunted engineering degree is getting a little long in the tooth. Steve
Thanx for the link to MacDonald(2016) doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2921 on the integration of wind and solar generation into the grids in the USA. It has figures and references on required transmission, which i was particularly looking for.
In this connection, the Supreme Court has just upheld a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling incentivizing demand side management; this will make the task described in Macdonald quite a bit easier (MacDonald did not consider demand response)
sidd
380 SecularAnimist: It is a bit hard to read something that is not available. As I said before, it is paywalled. So sorry, but I don’t have $200 to buy the article and interlibrary borrowing it would take a couple of weeks. By then, you will no longer be interested.
380 SecularAnimist: I see that you read only the abstract. SecularAnimist did not read the whole paper. If SecularAnimist had read the whole paper or the article at Climate Central, SecularAnimist would know about the natural gas fired power plants that the plan includes.
We’re getting kind of peeves around here these days. Unfortunate.
I will admit, though, that Ed’s inversion of the quantitative results of the NOAA study–thanks for linking that, SA–and statement that he doesn’t want to ‘pay for anything until it works’ make me feel a tad peevish myself. (Would you say that, Ed, if the ‘thing’ were, say, a new Gen IV reactor design?)
So, Hank, thanks for your link, too, depressing though its news might be.
#381 flxible
Another mouth that roared. As stated, I taught and or created the the opportunity to be taught how to design sustainable systems. Some of those people are teaching others. Some of them are simply making their own conditions more sustainable. You? You don’t even know what the word means.
Now, since you also never have anything germane to say, simply shut your mouth. We already know you to be a fool, no need to keep proving it.
Now, since you said nothing germane, there is nothing else to respond to. Some of us learn and teach and share and analyze and understand. Some of us are just online mouths. That is you.
404.08 on Jan. 25.
Yay.
Re: #380 SecularAnimist said zebra wrote: “How do you get there? What policy would be instituted by the next US government that would lead to this impressive achievement?”
I have a suggestion.
Read the study.
…How about you? Will you actually READ the study? Or do you prefer to launch into a discussion based on presumptions, assumptions and guesses
Given he is a troll, no, he won’t. However, the question is moot. His and yours. If one seeks greater efficiency only, then by all means keep sucking at the teat of gov’t and business. Both love efficiency, though the former in name only, and the latter in the name of profit only. Sustainable systems, however, are not built on efficiency, but on resilience. Resilience has been shown in genetics and systems to be the key to longer survival, and resilience is a combination of efficiency and robustness. This combination called antifragile by Nassim Taleb, which is cool cross-discipline evidence supporting the idea of resilience vs. efficiency.
This study does not matter because it is measuring nothing to do with sustainable systems. You may as well measure the nature of proverbial elephant blindfolded and checking out only its trunk. If one seeks to now what is needed, again, one must first determine what can be supported, not what one wishes one could support. Governments and businesses do not deal in this reality-based question. They default to growth with the former having come to assume growth equals economic activity, and is necessary, and the latter assuming profit is the only driver of economic activity. How can they be expected to properly assess anything related to sustainability? Is this not why they label, unabashedly, unsustainable energy generators sustainable systems? Both solar and wind are made with limited resources, in factories made of unsustainable resources, powered by unsustainable resources, shipped via unsustainable resources, and used by people living unsustainably.
That is, your entire discussion is moot because you should be asking different questions before bothering with this conversation at all. Cart before the horse.
The question is not can we convert to renewables large scale, but is can we make a sustainable grid at all? (We can’t.) And, *do we need one?* And, if we do, at what scale?
Do read the linked info. Just don’t mistake it for something that has anything whatsoever to do with a sustainable energy system.
@Secular Animist 368,
It’s a trifecta!
The reason I am not going to “read the study” is because it has nothing to do with my question. It’s just about you and your co-dependency with EG, rehashing the same old arguments, which is why the moderators are unfortunately not keen on the mitigation topic.
I said that I am not taking a position on the future scenarios you guys keep touting, even Killian’s delusions. I will stipulate that any of them would reduce CO2 emissions and everyone would be in a state of bliss once they are achieved. Now, stop telling me your favorite recipe, and tell me how to catch the rabbit.
I’ve given an example of a policy that a rational, concerned US government could implement, which I think leads to my -topia. If you can’t provide something along those lines, you are part of the problem not part of the solution. Everything I’m reading on the science side is telling me wasted time is not our friend.
[And of course, for the nitpickers– my rabbit is that “rational concerned government”. But that would be the first step for anyone, and you have to run on some kind of policy.]
@#390: “rational concerned government” is indeed the rabbit we’d all like to see jump out of the hat. Unfortunately, as has recently been amply proven for any who still doubt it, national policy is dictated much more dominantly by the powerful interests of the richest .1%. That .1% may be rational and concerned in a sense, but it is the rationality of ever-further self-aggrandizement concerned only for their own increased profits. In spite of what some have supposed, it turns out that the self interest of the most successful accumulators in a system based on greed does not result in the best outcome for all.
per MLO
Daily snapshot
Jan 26 2016 CO2 level 403.69
Jan 26 2015 CO2 level 399.93
Increase of 3.76 ppm in a year.
Monthly snapshot
Dec 2015 CO2 level 401.85
Dec 2014 CO2 level 398.85
increase of 3.00 ppm for the month. Nice round number.
Going the wrong direction and picking up speed.
still have not found anything like the CO2 website
https://www.co2.earth/
that compiles and presents the CH4 data in a way that a lay person can wrap their head around. Probably does not matter because we are doing a bang-up job of cranking up the CO2 level and CH4 is icing on the cake.
@wili 391,
Here you must be careful about your language, and not allow the brainwashing efforts of that very .1% to distort your thinking.
As I have pointed out more than once above, “rational self interest” only works to optimize resource allocation in an actual “free market”, where buyers and sellers have roughly equal market power.
That’s not what we have, although those .1% have co-opted the terminology to their own ends.
Only government can maintain a (real) free market by vigorous intervention against anti-competitive practices. That is clearly not the case when the economic actors are, as you say, effectively the government.
There’s nothing wrong with greed in the scenario I’ve proposed for electricity generation. Greed actually is good; some people will invest in wind farms, and some people will invest in nuclear plants, and so on, and some of each will go bankrupt if their “engineers” have not done the math well. From that process, we will get the best mix of non-FF electricity (and end use) for the consumer.
So, if you are writing the platform for someone to run for (rational concerned) President or Congress, what do you think would work best as a campaign promise? The terrible trio here, each with some grandiose end result in mind, refuses to tell us their plans. I would not vote for any of them.
Ahhh Killian, your frustration is overwhelming you. Your claim that you’ve “taught” a handful of your fellow travelers your Natural Philosophy fantasies surely is wonderful, but still you’ve not shown your work concerning how we are to get another several billion folks on board, and how your philosophical approach can possibly feed and house those masses in even a minimal way where those masses live, and how your theories are working in practice . . . . I certainly am glad my parents had the foresight to vacate Detroit over half a century ago when it became obvious that its very existence was unsustainable.
Re: MacDonald(2016)
a) I find the cost estimate for PV in Supplementary table 3 to be too high. The lowest figure for PV is $1.29/watt, but current panels are far cheaper. (The efficiency is taken as 19.3%, which is reasonable.) A lower price for PV would make the comparisons more attractive.
b) I have mentioned that demand response is not included,but nor is a carbon price, or other incentive. Further, hydro is not considered dispatchable for load balancing (for somewhat justifiable reasons), neither is pumped (or battery, or other) storage. In this context, there is a nice paper from 2012 , “An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States,” available from DOE, which estimates an additional 12 GW dispatchable hydro potential.
In this light, the estimates in the subject paper may actually be pessimistic, we can do better. For an illustration of the generation mix:
“includes 523 gigawatts (GW) of wind … 371 GW of solar PV, 461 GW of natural gas, 100 GW of nuclear, and 74 GW of hydroelectric, for a total of 1,529 GW installed capacity … . Compared with 2012 that represents a total increase in capacity of 31%. Natural gas capacity falls by 25 GW, whereas wind and solar PV rise by 463 GW (a factor of eight) and 368 GW (a factor of 62) respectively …”
The 31% increase in installed capacity is much smaller than called for in the Jacobson plan, because of retention of natgas generation.
“The land taken out of its current uses and converted into power production is 6,570 km^2 (460 km^2 for wind and 6,110^km 2 for solar PV), or 0.08% of the contiguous US. The HVDC transmission network provides the access to these distant areas at a share of 4% of the cost of the electricity. A further benefit from this scenario is a significant drop of 65% in water consumption for electricity generation relative to 2012, predominantly because fewer steam turbines and cooling towers are needed [30].”
The proposed HVDC grid connects 32 nodes with 12GW (2x6GW) HVDC lines. For those wishing to look at the tech, ABB and Siemens have chapter and verse, and pointers to operational HVDC lines of up to 8 GW.
Coal is completely retired in this projection, and fossil CO2 out reduced to 30% of 1990 levels, with LCOE of 0.086 US$/KWH.
sidd
Inbound chickens detected, coming home to roost:
Public Release: 27-Jan-2016
Mercury levels in rainfall are rising in parts of North America, study finds
Positive trends in central regions are consistent with increased mercury emissions in Asia and long-distance transport in the upper atmosphere
University of California – Santa Cruz
#372 zebra said !@Killian 369,
This is indeed the last call: “However, you start with local food, local energy…”
No. You start with a policy that will get you from where we are now to where you want to be.
An analogy: The Road Trip
Dude I: Whoa! Where we goin’, Dude II?
Dude II: Dude, I don’t know. All we need is a vehicle and to go. We will magically end up where we are heading.
Dude I: Right on! (Attempts to think…) Uh. Right. But didn’t we need to go somewhere for some reason? It’s all hazy, man.
Dude II: Oh, yeah. Right on! But don’t worry about it. We’ll probably remember later.
Dude I: ExACTly. So, we got a car?
Dude II: Indeed. Let’s roll.
Meanwhile, the island folks await their new batteries.
You, like EG, have no idea how to achieve your goal. That’s what makes you irrelevant.
You, as previously stated, have never seen any part of my suggested pathway to sustainability. That, dear sir, makes you a liar.
Instead of pie-in-the-sky sci-fi fantasies
You, quite seriously, disgust me. Your ignorance is quite literally boundless.
try reading basic history. What you describe
Oh? What I describe? Have you read what I have described? Why, no, you clearly haven’t, so we are back to that ignorance and disgust.
without a strong government to ensure balance among the players, is feudalism, in one manifestation or another.
Hmm… so I have a specific structure of governance I suggest, that has levels, areas of responsibility, and based squarely in the sustainable management of resources, yet, you call it feudalism while never having read a word about it? When you willingly lie, it’s beyond ignorance, son. It’s stupidity and propaganda.
Not sure why you choose to propagandize against my ideas. I am beginning to think you have read them and they scare the poo out of you, being a pawn of corporatism and top-down government and neoeconomics.
You are the problem, son.
It always devolves into corruption and inefficiency
Yes, neoeconomics always does. Quite correct.
until one of your “local” entities devours all the others.
Aww… sad story. Except those “local” entities are tied quite snugly to the other entities around them and are part of the governance process through all levels, so… yeah… not so much. Competition kills any sustainable system.
Through what we in the reality-based community call “war”. Look it up.
Yes, neoecon does create war. Exactly.
And again, your ranting
I have never ranted about sustainablity. Ever. Not here, not anywhere. I have slapped a few fools like yourself around, but that’s just sport.
is only objectionable (to me at least) because you are indistinguishable from fossil fuel trolls trying to make mischief.
Says the neoeconomics troll. The market! The market! It’s all the precious market!
There is but one troll on this site, and it is you. Yet, still, to make a single germane comment.I do understand your fear: Regenerative Governance would end your fantasies once and for all.
Re #390 zebra said …tell me how to catch the rabbit.
I’ve given an example of a policy that a rational, concerned US government could implement, which I think leads to my -topia… my rabbit is that “rational concerned government”.
No, your rabbit is showing any kind of rational concerned government exists or can in your free market delusion.
Still not asking the correct questions… even of yourself. Let me help you. “Is a rational concerned government” possible under a free market economic system?
Rhetorical.
No.
The more it edges to free markets, the more irrational it becomes. Why? 2008. Both before and after, profits went into the pocket, not the economy. Even worse after.
Rich arsehats are selfish arsehats. Trickle down has been shown conclusively to be a joke. A sad joke… on all but the wealthy. Unregulated business is the epitome of irrational.
Re #394 flxible said ……
Ahhh Killian, your frustration
You mean disgust.
Your claim that you’ve “taught” a handful of your fellow travelers your Natural Philosophy
I do not teach philosophy in any way, shape or form. I teach design.
you’ve not shown your work concerning how we are to get another several billion folks on board
Actually, I have. Repeatedly. Do try to keep up.
and how your philosophical approach
What philosophical approach?
can possibly feed and house those masses in even a minimal way where those masses live
Where they live? What drugs are you on? I have never said everyone should/must/ought to stay where they are. Very much the opposite. Do try to keep up.
and how your theories are working in practice
My theories? I am not so arrogant. I don’t teach my theories. Ah, well, with regard to governance and some important, but simple tweaks to the work of others with regard to how to spread info as rapidly as possible, yes, those are my ideas. Also, focusing on risk and what is universal: Problem solving. Yep. All mine. No philosophy in any of it, though.
I certainly am glad my parents had the foresight to vacate Detroit over half a century ago when it became obvious that its very existence was unsustainable.
They and you were quite ignorant. It’s nearly perfectly located. Strike that, it is perfectly located. Has the least exposure to natural disasters of any large city in the U.S., e.g. And, because your grandparents were likely White Flighters, there’s enough space in Detroit for it to be the only sustainable large city on the planet in terms of food and water.
Thanks for adding more ignorance to the discussion, though.
BTW, I don’t live in Detroit, so not sure what you are all on about. More ignorance, I guess.
Re the latest outbreak of juvenile name-calling:
Let me say it again.
I’M BORED. PLEASE STOP.