A bimonthly thread for discussions on solutions and responses to climate change. For climate science topics, please comment on the Unforced Variations thread.
Reader Interactions
697 Responses to "Forced Responses: Dec 2018"
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @447
“Nope. Folks are expecting billions to die…… Some are thinking that the quicker they die the better….”
Well ‘some’ despicable people are expecting or even hoping billions will die, but why do you dwell on such a thing? I have noticed such thinking, but I prefer to dwell on a more optimistic framework for my own mental sanity! Saner heads do tend to prevail eventually, and for example some countries have already got policies trying to push population growth rates down in a reasonably gentle sensible way, nothing coercive.
It’s quite realistic to get population size down by year 2100, somebody posted a calculator on population. Several counties are already on track to achieve this. Then the resource scarcity issue tends to shrink in size very significantly and it will help with climate mitigation to some extent, more so over time.
So I think you are dodging the real issue of population a little, but lots of people are uncomfortable with notions of smaller population. Crickey, I’m stating to sound like Zebra.
“AB: “Absolutely no point at all (for batteries, hydrogen sucks). Biofuel needs to come from waste, not food”
Agree totally. Sorry I didn’t think of the use of waste. My country has done experiments on growing algae for biofuel which is a different thing of course to using waste, but at least it doesn’t use huge areas of potential crop land.
Well you are quite inventive the. You must be a billionaire by now :). My day job is invention, I’m a designer.
“When all forms have compromises it is highly unlikely that either form should be discarded, especially when neither form has been optimized.”
Yes there is room for multiple options side by side. And it makes sense to have biofuel / petrol blends for ice vehicles, but not so much if it comes from growing maze. It has to be from waste as you say. What frustrates me is the lack of good, cohesive government policy pushing biofuels into the right direction, especially as it doesn’t even cost significant public spending. Only governments can push efforts in the right direction.
“As you noted, non-land vehicles and the heaviest land vehicles are not terribly suited for battery storage. Just try to get a container ship across the ocean. Lots of solar cells, some kite-sails, and plenty of time…”
Yes but that will be a last resort option. This is just the human reality. Better to make them use bio diesel or something. Or thinking the unthinkable, maybe container ships could be nuclear powered. And to think once I protested in the streets against nuclear power…Getting old I suppose.
nigeljsays
So growth of electric cars in America is linear. Not surprising, given this country has such low petrol costs, such a love affair with petrol cars, and such confused climate policies. Some states have electric car subsidies, but they don’t bring price equivalence with ICE and require making tax deduction claims and there are various conditions so they are effectively made as difficult as possible. America is a terrible example for potential BEV growth.
Given car companies are fighting electric vehicles in America. or are luke warm on the idea, the only option is government policy to counter balance this surely. Government could require car companies to advertise them better, but no chance of this in America due to first amendment rights to free speech. America is a lost cause.
I’m not sure retooling plant is such an issue. We are talking engines and gear boxes, not the entire cars.
A couple of things, though I really think we’re well past tiresome on this topic.
1) I think your point about China is well, kind of backwards. The fact that the automotive fleet is smaller doesn’t mean that it will be harder to replace than in the US, but that it will in fact be easier. Until the takeoff of the Tesla Model 3 last year, the largest market for BEV sales was in fact China. (And if the multiple domestic Chinese producer can’t keep up the growth–which I doubt will be the case–then Tesla will soon be in the game to help/spur the market along: ground has already been broken on their Chinese Gigafactory.)
Combine comparable BEV sales volumes relative to the US case with a smaller incumbent ICE fleet and the conclusion seems forgone, even before you consider the greater share of so-called ‘microcars’ and highly favorable (and presumably stable!) Chinese automotive policy.
2) I ran your model out (well, basically–I used Excel with an annual growth coefficient of 1.15, which is close to a 5-year doubling time.) So actually, my numbers are a little less aggressive in terms of growth than yours are. Additionally, to account for BEV retirements, I assumed complete retirement of every BEV sold in year 16 of their lifetime.
I’ll present the results successively in separate columns, which is unwieldy to read but easy to do with the resident comment formatting. Each column represents 31 years of production, and the first is annual sales:
Compare this, which says US auto sales were “…a little over 6.3 million units in 2017, [while U.S.] light truck sales increased from about 8.7 million units in 2014 to almost 11.1 million units in 2017.” So, combining automobiles with light trucks, 17.4 million units in 2017. Let’s call it 18 million units; that benchmark would be hit in year 17, not too long after I’ve assumed BEVs start to ‘retire’.
Now for the cumulative numbers which illustrate the growth of the vehicle fleet:
The current US vehicle fleet is ~ 267 million based on registrations, which I’m assuming includes both light trucks and automobiles proper, as they use the same registration system. If that is correct, then the cumulative BEV number hits the current registration number in year 26, more or less.
3) The question remains, when is year 1? There are over 1 million ‘electric cars’–meaning plug-ins of one type or another–on US roads now, but that’s not much help here.
Tesla already sold over a quarter of a million vehicles last year, mostly in the last few months. At current levels, they could sell close to a half million next year. So, maybe 5 years to increase that to a million units sold annually? Within that time frame they will have added the Model Y (a true SUV) and the Pickup to the product line, and will also probably have the base-level Model 3 going, with its lower price tag.
Also around that time, we should be seeing more electric choices from the traditional auto makers. Word is that one of the production constraints on BEVs has been battery manufacturers being torn between selling to automakers and selling to utilities. But while that’s a supply problem today, it’s also an indicator of demand that will drive–is now driving–increased investment and subsequently, demand.
So, I’m going to guess that ‘year 1’ will be here in 5-7 years, which would put the 100% replacement year at 2042ish, and the complete fleet replacement year at 2050ish.
Optimistic, perhaps, and obviously a very simple model, but definitely in the realm of the ‘non-magical’. And yes, I would agree that implementing it is a challenge. I just think I see multiple reasons why serious efforts toward meeting may actually occur. And as I said, I think quite a few of those reasons have to do with ‘monkey behaviors’, such as greed and fear–if I may conflate emotions with behaviors for a moment–with just a dash of reasoning thrown in.
…solar plus storage… could put more than 6,400 MW of new natural gas-fired peaking capacity in the US at risk by 2027. “I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant,” says Tom Buttgenbach, CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables. “Who in their right mind today would build a new gas peaker? We are a factor of two cheaper.”
carriesays
439 Al Bundy says: “Folks do NOT reject Killian’s good thoughts”
Be nice to Killian. Realclimate is the only place on the Internet where he’s able to go on posting with this attitude, near as I can find.
Killiansays
Wrong again.
Magical Thinking: “it denotes the belief that one’s thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world”
E.g., We can build a tech future because endless substitution and *somebody* will think of something! We will find new fuels!
Stop challenging me. You will never win bc your reason for engaging is all ego and bile, causing you to make a fool of yourself.
Besides, I won’t waste more time on a bigot.
Killiansays
Re #439 Al Bundy said AB: You’re right but backwards.
Damn. He’s regressing. Already.
The issue Killian has is the same issue that I’ve spent decades trying to overcome: I was, and to a certain extent still am an ass.
You may be. I am not. I am an INTP with an over-developed sense of fairness and justice who has always had a deep, visceral response to lying.
You and I are not the same animal. I can post science-based posts and month after month they get no or virtually no response. I post about regenerative issues, point out FACTS and/or well-considered and supported analysis and/or opinions wrt economics, climate, etc., etc., that are not mainstream and get nothing but shit from the usual suspects. (Thankfully, that has dwindled to a few; minus you and nigel, and of late, BPL again, it would be pretty goddamned quiet here.)
Folks do NOT reject Killian’s good thoughts;
Who supports them besides Carrie and Nemesis and somewhat a couple others? Everybody else either just ignores what I say or outright denigrates it.
they don’t swallow them whole and they have questions
Right. That’s why the rudeness, dismissiveness, snide comments, etc? The gaslighting is a constant fixture here. You’re right back at it with this post.
I wish to GOD there were questions. No, there are not, at leasst not asked in good faith. Any questions are framed within the types of comments described above. Sarcasm is not a sincere question. “Just because” is not engaging in a discussion. Even the use of “Killian’s ~~~” is used to pretend much of what I suggest isn’t supported by others, often well-known voices. Etc.
Killian rejects others’ points of view and insults pretty much everybody
Flat lie. First things first. I do not “reject” points of view. That implies I simply do not listen, and that is an obvious lie because I can explain my reasons and always do. I reason from a very different approach to problem solving than any of you. You assume my statements that you are wrong come from a refusal to consider your positions, but the reality is you’re all so far in the past you don’t realize you’ve been lapped. I am not rejecting your positions, I have already been where all of you are now. I moved past where you are, I did not simply dismiss anything. I *was* a big fan of “renewables,” e.g., and nuclear at one time, and gas until the EVIDENCE showed it was worse than coal, and on and on.
But I learned more and now support renewables only within the context of planning knowing they serve only as a bridge, e.g. Yet people say stupid crap like “You hate renewables” “You hate technology” “You’re a Luddite”, etc.
Don’t tell me I start this crap because I absolutely do not. That is a damned lie. You can go back five years and trace every single instance of animosity to one of two things: An honest misunderstanding or The Peanut Gallery. Oh, I will finish, no doubt, but I do not start it.
You admitted as much on the other thread. You said, straight up, you poke and that nigel does. Now you gaslight.
It is not and never has been my way to start trouble. You can’t handle a direct, uncouched assertion you are wrong, behind, don’t understand something – whatever it may be – the lot of you. It is constant attacks, gaslighting, childish rudeness and taunts, etc.
then uses any response to prove he’s, as BPL said, “as pure as the driven snow. It’s always the other guy’s fault.”.
Gaslighting. And you ge away with this delusion because you don’t call each other out. BPL has for many months, maybe a couple years now, been responding to my posts *only* with insults. Not one of you has said a single word, yet you have the gall to claim I’m the source.
You watch nigel employ Straw Man after Straw Man and have not one single time called him on it. Not once. Yet, he uses that device in virtually every exchange between us. Shaman? Really? Luddite? Really? Live like primitives? Really? And so many more. But you would call me out if I used one. (Interesting that virtually never happens, eh? Because I don’t use them!) Or Victor, or KIA. But never each other. So the echo chamber echoes, the groupthink goes on, the blood frenzies recur.
Do not lie in response to me. I will never let it pass.
folks generally like Victor even though they think he’s adamantly wrong.
People like Victor… Wow. I doubt he sees it that way, and I certainly never have.
Folks generally think Killian has good points to contribute but they can’t stand the delivery.
This is an immature response to any discussion. Who the hell cares who you like? What has that got to do with anything? I don’t like the way you all drone on; I don’t like the wasted effort. I don’t like the vacuousness. I don’t like the favoritism. I don’t like the rude comments and smirking, etc. But I only ask two things: Don’t be a rude little twirp and be honest. I have never and will never complain that someone disagrees with me. You cannot cut and past any support for that because it does not happen. (Yeah, this has been done before and not one single time has anyone been able to support the contention, IMO a dishonest one or projection, I start things. I think one person tried once, but it was embarrassingly weak.)
The soil is fertile
No, it is not. That is, and this is not stated to injure, but it is self-delusion. Only a couple here consider simplicity and complete system change as anything more than a joke, and that is how I am treated as a person because you cannot, collectively, dismiss ideas without dismissing the person.
I don’t care if you don’t like me, but neither should you. If you pay attention, you will see I am as direct with Carrie or Kevin or Nemesis when I think they have screwed up.
I will repeat: I spent a good 6 months showing the greatest patience to nigel, but he just never has learned he is out of his depth and gets mean and nasty when I point out he is, or his penchant for Straw Men or his outright distortions. I did not create the problem with nigel, he did. Go back. Look at the record. When I started telling him, honestly, he was not up to this level of discourse he got nastier and nastier.
But, hey, it’s me.
And you!!! The very first thing I ever remember you saying was an insult. And nothing but insults followed for a long time. The only positive comment I remember from you over the last two years was the recent “Good post” post of yours.
But I’m the cause?
Think on it. No need to address it. If any of this resonates, even a fraction, PLEASE just let our following posts NOT be like this.
Cold turkey.
Please.
alan2102says
442 Kevin McKinney, 13 Jan 2019 — “in 2021, we’ll be seeing above two million units sold globally. In 2025, maybe four. By 2030, eight or more. You can do the math; such a doubling rate would get us to 100% EV market share comfortably before 2050.”
Kevin, that sounds nice, but we have to remember that electrification of transport, even with 100% of new vehicles being EVs, involves converting a gigantic existing fleet AND it must play catch-up to a rapidly GROWING fleet. The total global fleet will be ~1.6 billion in 2040, up from ~1.1 billion today: https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/24/2017/07/bnef-ev-outlook-pr-2017-07-chart2.png
Fortunately, professionals who analyze this sector for a living, like Bloomberg (and others, e.g. J P Morgan), project much larger numbers and faster rates of growth than you did, and for that reason the replacement and catch up actually can and will occur in a reasonable time. “Reasonable”, however, does not mean “short”. The chart I linked, including the EV penetration curve, is useful to see how far the “catch up” has to go even in 2040, and even with Bloomberg’s much more favorable numbers. Long way to go! Especially when you consider that the trajectory suggests a total global fleet of ~1.8 billion by 2050 and ~2.0 billion by 2060. EVs have to catch up to a speeding train.
2060 is a reasonable BAU-type expectation for a fully-electrified transport sector, not including planes. With your numbers, rather than Bloomberg’s, I fear that it would be more like 2080 or even later.
It could happen by 2050 but that would require more-aggressive government action, and we would have to have EVs as 100% of new production much earlier than is now foreseeable. If we see a progressive surge with Bernie Sanders-like people taking the top spots in the Western world, rather than the likes of Trump and Bolsonaro, then perhaps it could happen. I don’t expect this in the near future, but it is possible. AMLO in Mexico is encouraging.
snippit:
“China will lead the transition from internal combustion engines to electric cars, with EV sales accounting for almost 50% of the global market from now to 2025 and 39% in 2030…. National, regional and municipal policies in China are all pushing the EV market forward. National subsidies are being phased out by 2020, but beginning in 2019 automakers will be forced into EVs through the ‘New Energy Vehicle’ credit system. Similar to a program in California, the system effectively acts as an EV quota, requiring automakers to generate credits through the sale of EVs. Automakers who do not sell enough EVs are forced to buy credits from competitors. This is the single most important piece of EV policy globally and is shaping automakers’ electrification plans.”
Al Bundysays
Zebra wanted an EV promotion that didn’t harm ICEs…
The base Chameleon is a wonderful NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle). It comes with two large trunks and comfortable seating for four. And even though it’s a large sedan it can be parked in small spaces.
The battery has a ten mile range, which is plenty for many trips, either round trip or one-way to a destination with a charger. For longer trips you can buy, rent, or lease a 5HP and 20HP simultaneous combined cycle multistage combustion engine package that fits in the rear trunk. You can also buy, rent, or lease a battery ranging from 50 miles to 500 miles in 50 mile increments.
Acceleration and braking are provided by two counter-rotating flywheels. The optional Sport package allows them to transfer power between the wheels, thus using gyroscopic forces to level the Chameleon during turns. The Sport package also upgrades the flywheel motor/generators and the wheel motor/generators from 121 to 242 HP each, doubling the Chameleon’s horsepower to 484HP.
Al Bundysays
K 432: Magical Thinking is planning, setting policy, etc., based on the possibility of something that does not currently exist.
BPL: No, that’s not what “magical thinking” means at all. You need to crack an intro psychology text.
AB: OK, I’ll give it a try:
Magical thinking the the belief that quantum-style forces can be brought to bear in the macroscopic world. Examples: “If everybody….” “If I hold my mind right I will be able to levitate”
Some things are hard to classify, such as “If I hold my mind right I’ll be able to cure my disease”. Not so magical since the placebo effect has been shown to work even if the patient knows the pill is sugar or cellulose. The authority figure and the ritual of pill-taking seem to help the body focus itself on the problem at hand.
Jackson, the Stanford professor, warned that every emissions scenario that meets the Paris Agreement’s 2-degree Celsius “goal” assumes that humanity will soon develop technology to remove carbon directly from the atmosphere. Such technology has never existed at industrial scales.
“Even some [of the scenarios] for 3 degrees Celsius assume that at some point in the next 50 years, we will have large-scale industrial activities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous game, I think. We’re assuming that this thing we can’t do today will somehow be possible and cheaper in the future. I believe in tech, but I don’t believe in magic.”
I asked whether he thought actual emissions would ever come close to RCP 8.5.
“It’s nuts,” he said. “But I used to think a lot of things were nuts that turned out not to be nuts.”
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
Solomon was the stereotypical wise ruler
The most famous story was of two women, each of which said she was the mother of a baby. Solomon casually decreed that the child was to be cut in two and half given to each woman. Next case!
One of the women accepted the judgement, the other threw herself at Solomon’s feet and begged him to give the baby to the other woman.
Guess who got the child.
China’s rulers are trying to build a “Solomon” via a meritocratic government. The USA’s rulers see the whole democratic process as an impediment, too.
No wonder! We’re still stuck in the 1800s, or early 1900s. Emancipation and suffrage brought some inclusion and allowed blame to be shifted to the average Joan who doesn’t have 20 hours a week to spend on political research.
And there lies the solution: not everybody should vote. Those who want to vote collect up to, say twenty proxies from friends and acquaintances.
Now you have a motivated voting public that can be educated and will have to interact with folks of all stripes at meetings.
Don’t fine people for not voting, pay people to vote. Lots of good subthreads…
Get rid of districts. Representatives should have no reason to favor one state over another. Representatives should be trying their best for the whole geography represented by the group, not the geography of a particular district.
Either fix democracy so it can compete with structured meritocracy or watch as structured metricocracy continues to undermine democracy. (Metricocracy is rule by those who have the most of an artificial metric, such as money – and yeah, I made it up.) And, as the current fiasco shows, metricocracy will lead us over the cliff while those with the metrics will jet, yacht, and chopper to…
flxiblesays
Killian @457 defines “magical thinking” correctly, but his E.g. and the way he uses the pejorative actually describes wishful thinking
Al Bundysays
Kevin,
Yep, too many uses and not enough battery production. Should we go with the worst possible bang for the buck, the long range EV, or with ever so much more emissions reduction per KWH of battery via hybrids, NEVs, and expansible NEVs?
This is a military-style issue. Too bad our military is busy fighting people instead of fixing the real problem. The Corps of Engineers should be enlarged by orders of magnitude. Send solar cells and wind turbines to stable countries, not bombs to unstable ones.
nigeljsays
Killian @458 says “You watch nigel employ Straw Man after Straw Man and have not one single time called him on it. Not once. Yet, he uses that device in virtually every exchange between us. Shaman? Really? Luddite? Really? Live like primitives? Really?”
Totally false.
I have already explained I simply used the term Shaman and Wise Person rather than community tribal leader. It was a typo, I forget the term in the quote you posted and confused things. It was of no significance, because it was the content of the quote that counted anyway, not the notation of the type of leader at the start of the quote.
I have never called you are luddite.
You spent months extolling the virtues of primitive peoples and denigrating technology.So anyone would say you are promoting primitivism.
I think humanities aim should be to maintain a high technology culture as long as possible as some others have stated. Not a profligate culture obviously we do need to be prudent, but not to your extreme extent of prudence. Smaller population will solve most of the problems, and minerals are not running out as fast as silly media scaremongering distortions claim, if you do some research.
If anyone is out of depth you are, and your ideas that humans will willingly just abandon the current socieconomic system is magical thinking.
I don’t CARE what happens after that in thousands of years time, if we totally run out of some materials. Human civilisation will not last forever, theres nothing we can do about that.
Jamessays
Sound familiar?
“Having studied at length the life, teachings, and behaviors of Jim Jones (Jonestown Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Stewart Traill (The Church of Bible Understanding), Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Joseph Di Mambro (The Order of the Solar Temple aka Ordre du Temple Solaire), Marshall Heff Applewhit (Heaven’s Gate), Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneesh Movement), and Warren Jeffs (polygamist leader), what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic. They all have or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features.”
Perhaps it will be named Trump Narcissistic Personality Syndrome. And though oftentimes these leaders are aware that they are using and manipulating others, just as often their narcissism has blinded even themselves and prevents them from seeing things in a another’s way. The crucial thing here is, there is often a kernel of obvious, yet ignored by the masses, truth in the cult leader’s lingo, and he, and it usually is a he, knows it and uses this obviousness to his advantage. “Clearly, I understand things better, therefore I am special. Follow me.” Our job, then, is to be able to objectively recognize and pick out the nugget of truth from the majority of shite (which is tossed), rather than the usual throwing out of the baby with the bath water. Perhaps with such a strategy we can build a compendium of nuggets from many disparate people through the ages to help inform our own judgments.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy, I posted decent a response on the biofuels issue but it hasn’t appeared.
Just briefly, I agree using waste for biofuels makes a lot of sense. Another approach: We have project startups in NZ using algae for biofuels as below.
I think your expectations on sail and solar powered container ships would be a slow means of transport. Maybe they should consider nuclear power. I’m not a huge fan of nuclear power but extraordinary circumstances demand we consider all options.
nigeljsays
Killian says
“E.g., We can build a tech future because endless substitution and *somebody* will think of something! We will find new fuels!”
Nobody I have seen on this website has claimed this huge strawman of endless substitution.
I have said materials substitution is highly probable to continue, but obviously not endlessly and in a way that solves every problem. In fact it will have definite limits but the evidence suggests not for a long time, hundreds of years at least.
I have certainly never said “somebody will think of something”.
All I have ever said is its reasonable to expect we can innovate some more yet. All the evidence points that way. Why would innovation completely stop tomorrow?
I have always said we should continue with a technology based culture but 1) accept the inevitability of steady state economic growth 2) be moderately prudent in the use of technology and underlying resources and 3) get population growth to stop and fall. What is wrong with that? Nothing of course, yet people like Killian and Carrie attack me personally over it. God knows why.
I had this stuff figured out 30 years ago.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @463
Direct air capture technology does exist and at realistic prices:
However we would obviously need millions of these things and god only knows if that would be feasible. Possibly, but at very considerable cost to the global economy so crowding out other things.
Of course because we have so many Ayn Rand inspired political forces working against both climate science and renewable energy, we will probably be forced to try it eventually.
Soil sinks have potential to sequester carbon, but not magical potential if you read the peer reviewed research. There are questions and caveats by the dozen.
I’m not attempting to push one thing or the other here, just highlighting some of the issues I have come across.
nigeljsays
I would more properly say we should accept the inevitability and necessity of a steady state “economy”. Even then parts of the economy that are not resource intensive could grow.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @464, Solomon, benevolent dictators, democracy. I agree totally, especially with the last paragraph. However I’m one of those moneyed people so I do get a bit annoyed when people generalise about moneyed people, although to your credit you dont appear to do this.
Solomon was shrewd and fair minded. The trouble with benevolent dictators with brains is they are rare, and if they loose their marbles or develop gout they take it out on the whole population, and its near impossible to get rid of them! Robert Mugabe was more or less a dictator, and dear lord what a disaster.
So China is lucky currently with Xi JinPing, provided one can put up with very limited human rights and a surveillance state. Not my preference.
New Zealand (the smartest little country in the world) does have electoral districts, but has eliminated most of the problems this can bring by adopting mixed member proportional representation. I believe Australia has single transferable vote, which is arguably better still. I know James Hansen has promoted the later. So this is one solution that might help in America.
nigeljsays
James @468, oh good, at last someone else has it figured out.
mikesays
Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets
“Our conclusions support the existence of a car-
bon bubble that, if not deflated early, could lead to a discounted
global wealth loss of US$1–4 trillion, a loss comparable to the 2008 financial crisis. Further economic damage from a potential bubble
burst could be avoided by decarbonizing early.”
“The transition period to a low-carbon world is likely to take 40 to 60 years, even if it started today. This results from the long life of energy-producing and -consuming capital stock, and the long lead time required to develop, refine, and phase in new carbon-free technologies. Every carbon emission control study must come to grips with this fact.” …..
“Several common themes emerge from a review of the cost of control projections for the short-to-intermediate term. First, if the emissions target requires moving faster than the natural rate of capital stock turnover and technology development, significant additional adjustment costs are likely to be incurred. Second, recycling the revenues obtained from carbon taxation in a way that reduces less efficient ways of raising government revenues can signifi-
cantly reduce the net cost of the control program. Third, if some major carbon emitters fail to participate in the control program, the downward pressure on oil prices and the supply of carbon-intensive goods in the participating countries will cause increases in carbon emissions by non-participants relative to
their baseline levels, somewhat offsetting any gains.
Studies of the cost of controlling carbon emissions show that incremental reductions in allowable emissions cost more as the absolute level of allowed emissions in any particular year is reduced. This finding is especially true in the short- and intermediate-run, up to about 2040, before old fossil-fuel based energy producing and consuming equipment can be fully retired and new carbon-free technologies can be fully introduced. For example, in EMF 12 the
cost of stabilizing U.S. carbon emissions (reducing them an average of 30 percent relative to the no control baseline) ranged from .2–.75 percent of GDP in 2010, while the cost of reducing emissions by 20 percent in that year (or an additional 15 percent relative to baseline emissions on average) range from .9–1.7 percent of GDP. In other words, a 20 percent additional reduction in emissions relative to 1990 levels (and, on average, a 15 percent reduction
relative to 2010 baseline emissions) could more than double the cost.”
Mike says: decarbonizing the global economy is going to be very costly. I expect some nationstates will make good faith efforts to reduce carbon emissions and it is likely that some nationstates will take advantage of falling fossil fuel prices and increase their emissions as other countries expend considerable resources to moving away from fossil fuels. The US is likely to swing back and forth between good faith efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and doubling down on fossil fuel production and consumption every time there is a watershed election that switches control between the Democrats and Republicans.
Difficulties will arise in securing global cooperation on decarbonization producing more tragedy of the commons through a variant of the prisoner’s dilemma.
I think it is easy to fine studies and news items that indicate that decarbonization of the global economy does not have to wreak havoc, but I don’t see any of them spelling out how we will secure global cooperation and overcome the fiscal pain of stranded assets (the carbon bubble) and prevent the exploitation/liquidation of these stranded assets as their value decreases. A reasonable first step toward global cooperation in decarbonization would be to seek an end to exploration for new fossil fuel reserves. Does anyone see that happening? I see Canada trying to monetize tar sands and the US fracking shale structures to increase production and exports/explorts.
New term proposal: Explorts – A fundamentally exploitational commodity that is produced for export.
Cheers,
Mike
Al Bundysays
Nigel: I think your expectations on sail and solar powered container ships would be a slow means of transport. Maybe they should consider nuclear power. I’m not a huge fan of nuclear power but extraordinary circumstances demand we consider all options.
AB: I have no such expectations. Kite sails and solar could augment biofuels, but few such applications would do away with biofuels entirely. And I think we should name the first nuclear cargo ship the Titanic II. Remember when folks were spray painting, “Hell no, we won’t glow!”? Should we have inverted their defacing by prefacing it with, “Is nuclear power dangerous?”? :-)
On soil sinks as related to farming, I’d say Scott Strough is the local expert. He’s rather confident that we can sequester an incredible (magical?) amount of carbon by mimicking nature. You want beef? It needs to walk in herds so as to simulate bison or other herd animals. There’s a guy in Africa, I think, who’s using such simulations to rebuild degraded areas that were turning to desert.
On resolutions: Man, people are so hard wired to satisfy immediate gratification when the amygdala demands, that they’ll do things that will make them feel bad for days or weeks whenever they think of the incident.
Al Bundysays
439 Al Bundy says: “Folks do NOT reject Killian’s good thoughts”
KillianCarriesAsockPuppet: I call bullshit on that belief.
AB: Well, lets see if we can either prove the belief or cause it to come into being. (Now I’ve got something to watch as it evolves…)
nigeljsays
Mike @475
Good cut and paste.
“For example, in EMF 12 the cost of stabilizing U.S. carbon emissions (reducing them an average of 30 percent relative to the no control baseline) ranged from .2–.75 percent of GDP in 2010, while the cost of reducing emissions by 20 percent in that year (or an additional 15 percent relative to baseline emissions on average) range from .9–1.7 percent of GDP. ”
“Mike says: decarbonizing the global economy is going to be very costly. ”
The numbers you have just quoted are not very costly if you look at the greater scheme of things. Costly, but not very costly. They are less than Americas military spending per year (which is around 4% of gdp) and considerably less than spending on old age entitlements, for example which is nearer 5% of gdp.
Filling up websites with rhetoric about how costly things are and general pessimism about what we can do, feeds the denialists. It makes you sound exactly like a lukewarmer / denialist although I know you aren’t. I hope you arent anyway. See how easy it is to be missinterpreted?
Agree with all the rest. Americas policies are now swinging radically from one election cycle to the next. It’s out of control, like a car spinning on a bendy road.
Al Bundysays
Nigel: You must be a billionaire by now :). My day job is invention, I’m a designer.
AB: Naw, inventors don’t get paid until long after they’ve finished inventing. I get about $300US a month from the Canadian government as a survivor’s pension. (My wife was a paramedic on Vancouver Island. Islands are grand, eh? ) Most of that $300 goes to expenses such as materials and filing fees. (An interesting fight. Capitalists have all the money in the world and I’ve got my mind. Hubris and ego and all that stuff might apply, but I think I’ll win.)
A “designer”? Such a wide category. Care to zoom in?
Killiansays
Nope, people won’t! Or *will* they…? Enquiring minds…
;-)
From a twitter comment. See link:
Our new study in @Nature shows majority support for #CarbonPrice among English speakers in Australia, India, South Africa, UK and USA. Highest support when revenues are spent on climate mitigation or #ClimateDividend. https://t.co/deB7FRpgjQhttps://t.co/aTY5iyxUhA
Killiansays
470
nigelj said Killian says
“E.g., We can build a tech future because endless substitution and *somebody* will think of something! We will find new fuels!”
Nobody I have seen on this website has claimed this huge strawman of endless substitution.
It is instructive you believe this to be true when there are maybe 3 posters who do not claim this. Note: One need not say verbatim what is inferrable from their statements/suggestions, etc.
Killiansays
Killian and Carrie attack me personally over it.
This is false. Lie? Delusion? Straw Man? Regardless, false. I have never done so and don’t recall Carrie ever doing so.
You will cut and paste or have the strength of character to stop lying about our characters. You are attacking character, not content.
I *do* call you out on your lack of chops on these issues, for lying so many times it is impossible to keep track, etc., but never for your opinion.
Yiu know this. If you don’t, that’s truly frightening as it shoes an utter lack if self-awareness – or is it language ability? (You iften appear to misunderstand/misinterpret what you read.)
Please put some time into understanding a Straw Man is a lie. Calling Big Man a shaman is a lie. Saying people will not go back to “primitive lives” is a lie by implication/a Straw Man/i tentionally pejorative association. These are only the most eaily remembered, but only a few from a long list.
You have no such list. You cannot support any of your assertions of being attacked, etc.
Instructive you continue to choose prevarication to reconciliation and good work.
Killiansays
Re #465 flxible says:
15 Jan 2019 at 2:46 PM
Killian @457 defines “magical thinking” correctly
Careful, you’ll blow a few fuses around here…
but his E.g. and the way he uses the pejorative actually describes wishful thinking
Ah, but it doesnt. Wishful thinking applies to what one dreams of but does not think of as realistically possible. Capitalists especially and the vast majority of OECD residents fully expect science/b8z to find solutions, primarily through innovation and efficiency gains.
Okay, since people here are apparently too damn lazy to use Google, I’ll do it for you.
“Magical thinking is the belief that one’s own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. It is common in very young children. A four-year-old child, for example, might believe that after wishing for a pony, one will appear at his or her house.”
zebrasays
Kevin McKinney and alan2102,
Kevin, alan got my point about China and the growing total vehicle fleet; you seem to have interpreted what I said backwards
Alan, not to get all Victor-eyebally, but the curve you present looks an awful lot like what I suggested to Kevin earlier, which is the initial phase of a logistic function. In fact, since it gives actual numbers, it isn’t just eyeball, and your “full electrification by 2060” makes no sense as an extrapolation. Can you explain how you get that?
What I see is that we are approaching the linear part of the transition; certainly in the USA production numbers. Kevin, the point of my simple model was that your expectation is unrealistic, because you would have to increase production massively on a yearly basis. Much as I love the Musk and Tesla dynamic, I don’t see tent-factories driven by an obsessive genius springing up throughout the land.
And, alan, I don’t see (or want to see) the US ending up like China. In fact, what’s more likely here is to have a dictatorial, racist, repressive, regime just like theirs, but run by the fossil fuel oligarchs.
Killiansays
You spent months
Years.
extolling the virtues of primitive people
Have never done so. Why do you respond to things you cannot understand?
Let me say this again: I have *pointed out*, not extolled (for christ fucking sake read up on INTP personality) rates of incidences of mental illness and pscopathy and *why*, but have necee extolled a single goddamned thing. (And there are reasons why.)
I have talked extensively of exemplars in terms of principles of *design* and of patterns. I have spoken of applying those to our modern situation and have repeatedly and specifically said we need NOT go back to primitive lives.
This seems to be well beyond your ability to sort. Or you lie again.
Not only do I not do so unfairly, I don’t in any way. I point out the faults and effects. I point out the negative effects. I have?stated many times I *love* technology. But, I am massively realist, utterly logical and have taken to heart and assimilated the principle: Do not impose design, let it emerge.
Translation: Observe, analyze, see what IS, design according to that.
After two years, you still interpret this as “denigrate.” Or, yet another Straw Man/Lie?
Sad for you and all who read your words and think them germane.
So anyone would say you are promoting primitivism.
No, you and a small handful of others here and there over the years – all of you BAUers ignorant of permaculture. (And deniers. Great company, eh, Laodicea?)
Killiansays
Re #63 Al Bundy said “Even some [of the scenarios] for 3 degrees Celsius assume that at some point in the next 50 years, we will have large-scale industrial activities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous game, I think. We’re assuming that this thing we can’t do today will somehow be possible and cheaper in the future. I believe in tech, but I don’t believe in magic.”
Nah. That’s not a comment supportive of simplicity…
2015–Direct Air Capture [DAC], up and running: check
2017–Air to Fuel [A2F], up and running: check
2018–Commercial validation underway: check
2021–Commercial deployment: coming soon to a location near you?*
*If you’re in California or British Columbia.
CE envisions building individual facilities with a capacity of 2000 barrels per day, and deploying first projects in leading markets such as British Columbia and California where existing Low Carbon Fuel Standards favour clean fuels such as CE’s.
Assuming that the Canadian national carbon tax standard now in force survives the legal and political challenges reactionaries are posing, I’d think that the potential market for CE’s fuels would be Canada-wide. (That would mean a market of something like 1.6 Californias–the more southerly CA now being equivalent to the world’s 5th-largest economy, while the northern one is only 10th-largest (nominal).)
Individual DAC plants can be placed in any country and in multiple climates, and can be built to capture one million tons of CO2 per year. At this large scale, our technology will be able to achieve costs of $100-150 USD per ton of CO₂ captured, purified, and compressed to 150 bar.
If we peg world CO2 emissions at ~40,000 mt, then we’d need 40,000 such plants to achieve carbon-neutrality with no other actions taken. That’s about 2/3 the number of extant power plants globally, according to this. That’s actually a better situation than I thought it might be, but still points up that, as one of CE’s chief officers said, this is not a ‘silver bullet.’
As far as costs go, if we’re going to assume 40,000 of these puppies, we should assume at least the low end cost of $100/ton. So, $100 x 1 million tons x 40,000 plants = $4 trillion.
(If I haven’t slipped a decimal somewhere along this train of thought, which I am embarrassingly prone to do.)
Actually, once again that is very large, but still not as bad as I intuitively thought it might be. Going back to the California GDP of ~$2.7 tn/yr plus the Canadian GDP of ~1.7 I alluded to in my comment above, if you could somehow devote all of those two economies’ output to DAC for a year, that would theoretically cover the bill.
World GDP per the IMF in 2018 was put at ~$85 tn, so that would be just shy of 5%. Given that you’d inherently be amortizing that over probably a couple of decades, call it 0.25% of global GDP per year. That’s just a tad more 1/10 what the world spends on ‘defense’ (~2.2%).
Wow. A lot closer to ‘silver’ than I would have thought when I started this exercise–though I recognize that this is all very ‘back of the envelope.’ It suggests that, were humanity rational, all that would be required to be carbon neutral by, say, 2045 would be the recognition of climate change as a security threat equal to or greater than ‘traditional’ enemies.
(Please critique! I’d really like to know of errors in framing, mechanics, or anything else in this train of thought. I expect them to exist.)
mikesays
Some will say that the cost of decarbonizing global economies is going to be huge, gobsmackingly huge. We can expect that folks with good common sense about economics and and the dangers of spending will criticize attempts to push public policy like the Green New Deal for the huge, gobsmackingly huge financial outlay that it truly is.
Of course, I think we should shoulder the huge, gobsmackingly huge, cost of decarbonizing the global economy even if it means we might not have money for other urgent enterprises. For the US, I think the cost of decarbonization is about 1/2 the cost that we incur for our ongoing wars each year.
Here is how the Republican talking point folks explain the cost of decarbonizing the economy:
I rhink the Heartland Institute is right about the huge cost of decarbonization, but probably wrong about the costs of failing to decarbonize our economies and societies.
CSM has a pretty balanced article about the costs of decarbonizing or not here:
I have hopes that the Green New Deal will continue to gain traction and have political power in the 2020 US election cycle. It will be described as huge, gobsmackingly huge by the Republicans. I think that is correct. I think the cost is huge and I think we have to pay it. As Bucky Fuller said, we can afford to do anything we have to do. Bucky was a big thinker, but I think he was weak on classical economics.
Cheers
Mike
Al Bundysays
Nigel: So I think you are dodging the real issue of population a little,
AB: The key is preventing childbirth until prospective parents both have experience in childrearing and their minds are fully formed, which occurs around 25.
Offer all kids a boon at age 25, say education or a down payment or help building a business. The boons should be linked to education and mentorship.
Mentorship extends to pregnancy and raising a kid. You want the boon at 25? You get to be a helper first. Thus, your “first child” isn’t your own.
After 25, procreation limited only by wisdom and knowledge begins. Compare and contrast to the current system, which points accusing fingers at the most irresponsible kids and damn near forces them to fail in a way that spreads damage through the next generation.
If you want to go scientific, after the first birth, offer a second boon if the man gets snipped and the couple’s second (and last) child, if any, is artificially sired by a prize stud, so to speak. No heart disease, high sugar tolerance, longevity, brilliance, physical prowess…. It re-mixes the gene pool and prods natural selection in the right direction.
Or, go have 17 kids starting at age 14. It’s a free world.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with eugenics except that the word has been Hitlerized to the point that folks only flash on the most despicable end of the spectrum.
alan2102says
470 nigelj 15 Jan 2019: “Why would innovation completely stop tomorrow?”
Simple: Innovation will completely stop tomorrow because our doomer/collaps-o-sphere books and websites SAY it will. Further, it MUST do so in order to precipitate the implosion of industrial civilization, Armageddon-like release of the Four Horsemen, and death of billions — as predicted with 100% certainty by such luminaries as Jay “dieoff.org” Hanson* and many others. Malthus was right! He was just a little off on the timing. Heck, what’s a mere two centuries, between friends?
…………..
* A guy who memorably remarked, in 2001, on the absurdity of the notion that cars and trucks could be run on renewables: “only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc.” — dieoff.org/synopsis.htm (still there, unedited, as of now, 2019!). For guys like Hanson, and Malthus, innovation and technical progress are impossible; never mind the history of the last several centuries.
alan2102says
487 zebra 16 Jan 2019:
“your “full electrification by 2060” makes no sense as an extrapolation. Can you explain how you get that?”
Simple arithmetic, based on figures given for explosive growth of production, from Bloomberg. You can do it in your head; not hard; e.g. what is 50 million/year x 25 years (not counting hundreds of millions produced UP TO that point)? And btw I meant approximately 2060; of course there are wildcards that can’t be accounted for and no one can predict accurately that far out.
“Much as I love the Musk and Tesla dynamic, I don’t see tent-factories driven by an obsessive genius springing up throughout the land.”
Not driven by an “obsessive genius” (straw man), but by necessity and economic advantage, as well as environmental awareness. Gigafactories going up in FOUR MONTHS?! Yes, it is happening. Just watch.
“I don’t see (or want to see) the US ending up like China. In fact, what’s more likely here is to have a dictatorial, racist, repressive, regime just like theirs, but run by the fossil fuel oligarchs.”
China is not a particularly dictatorial, racist, or repressive regime. Most of what you think you know about China is derived from a lying CIA-influenced mainstream media with a Sinophobic, racist, fascist agenda. Just to take one small example: the Tiananmen “massacre” never happened. That’s right, never happened. It was a lie. I can provide documentation if you wish. That’s just one big lie, of hundreds. This has been going on for many decades. Hence you (and I, and everyone in these parts) are STEEPED in lies, and have been from birth, and those lies are what ultimately ramify in popular attitudes such as the one you just expressed (“repressive regime”). It takes years, and a lot of effort, to get past the lies.
I agree that we are likely to see something like that HERE, however. We are already moving in that direction.
flxiblesays
BPL: “Magical thinking is the belief that one[’]s own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world …”
Killian: Magical Thinking: “it denotes the belief that one[’]s thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world”
there is NO difference here, including the typos :)
BPL: No, he does not, and neither do you if you think that’s it. Will you for Christ’s freaking sake CRACK A BOOK?
Calm down Bart, as it happens I have a degree in psychology and have cracked more books than you’ve Googled
OTOH, “Wishful thinking applies to what one dreams of but does not think of as realistically possible.” is incorrect – wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.That is, one ignores any other realistic possibility.
Al Bundysays
Killian: The only positive comment I remember from you over the last two years was the recent “Good post” post of yours.
AB: You’re a smart guy. You know that when a mammal behaves in a way that you want it to act in the future your wise choice is to reinforce the behavior. Thus, it seems that your internal goal is to “correct” my current non-abusive behavior. Thus, it appears that you get some internal boon from fighting.
Or are you acting counter-productively? (Yep, it’s tough to shed a grudge)
And remember, I freely admit that I was a total jerk when I came here. Heck, I’ve changed my handle several times so as to try to reinvent myself in a better form. I think I’ve done well.
nigeljsays
AlBundy @479, I don’t wish to zoom in here, but leave an email address if you want and we can talk.
nigeljsays
Killian @481,
“One need not say verbatim what is inferrable from their statements/suggestions, etc. ”
Your “inferences” are just your subjective opinion. You are effectively shoving words in peoples mouths. Ask them what they really think.
Killian @482,
“I *do* call you out on your lack of chops on these issues, for lying so many times it is impossible to keep track, etc., but never for your opinion.”
False. I have plenty of knowledge of all these issues. You have called me every name imaginable, precisely over opinions I have posted. For example, you didn’t like my opinions on sea level rise so you called me a fool. Its interesting that the latest research I posted on UV near the start of the thread, supports my view far more than yours.
Regarding ‘honesty’, take a look in a mirror.
“You are attacking character, not content.”
Totally false. I don’t call you names, or impugn character, although frankly you deserve it. I state facts, and confine my remarks to content and all we get from you in return is personal attacks and empty rhetoric.
Killian @ 488
“extolling the virtues of primitive people”
“never have”
You are spending time arguing about the difference between extolled and pointing out? Nit picking time wasting pedantry that totally misses the point. Tedious to the point of being far worse than Victor. Victor has been boreholed over nit picking over language, so you should be to.
It is not accurate either for you to deny to deny that you extol the virtues of primitive peoples, because you certainly do extol the virtues of primitive peoples. You so obviously love them or at least strongly admire them, its all over this website, and there is nothing wrong with that, but its foolish denying it.
Your comments on “denigrating”, more nit picking time wasting pedantry.
That’s all you have isn’t it. Nitpickery. Because your ideas are all flawed and / or inconsistent, that is all you can concentrate on. Nitpickery of the english language.
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @493, basically your comments on population here do make sense. You have often suggested positive incentives over various things as tool to change behaviour. I also like this approach, but the trouble is the right wing don’t because they are anti tax and government spending, and would rather use failed and punitive policies that end up costing us all in the long term, more than sensible policies that cost a little more in the short term. I tell you, I wish I knew how to change that mindset.
And yes Hilter has given even the mildest forms of population control a bad name. We are captive to our history, and inability to separate reason from emotion.
Just on the nuclear power issue (again). I do emphasise I used to hate this and even went on protest marches, but I read an article recently comparing rates of death, injury and disease between nuclear power and coal and even wind power, based on the same megawatt hours. Despite some nasty nuclear accidents, nuclear power is safest. I would still not want to see millions of reactors around the world, but nuclear power seems a viable option for certain specific applications. Ultimately the technology comes up against resource limits, I think uranium is in limited supply and hard to substitute for, but I’m not 100% sure.
Al Bundy @447
“Nope. Folks are expecting billions to die…… Some are thinking that the quicker they die the better….”
Well ‘some’ despicable people are expecting or even hoping billions will die, but why do you dwell on such a thing? I have noticed such thinking, but I prefer to dwell on a more optimistic framework for my own mental sanity! Saner heads do tend to prevail eventually, and for example some countries have already got policies trying to push population growth rates down in a reasonably gentle sensible way, nothing coercive.
It’s quite realistic to get population size down by year 2100, somebody posted a calculator on population. Several counties are already on track to achieve this. Then the resource scarcity issue tends to shrink in size very significantly and it will help with climate mitigation to some extent, more so over time.
So I think you are dodging the real issue of population a little, but lots of people are uncomfortable with notions of smaller population. Crickey, I’m stating to sound like Zebra.
“AB: “Absolutely no point at all (for batteries, hydrogen sucks). Biofuel needs to come from waste, not food”
Agree totally. Sorry I didn’t think of the use of waste. My country has done experiments on growing algae for biofuel which is a different thing of course to using waste, but at least it doesn’t use huge areas of potential crop land.
https://www.niwa.co.nz/freshwater-and-estuaries/research-projects/bio-oil-from-wastewater-algae
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9012635/Energy-stirs-up-a-fond-use-for-algae
“(invented independently by Australians and me).”
Well you are quite inventive the. You must be a billionaire by now :). My day job is invention, I’m a designer.
“When all forms have compromises it is highly unlikely that either form should be discarded, especially when neither form has been optimized.”
Yes there is room for multiple options side by side. And it makes sense to have biofuel / petrol blends for ice vehicles, but not so much if it comes from growing maze. It has to be from waste as you say. What frustrates me is the lack of good, cohesive government policy pushing biofuels into the right direction, especially as it doesn’t even cost significant public spending. Only governments can push efforts in the right direction.
“As you noted, non-land vehicles and the heaviest land vehicles are not terribly suited for battery storage. Just try to get a container ship across the ocean. Lots of solar cells, some kite-sails, and plenty of time…”
Yes but that will be a last resort option. This is just the human reality. Better to make them use bio diesel or something. Or thinking the unthinkable, maybe container ships could be nuclear powered. And to think once I protested in the streets against nuclear power…Getting old I suppose.
So growth of electric cars in America is linear. Not surprising, given this country has such low petrol costs, such a love affair with petrol cars, and such confused climate policies. Some states have electric car subsidies, but they don’t bring price equivalence with ICE and require making tax deduction claims and there are various conditions so they are effectively made as difficult as possible. America is a terrible example for potential BEV growth.
Given car companies are fighting electric vehicles in America. or are luke warm on the idea, the only option is government policy to counter balance this surely. Government could require car companies to advertise them better, but no chance of this in America due to first amendment rights to free speech. America is a lost cause.
I’m not sure retooling plant is such an issue. We are talking engines and gear boxes, not the entire cars.
zebra, #446–
A couple of things, though I really think we’re well past tiresome on this topic.
1) I think your point about China is well, kind of backwards. The fact that the automotive fleet is smaller doesn’t mean that it will be harder to replace than in the US, but that it will in fact be easier. Until the takeoff of the Tesla Model 3 last year, the largest market for BEV sales was in fact China. (And if the multiple domestic Chinese producer can’t keep up the growth–which I doubt will be the case–then Tesla will soon be in the game to help/spur the market along: ground has already been broken on their Chinese Gigafactory.)
Combine comparable BEV sales volumes relative to the US case with a smaller incumbent ICE fleet and the conclusion seems forgone, even before you consider the greater share of so-called ‘microcars’ and highly favorable (and presumably stable!) Chinese automotive policy.
2) I ran your model out (well, basically–I used Excel with an annual growth coefficient of 1.15, which is close to a 5-year doubling time.) So actually, my numbers are a little less aggressive in terms of growth than yours are. Additionally, to account for BEV retirements, I assumed complete retirement of every BEV sold in year 16 of their lifetime.
I’ll present the results successively in separate columns, which is unwieldy to read but easy to do with the resident comment formatting. Each column represents 31 years of production, and the first is annual sales:
2.00
2.30
2.65
3.04
3.50
4.02
4.63
5.32
6.12
7.04
8.09
9.30
10.70
12.31
14.15
16.27
18.72
21.52
24.75
28.46
32.73
37.64
43.29
49.78
57.25
65.84
75.71
87.07
100.13
115.15
132.42
Compare this, which says US auto sales were “…a little over 6.3 million units in 2017, [while U.S.] light truck sales increased from about 8.7 million units in 2014 to almost 11.1 million units in 2017.” So, combining automobiles with light trucks, 17.4 million units in 2017. Let’s call it 18 million units; that benchmark would be hit in year 17, not too long after I’ve assumed BEVs start to ‘retire’.
Now for the cumulative numbers which illustrate the growth of the vehicle fleet:
2
4.30
6.95
9.99
13.48
17.51
22.13
27.45
33.57
40.61
48.70
58.00
68.70
81.01
95.16
111.43
125.85
140.43
155.19
170.17
185.40
200.91
216.74
232.95
249.60
266.74
284.45
302.81
321.93
341.92
362.91
The current US vehicle fleet is ~ 267 million based on registrations, which I’m assuming includes both light trucks and automobiles proper, as they use the same registration system. If that is correct, then the cumulative BEV number hits the current registration number in year 26, more or less.
3) The question remains, when is year 1? There are over 1 million ‘electric cars’–meaning plug-ins of one type or another–on US roads now, but that’s not much help here.
Tesla already sold over a quarter of a million vehicles last year, mostly in the last few months. At current levels, they could sell close to a half million next year. So, maybe 5 years to increase that to a million units sold annually? Within that time frame they will have added the Model Y (a true SUV) and the Pickup to the product line, and will also probably have the base-level Model 3 going, with its lower price tag.
Also around that time, we should be seeing more electric choices from the traditional auto makers. Word is that one of the production constraints on BEVs has been battery manufacturers being torn between selling to automakers and selling to utilities. But while that’s a supply problem today, it’s also an indicator of demand that will drive–is now driving–increased investment and subsequently, demand.
So, I’m going to guess that ‘year 1’ will be here in 5-7 years, which would put the 100% replacement year at 2042ish, and the complete fleet replacement year at 2050ish.
Optimistic, perhaps, and obviously a very simple model, but definitely in the realm of the ‘non-magical’. And yes, I would agree that implementing it is a challenge. I just think I see multiple reasons why serious efforts toward meeting may actually occur. And as I said, I think quite a few of those reasons have to do with ‘monkey behaviors’, such as greed and fear–if I may conflate emotions with behaviors for a moment–with just a dash of reasoning thrown in.
An interesting development:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/13/solar-storage-half-the-cost-of-gas-peaker-plants-8minuteenergy/
439 Al Bundy says: “Folks do NOT reject Killian’s good thoughts”
I call bullshit on that belief.
Nigel claims: “I’m ultra perceptive.”
Now that IS very funny.
Be nice to Killian. Realclimate is the only place on the Internet where he’s able to go on posting with this attitude, near as I can find.
Wrong again.
Magical Thinking: “it denotes the belief that one’s thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world”
E.g., We can build a tech future because endless substitution and *somebody* will think of something! We will find new fuels!
Stop challenging me. You will never win bc your reason for engaging is all ego and bile, causing you to make a fool of yourself.
Besides, I won’t waste more time on a bigot.
Re #439 Al Bundy said AB: You’re right but backwards.
Damn. He’s regressing. Already.
The issue Killian has is the same issue that I’ve spent decades trying to overcome: I was, and to a certain extent still am an ass.
You may be. I am not. I am an INTP with an over-developed sense of fairness and justice who has always had a deep, visceral response to lying.
You and I are not the same animal. I can post science-based posts and month after month they get no or virtually no response. I post about regenerative issues, point out FACTS and/or well-considered and supported analysis and/or opinions wrt economics, climate, etc., etc., that are not mainstream and get nothing but shit from the usual suspects. (Thankfully, that has dwindled to a few; minus you and nigel, and of late, BPL again, it would be pretty goddamned quiet here.)
Folks do NOT reject Killian’s good thoughts;
Who supports them besides Carrie and Nemesis and somewhat a couple others? Everybody else either just ignores what I say or outright denigrates it.
they don’t swallow them whole and they have questions
Right. That’s why the rudeness, dismissiveness, snide comments, etc? The gaslighting is a constant fixture here. You’re right back at it with this post.
I wish to GOD there were questions. No, there are not, at leasst not asked in good faith. Any questions are framed within the types of comments described above. Sarcasm is not a sincere question. “Just because” is not engaging in a discussion. Even the use of “Killian’s ~~~” is used to pretend much of what I suggest isn’t supported by others, often well-known voices. Etc.
Killian rejects others’ points of view and insults pretty much everybody
Flat lie. First things first. I do not “reject” points of view. That implies I simply do not listen, and that is an obvious lie because I can explain my reasons and always do. I reason from a very different approach to problem solving than any of you. You assume my statements that you are wrong come from a refusal to consider your positions, but the reality is you’re all so far in the past you don’t realize you’ve been lapped. I am not rejecting your positions, I have already been where all of you are now. I moved past where you are, I did not simply dismiss anything. I *was* a big fan of “renewables,” e.g., and nuclear at one time, and gas until the EVIDENCE showed it was worse than coal, and on and on.
But I learned more and now support renewables only within the context of planning knowing they serve only as a bridge, e.g. Yet people say stupid crap like “You hate renewables” “You hate technology” “You’re a Luddite”, etc.
Don’t tell me I start this crap because I absolutely do not. That is a damned lie. You can go back five years and trace every single instance of animosity to one of two things: An honest misunderstanding or The Peanut Gallery. Oh, I will finish, no doubt, but I do not start it.
You admitted as much on the other thread. You said, straight up, you poke and that nigel does. Now you gaslight.
It is not and never has been my way to start trouble. You can’t handle a direct, uncouched assertion you are wrong, behind, don’t understand something – whatever it may be – the lot of you. It is constant attacks, gaslighting, childish rudeness and taunts, etc.
then uses any response to prove he’s, as BPL said, “as pure as the driven snow. It’s always the other guy’s fault.”.
Gaslighting. And you ge away with this delusion because you don’t call each other out. BPL has for many months, maybe a couple years now, been responding to my posts *only* with insults. Not one of you has said a single word, yet you have the gall to claim I’m the source.
You watch nigel employ Straw Man after Straw Man and have not one single time called him on it. Not once. Yet, he uses that device in virtually every exchange between us. Shaman? Really? Luddite? Really? Live like primitives? Really? And so many more. But you would call me out if I used one. (Interesting that virtually never happens, eh? Because I don’t use them!) Or Victor, or KIA. But never each other. So the echo chamber echoes, the groupthink goes on, the blood frenzies recur.
Do not lie in response to me. I will never let it pass.
folks generally like Victor even though they think he’s adamantly wrong.
People like Victor… Wow. I doubt he sees it that way, and I certainly never have.
Folks generally think Killian has good points to contribute but they can’t stand the delivery.
This is an immature response to any discussion. Who the hell cares who you like? What has that got to do with anything? I don’t like the way you all drone on; I don’t like the wasted effort. I don’t like the vacuousness. I don’t like the favoritism. I don’t like the rude comments and smirking, etc. But I only ask two things: Don’t be a rude little twirp and be honest. I have never and will never complain that someone disagrees with me. You cannot cut and past any support for that because it does not happen. (Yeah, this has been done before and not one single time has anyone been able to support the contention, IMO a dishonest one or projection, I start things. I think one person tried once, but it was embarrassingly weak.)
The soil is fertile
No, it is not. That is, and this is not stated to injure, but it is self-delusion. Only a couple here consider simplicity and complete system change as anything more than a joke, and that is how I am treated as a person because you cannot, collectively, dismiss ideas without dismissing the person.
I don’t care if you don’t like me, but neither should you. If you pay attention, you will see I am as direct with Carrie or Kevin or Nemesis when I think they have screwed up.
I will repeat: I spent a good 6 months showing the greatest patience to nigel, but he just never has learned he is out of his depth and gets mean and nasty when I point out he is, or his penchant for Straw Men or his outright distortions. I did not create the problem with nigel, he did. Go back. Look at the record. When I started telling him, honestly, he was not up to this level of discourse he got nastier and nastier.
But, hey, it’s me.
And you!!! The very first thing I ever remember you saying was an insult. And nothing but insults followed for a long time. The only positive comment I remember from you over the last two years was the recent “Good post” post of yours.
But I’m the cause?
Think on it. No need to address it. If any of this resonates, even a fraction, PLEASE just let our following posts NOT be like this.
Cold turkey.
Please.
442 Kevin McKinney, 13 Jan 2019 — “in 2021, we’ll be seeing above two million units sold globally. In 2025, maybe four. By 2030, eight or more. You can do the math; such a doubling rate would get us to 100% EV market share comfortably before 2050.”
Kevin, that sounds nice, but we have to remember that electrification of transport, even with 100% of new vehicles being EVs, involves converting a gigantic existing fleet AND it must play catch-up to a rapidly GROWING fleet. The total global fleet will be ~1.6 billion in 2040, up from ~1.1 billion today:
https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/24/2017/07/bnef-ev-outlook-pr-2017-07-chart2.png
Fortunately, professionals who analyze this sector for a living, like Bloomberg (and others, e.g. J P Morgan), project much larger numbers and faster rates of growth than you did, and for that reason the replacement and catch up actually can and will occur in a reasonable time. “Reasonable”, however, does not mean “short”. The chart I linked, including the EV penetration curve, is useful to see how far the “catch up” has to go even in 2040, and even with Bloomberg’s much more favorable numbers. Long way to go! Especially when you consider that the trajectory suggests a total global fleet of ~1.8 billion by 2050 and ~2.0 billion by 2060. EVs have to catch up to a speeding train.
2060 is a reasonable BAU-type expectation for a fully-electrified transport sector, not including planes. With your numbers, rather than Bloomberg’s, I fear that it would be more like 2080 or even later.
It could happen by 2050 but that would require more-aggressive government action, and we would have to have EVs as 100% of new production much earlier than is now foreseeable. If we see a progressive surge with Bernie Sanders-like people taking the top spots in the Western world, rather than the likes of Trump and Bolsonaro, then perhaps it could happen. I don’t expect this in the near future, but it is possible. AMLO in Mexico is encouraging.
Here is the original Bloomberg report, FYI:
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook
https://bnef.turtl.co/story/evo2018
snippit:
“China will lead the transition from internal combustion engines to electric cars, with EV sales accounting for almost 50% of the global market from now to 2025 and 39% in 2030…. National, regional and municipal policies in China are all pushing the EV market forward. National subsidies are being phased out by 2020, but beginning in 2019 automakers will be forced into EVs through the ‘New Energy Vehicle’ credit system. Similar to a program in California, the system effectively acts as an EV quota, requiring automakers to generate credits through the sale of EVs. Automakers who do not sell enough EVs are forced to buy credits from competitors. This is the single most important piece of EV policy globally and is shaping automakers’ electrification plans.”
Zebra wanted an EV promotion that didn’t harm ICEs…
The base Chameleon is a wonderful NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle). It comes with two large trunks and comfortable seating for four. And even though it’s a large sedan it can be parked in small spaces.
The battery has a ten mile range, which is plenty for many trips, either round trip or one-way to a destination with a charger. For longer trips you can buy, rent, or lease a 5HP and 20HP simultaneous combined cycle multistage combustion engine package that fits in the rear trunk. You can also buy, rent, or lease a battery ranging from 50 miles to 500 miles in 50 mile increments.
Acceleration and braking are provided by two counter-rotating flywheels. The optional Sport package allows them to transfer power between the wheels, thus using gyroscopic forces to level the Chameleon during turns. The Sport package also upgrades the flywheel motor/generators and the wheel motor/generators from 121 to 242 HP each, doubling the Chameleon’s horsepower to 484HP.
K 432: Magical Thinking is planning, setting policy, etc., based on the possibility of something that does not currently exist.
BPL: No, that’s not what “magical thinking” means at all. You need to crack an intro psychology text.
AB: OK, I’ll give it a try:
Magical thinking the the belief that quantum-style forces can be brought to bear in the macroscopic world. Examples: “If everybody….” “If I hold my mind right I will be able to levitate”
Some things are hard to classify, such as “If I hold my mind right I’ll be able to cure my disease”. Not so magical since the placebo effect has been shown to work even if the patient knows the pill is sugar or cellulose. The authority figure and the ritual of pill-taking seem to help the body focus itself on the problem at hand.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/rcp-85-the-climate-change-disaster-scenario/579700/
Cut and pastes:
Jackson, the Stanford professor, warned that every emissions scenario that meets the Paris Agreement’s 2-degree Celsius “goal” assumes that humanity will soon develop technology to remove carbon directly from the atmosphere. Such technology has never existed at industrial scales.
“Even some [of the scenarios] for 3 degrees Celsius assume that at some point in the next 50 years, we will have large-scale industrial activities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous game, I think. We’re assuming that this thing we can’t do today will somehow be possible and cheaper in the future. I believe in tech, but I don’t believe in magic.”
I asked whether he thought actual emissions would ever come close to RCP 8.5.
“It’s nuts,” he said. “But I used to think a lot of things were nuts that turned out not to be nuts.”
Nigel,
Solomon was the stereotypical wise ruler
The most famous story was of two women, each of which said she was the mother of a baby. Solomon casually decreed that the child was to be cut in two and half given to each woman. Next case!
One of the women accepted the judgement, the other threw herself at Solomon’s feet and begged him to give the baby to the other woman.
Guess who got the child.
China’s rulers are trying to build a “Solomon” via a meritocratic government. The USA’s rulers see the whole democratic process as an impediment, too.
No wonder! We’re still stuck in the 1800s, or early 1900s. Emancipation and suffrage brought some inclusion and allowed blame to be shifted to the average Joan who doesn’t have 20 hours a week to spend on political research.
And there lies the solution: not everybody should vote. Those who want to vote collect up to, say twenty proxies from friends and acquaintances.
Now you have a motivated voting public that can be educated and will have to interact with folks of all stripes at meetings.
Don’t fine people for not voting, pay people to vote. Lots of good subthreads…
Get rid of districts. Representatives should have no reason to favor one state over another. Representatives should be trying their best for the whole geography represented by the group, not the geography of a particular district.
Either fix democracy so it can compete with structured meritocracy or watch as structured metricocracy continues to undermine democracy. (Metricocracy is rule by those who have the most of an artificial metric, such as money – and yeah, I made it up.) And, as the current fiasco shows, metricocracy will lead us over the cliff while those with the metrics will jet, yacht, and chopper to…
Killian @457 defines “magical thinking” correctly, but his E.g. and the way he uses the pejorative actually describes wishful thinking
Kevin,
Yep, too many uses and not enough battery production. Should we go with the worst possible bang for the buck, the long range EV, or with ever so much more emissions reduction per KWH of battery via hybrids, NEVs, and expansible NEVs?
This is a military-style issue. Too bad our military is busy fighting people instead of fixing the real problem. The Corps of Engineers should be enlarged by orders of magnitude. Send solar cells and wind turbines to stable countries, not bombs to unstable ones.
Killian @458 says “You watch nigel employ Straw Man after Straw Man and have not one single time called him on it. Not once. Yet, he uses that device in virtually every exchange between us. Shaman? Really? Luddite? Really? Live like primitives? Really?”
Totally false.
I have already explained I simply used the term Shaman and Wise Person rather than community tribal leader. It was a typo, I forget the term in the quote you posted and confused things. It was of no significance, because it was the content of the quote that counted anyway, not the notation of the type of leader at the start of the quote.
I have never called you are luddite.
You spent months extolling the virtues of primitive peoples and denigrating technology.So anyone would say you are promoting primitivism.
I think humanities aim should be to maintain a high technology culture as long as possible as some others have stated. Not a profligate culture obviously we do need to be prudent, but not to your extreme extent of prudence. Smaller population will solve most of the problems, and minerals are not running out as fast as silly media scaremongering distortions claim, if you do some research.
If anyone is out of depth you are, and your ideas that humans will willingly just abandon the current socieconomic system is magical thinking.
I don’t CARE what happens after that in thousands of years time, if we totally run out of some materials. Human civilisation will not last forever, theres nothing we can do about that.
Sound familiar?
“Having studied at length the life, teachings, and behaviors of Jim Jones (Jonestown Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Stewart Traill (The Church of Bible Understanding), Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Joseph Di Mambro (The Order of the Solar Temple aka Ordre du Temple Solaire), Marshall Heff Applewhit (Heaven’s Gate), Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneesh Movement), and Warren Jeffs (polygamist leader), what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic. They all have or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders
Perhaps it will be named Trump Narcissistic Personality Syndrome. And though oftentimes these leaders are aware that they are using and manipulating others, just as often their narcissism has blinded even themselves and prevents them from seeing things in a another’s way. The crucial thing here is, there is often a kernel of obvious, yet ignored by the masses, truth in the cult leader’s lingo, and he, and it usually is a he, knows it and uses this obviousness to his advantage. “Clearly, I understand things better, therefore I am special. Follow me.” Our job, then, is to be able to objectively recognize and pick out the nugget of truth from the majority of shite (which is tossed), rather than the usual throwing out of the baby with the bath water. Perhaps with such a strategy we can build a compendium of nuggets from many disparate people through the ages to help inform our own judgments.
Al Bundy, I posted decent a response on the biofuels issue but it hasn’t appeared.
Just briefly, I agree using waste for biofuels makes a lot of sense. Another approach: We have project startups in NZ using algae for biofuels as below.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/628578/Green-crude-breakthrough-on-algae-biofuel
I think your expectations on sail and solar powered container ships would be a slow means of transport. Maybe they should consider nuclear power. I’m not a huge fan of nuclear power but extraordinary circumstances demand we consider all options.
Killian says
“E.g., We can build a tech future because endless substitution and *somebody* will think of something! We will find new fuels!”
Nobody I have seen on this website has claimed this huge strawman of endless substitution.
I have said materials substitution is highly probable to continue, but obviously not endlessly and in a way that solves every problem. In fact it will have definite limits but the evidence suggests not for a long time, hundreds of years at least.
I have certainly never said “somebody will think of something”.
All I have ever said is its reasonable to expect we can innovate some more yet. All the evidence points that way. Why would innovation completely stop tomorrow?
I have always said we should continue with a technology based culture but 1) accept the inevitability of steady state economic growth 2) be moderately prudent in the use of technology and underlying resources and 3) get population growth to stop and fall. What is wrong with that? Nothing of course, yet people like Killian and Carrie attack me personally over it. God knows why.
I had this stuff figured out 30 years ago.
Al Bundy @463
Direct air capture technology does exist and at realistic prices:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/capturing-carbon-dioxide-air-cheaper-originally-thought
However we would obviously need millions of these things and god only knows if that would be feasible. Possibly, but at very considerable cost to the global economy so crowding out other things.
Of course because we have so many Ayn Rand inspired political forces working against both climate science and renewable energy, we will probably be forced to try it eventually.
Soil sinks have potential to sequester carbon, but not magical potential if you read the peer reviewed research. There are questions and caveats by the dozen.
I’m not attempting to push one thing or the other here, just highlighting some of the issues I have come across.
I would more properly say we should accept the inevitability and necessity of a steady state “economy”. Even then parts of the economy that are not resource intensive could grow.
Al Bundy @464, Solomon, benevolent dictators, democracy. I agree totally, especially with the last paragraph. However I’m one of those moneyed people so I do get a bit annoyed when people generalise about moneyed people, although to your credit you dont appear to do this.
Solomon was shrewd and fair minded. The trouble with benevolent dictators with brains is they are rare, and if they loose their marbles or develop gout they take it out on the whole population, and its near impossible to get rid of them! Robert Mugabe was more or less a dictator, and dear lord what a disaster.
So China is lucky currently with Xi JinPing, provided one can put up with very limited human rights and a surveillance state. Not my preference.
New Zealand (the smartest little country in the world) does have electoral districts, but has eliminated most of the problems this can bring by adopting mixed member proportional representation. I believe Australia has single transferable vote, which is arguably better still. I know James Hansen has promoted the later. So this is one solution that might help in America.
James @468, oh good, at last someone else has it figured out.
Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0182-1.epdf?referrer_access_token=3tcVgx_2bk8DxBd8UzCMv9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NBDAdbQ1RWHSa6L720gc7lUR_z1wTnjPIOyV5lXvFMVIyNMlKx4fgOStd2gybbUXpfV764_dz205QjpB4tBquTRXKIQ8mR_xyGe95EM1tNvSwwTOUkuXRQw4zO84NVQliyxvu7bPSvZvOOIlC3TLMlbupeWtl_D9HrZzGiwB84g-a8rSjWL67Ek5WPcG1FtU9FYUK2YoXUC_xcChRVKR7-nXNMbSEXDxOvu2FnB8LTjjIVKmq9NZfjbdooi9xgocxqgnasW2eRAKvSOZPAg8X8&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com
“Our conclusions support the existence of a car-
bon bubble that, if not deflated early, could lead to a discounted
global wealth loss of US$1–4 trillion, a loss comparable to the 2008 financial crisis. Further economic damage from a potential bubble
burst could be avoided by decarbonizing early.”
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.7.4.27
“The transition period to a low-carbon world is likely to take 40 to 60 years, even if it started today. This results from the long life of energy-producing and -consuming capital stock, and the long lead time required to develop, refine, and phase in new carbon-free technologies. Every carbon emission control study must come to grips with this fact.” …..
“Several common themes emerge from a review of the cost of control projections for the short-to-intermediate term. First, if the emissions target requires moving faster than the natural rate of capital stock turnover and technology development, significant additional adjustment costs are likely to be incurred. Second, recycling the revenues obtained from carbon taxation in a way that reduces less efficient ways of raising government revenues can signifi-
cantly reduce the net cost of the control program. Third, if some major carbon emitters fail to participate in the control program, the downward pressure on oil prices and the supply of carbon-intensive goods in the participating countries will cause increases in carbon emissions by non-participants relative to
their baseline levels, somewhat offsetting any gains.
Studies of the cost of controlling carbon emissions show that incremental reductions in allowable emissions cost more as the absolute level of allowed emissions in any particular year is reduced. This finding is especially true in the short- and intermediate-run, up to about 2040, before old fossil-fuel based energy producing and consuming equipment can be fully retired and new carbon-free technologies can be fully introduced. For example, in EMF 12 the
cost of stabilizing U.S. carbon emissions (reducing them an average of 30 percent relative to the no control baseline) ranged from .2–.75 percent of GDP in 2010, while the cost of reducing emissions by 20 percent in that year (or an additional 15 percent relative to baseline emissions on average) range from .9–1.7 percent of GDP. In other words, a 20 percent additional reduction in emissions relative to 1990 levels (and, on average, a 15 percent reduction
relative to 2010 baseline emissions) could more than double the cost.”
Mike says: decarbonizing the global economy is going to be very costly. I expect some nationstates will make good faith efforts to reduce carbon emissions and it is likely that some nationstates will take advantage of falling fossil fuel prices and increase their emissions as other countries expend considerable resources to moving away from fossil fuels. The US is likely to swing back and forth between good faith efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and doubling down on fossil fuel production and consumption every time there is a watershed election that switches control between the Democrats and Republicans.
Difficulties will arise in securing global cooperation on decarbonization producing more tragedy of the commons through a variant of the prisoner’s dilemma.
I think it is easy to fine studies and news items that indicate that decarbonization of the global economy does not have to wreak havoc, but I don’t see any of them spelling out how we will secure global cooperation and overcome the fiscal pain of stranded assets (the carbon bubble) and prevent the exploitation/liquidation of these stranded assets as their value decreases. A reasonable first step toward global cooperation in decarbonization would be to seek an end to exploration for new fossil fuel reserves. Does anyone see that happening? I see Canada trying to monetize tar sands and the US fracking shale structures to increase production and exports/explorts.
New term proposal: Explorts – A fundamentally exploitational commodity that is produced for export.
Cheers,
Mike
Nigel: I think your expectations on sail and solar powered container ships would be a slow means of transport. Maybe they should consider nuclear power. I’m not a huge fan of nuclear power but extraordinary circumstances demand we consider all options.
AB: I have no such expectations. Kite sails and solar could augment biofuels, but few such applications would do away with biofuels entirely. And I think we should name the first nuclear cargo ship the Titanic II. Remember when folks were spray painting, “Hell no, we won’t glow!”? Should we have inverted their defacing by prefacing it with, “Is nuclear power dangerous?”? :-)
On soil sinks as related to farming, I’d say Scott Strough is the local expert. He’s rather confident that we can sequester an incredible (magical?) amount of carbon by mimicking nature. You want beef? It needs to walk in herds so as to simulate bison or other herd animals. There’s a guy in Africa, I think, who’s using such simulations to rebuild degraded areas that were turning to desert.
On resolutions: Man, people are so hard wired to satisfy immediate gratification when the amygdala demands, that they’ll do things that will make them feel bad for days or weeks whenever they think of the incident.
439 Al Bundy says: “Folks do NOT reject Killian’s good thoughts”
KillianCarriesAsockPuppet: I call bullshit on that belief.
AB: Well, lets see if we can either prove the belief or cause it to come into being. (Now I’ve got something to watch as it evolves…)
Mike @475
Good cut and paste.
“For example, in EMF 12 the cost of stabilizing U.S. carbon emissions (reducing them an average of 30 percent relative to the no control baseline) ranged from .2–.75 percent of GDP in 2010, while the cost of reducing emissions by 20 percent in that year (or an additional 15 percent relative to baseline emissions on average) range from .9–1.7 percent of GDP. ”
“Mike says: decarbonizing the global economy is going to be very costly. ”
The numbers you have just quoted are not very costly if you look at the greater scheme of things. Costly, but not very costly. They are less than Americas military spending per year (which is around 4% of gdp) and considerably less than spending on old age entitlements, for example which is nearer 5% of gdp.
Filling up websites with rhetoric about how costly things are and general pessimism about what we can do, feeds the denialists. It makes you sound exactly like a lukewarmer / denialist although I know you aren’t. I hope you arent anyway. See how easy it is to be missinterpreted?
Agree with all the rest. Americas policies are now swinging radically from one election cycle to the next. It’s out of control, like a car spinning on a bendy road.
Nigel: You must be a billionaire by now :). My day job is invention, I’m a designer.
AB: Naw, inventors don’t get paid until long after they’ve finished inventing. I get about $300US a month from the Canadian government as a survivor’s pension. (My wife was a paramedic on Vancouver Island. Islands are grand, eh? ) Most of that $300 goes to expenses such as materials and filing fees. (An interesting fight. Capitalists have all the money in the world and I’ve got my mind. Hubris and ego and all that stuff might apply, but I think I’ll win.)
A “designer”? Such a wide category. Care to zoom in?
Nope, people won’t! Or *will* they…? Enquiring minds…
;-)
From a twitter comment. See link:
Our new study in @Nature shows majority support for #CarbonPrice among English speakers in Australia, India, South Africa, UK and USA. Highest support when revenues are spent on climate mitigation or #ClimateDividend.
https://t.co/deB7FRpgjQ https://t.co/aTY5iyxUhA
470
nigelj said Killian says
“E.g., We can build a tech future because endless substitution and *somebody* will think of something! We will find new fuels!”
Nobody I have seen on this website has claimed this huge strawman of endless substitution.
It is instructive you believe this to be true when there are maybe 3 posters who do not claim this. Note: One need not say verbatim what is inferrable from their statements/suggestions, etc.
Killian and Carrie attack me personally over it.
This is false. Lie? Delusion? Straw Man? Regardless, false. I have never done so and don’t recall Carrie ever doing so.
You will cut and paste or have the strength of character to stop lying about our characters. You are attacking character, not content.
I *do* call you out on your lack of chops on these issues, for lying so many times it is impossible to keep track, etc., but never for your opinion.
Yiu know this. If you don’t, that’s truly frightening as it shoes an utter lack if self-awareness – or is it language ability? (You iften appear to misunderstand/misinterpret what you read.)
Please put some time into understanding a Straw Man is a lie. Calling Big Man a shaman is a lie. Saying people will not go back to “primitive lives” is a lie by implication/a Straw Man/i tentionally pejorative association. These are only the most eaily remembered, but only a few from a long list.
You have no such list. You cannot support any of your assertions of being attacked, etc.
Instructive you continue to choose prevarication to reconciliation and good work.
Re #465 flxible says:
15 Jan 2019 at 2:46 PM
Killian @457 defines “magical thinking” correctly
Careful, you’ll blow a few fuses around here…
but his E.g. and the way he uses the pejorative actually describes wishful thinking
Ah, but it doesnt. Wishful thinking applies to what one dreams of but does not think of as realistically possible. Capitalists especially and the vast majority of OECD residents fully expect science/b8z to find solutions, primarily through innovation and efficiency gains.
Math is irrelevant.
This is magical thinking.
AB 462: AB: OK, I’ll give it a try: Magical thinking the the belief that quantum-style forces can be brought to bear in the macroscopic world.
BPL: No, still wrong. Try getting off your lazy ass and LOOKING IT UP. Don’t come up with your own personal definition, LOOK. IT. UP.
f 465: Killian @457 defines “magical thinking” correctly,
BPL: No, he does not, and neither do you if you think that’s it. Will you for Christ’s freaking sake CRACK A BOOK?
Okay, since people here are apparently too damn lazy to use Google, I’ll do it for you.
“Magical thinking is the belief that one’s own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. It is common in very young children. A four-year-old child, for example, might believe that after wishing for a pony, one will appear at his or her house.”
Kevin McKinney and alan2102,
Kevin, alan got my point about China and the growing total vehicle fleet; you seem to have interpreted what I said backwards
Alan, not to get all Victor-eyebally, but the curve you present looks an awful lot like what I suggested to Kevin earlier, which is the initial phase of a logistic function. In fact, since it gives actual numbers, it isn’t just eyeball, and your “full electrification by 2060” makes no sense as an extrapolation. Can you explain how you get that?
What I see is that we are approaching the linear part of the transition; certainly in the USA production numbers. Kevin, the point of my simple model was that your expectation is unrealistic, because you would have to increase production massively on a yearly basis. Much as I love the Musk and Tesla dynamic, I don’t see tent-factories driven by an obsessive genius springing up throughout the land.
And, alan, I don’t see (or want to see) the US ending up like China. In fact, what’s more likely here is to have a dictatorial, racist, repressive, regime just like theirs, but run by the fossil fuel oligarchs.
You spent months
Years.
extolling the virtues of primitive people
Have never done so. Why do you respond to things you cannot understand?
Let me say this again: I have *pointed out*, not extolled (for christ fucking sake read up on INTP personality) rates of incidences of mental illness and pscopathy and *why*, but have necee extolled a single goddamned thing. (And there are reasons why.)
I have talked extensively of exemplars in terms of principles of *design* and of patterns. I have spoken of applying those to our modern situation and have repeatedly and specifically said we need NOT go back to primitive lives.
This seems to be well beyond your ability to sort. Or you lie again.
Whatever…
and denigrating technology.
See above. Lie or Straw Man? Let me help you:
den·i·grate verb
criticize **unfairly**; disparage
Not only do I not do so unfairly, I don’t in any way. I point out the faults and effects. I point out the negative effects. I have?stated many times I *love* technology. But, I am massively realist, utterly logical and have taken to heart and assimilated the principle: Do not impose design, let it emerge.
Translation: Observe, analyze, see what IS, design according to that.
After two years, you still interpret this as “denigrate.” Or, yet another Straw Man/Lie?
Sad for you and all who read your words and think them germane.
So anyone would say you are promoting primitivism.
No, you and a small handful of others here and there over the years – all of you BAUers ignorant of permaculture. (And deniers. Great company, eh, Laodicea?)
Re #63 Al Bundy said “Even some [of the scenarios] for 3 degrees Celsius assume that at some point in the next 50 years, we will have large-scale industrial activities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous game, I think. We’re assuming that this thing we can’t do today will somehow be possible and cheaper in the future. I believe in tech, but I don’t believe in magic.”
Nah. That’s not a comment supportive of simplicity…
nigel, thanks for pointing to the Carbon Engineering example. Just to update, they have a timeline up here:
http://carbonengineering.com/history-and-trajectory/
Short version:
2015–Direct Air Capture [DAC], up and running: check
2017–Air to Fuel [A2F], up and running: check
2018–Commercial validation underway: check
2021–Commercial deployment: coming soon to a location near you?*
*If you’re in California or British Columbia.
Assuming that the Canadian national carbon tax standard now in force survives the legal and political challenges reactionaries are posing, I’d think that the potential market for CE’s fuels would be Canada-wide. (That would mean a market of something like 1.6 Californias–the more southerly CA now being equivalent to the world’s 5th-largest economy, while the northern one is only 10th-largest (nominal).)
Following on about Carbon Engineering’s DAC, we can make some estimates about what costs and potentials might be.
http://carbonengineering.com/about-dac/
If we peg world CO2 emissions at ~40,000 mt, then we’d need 40,000 such plants to achieve carbon-neutrality with no other actions taken. That’s about 2/3 the number of extant power plants globally, according to this. That’s actually a better situation than I thought it might be, but still points up that, as one of CE’s chief officers said, this is not a ‘silver bullet.’
As far as costs go, if we’re going to assume 40,000 of these puppies, we should assume at least the low end cost of $100/ton. So, $100 x 1 million tons x 40,000 plants = $4 trillion.
(If I haven’t slipped a decimal somewhere along this train of thought, which I am embarrassingly prone to do.)
Actually, once again that is very large, but still not as bad as I intuitively thought it might be. Going back to the California GDP of ~$2.7 tn/yr plus the Canadian GDP of ~1.7 I alluded to in my comment above, if you could somehow devote all of those two economies’ output to DAC for a year, that would theoretically cover the bill.
World GDP per the IMF in 2018 was put at ~$85 tn, so that would be just shy of 5%. Given that you’d inherently be amortizing that over probably a couple of decades, call it 0.25% of global GDP per year. That’s just a tad more 1/10 what the world spends on ‘defense’ (~2.2%).
Wow. A lot closer to ‘silver’ than I would have thought when I started this exercise–though I recognize that this is all very ‘back of the envelope.’ It suggests that, were humanity rational, all that would be required to be carbon neutral by, say, 2045 would be the recognition of climate change as a security threat equal to or greater than ‘traditional’ enemies.
(Please critique! I’d really like to know of errors in framing, mechanics, or anything else in this train of thought. I expect them to exist.)
Some will say that the cost of decarbonizing global economies is going to be huge, gobsmackingly huge. We can expect that folks with good common sense about economics and and the dangers of spending will criticize attempts to push public policy like the Green New Deal for the huge, gobsmackingly huge financial outlay that it truly is.
Of course, I think we should shoulder the huge, gobsmackingly huge, cost of decarbonizing the global economy even if it means we might not have money for other urgent enterprises. For the US, I think the cost of decarbonization is about 1/2 the cost that we incur for our ongoing wars each year.
Here is how the Republican talking point folks explain the cost of decarbonizing the economy:
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/costs-of-decarbonization-greater-than-costs-of-climate-change
I rhink the Heartland Institute is right about the huge cost of decarbonization, but probably wrong about the costs of failing to decarbonize our economies and societies.
CSM has a pretty balanced article about the costs of decarbonizing or not here:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0104/The-comparative-costs-of-climate-change
I have hopes that the Green New Deal will continue to gain traction and have political power in the 2020 US election cycle. It will be described as huge, gobsmackingly huge by the Republicans. I think that is correct. I think the cost is huge and I think we have to pay it. As Bucky Fuller said, we can afford to do anything we have to do. Bucky was a big thinker, but I think he was weak on classical economics.
Cheers
Mike
Nigel: So I think you are dodging the real issue of population a little,
AB: The key is preventing childbirth until prospective parents both have experience in childrearing and their minds are fully formed, which occurs around 25.
Offer all kids a boon at age 25, say education or a down payment or help building a business. The boons should be linked to education and mentorship.
Mentorship extends to pregnancy and raising a kid. You want the boon at 25? You get to be a helper first. Thus, your “first child” isn’t your own.
After 25, procreation limited only by wisdom and knowledge begins. Compare and contrast to the current system, which points accusing fingers at the most irresponsible kids and damn near forces them to fail in a way that spreads damage through the next generation.
If you want to go scientific, after the first birth, offer a second boon if the man gets snipped and the couple’s second (and last) child, if any, is artificially sired by a prize stud, so to speak. No heart disease, high sugar tolerance, longevity, brilliance, physical prowess…. It re-mixes the gene pool and prods natural selection in the right direction.
Or, go have 17 kids starting at age 14. It’s a free world.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with eugenics except that the word has been Hitlerized to the point that folks only flash on the most despicable end of the spectrum.
470 nigelj 15 Jan 2019: “Why would innovation completely stop tomorrow?”
Simple: Innovation will completely stop tomorrow because our doomer/collaps-o-sphere books and websites SAY it will. Further, it MUST do so in order to precipitate the implosion of industrial civilization, Armageddon-like release of the Four Horsemen, and death of billions — as predicted with 100% certainty by such luminaries as Jay “dieoff.org” Hanson* and many others. Malthus was right! He was just a little off on the timing. Heck, what’s a mere two centuries, between friends?
…………..
* A guy who memorably remarked, in 2001, on the absurdity of the notion that cars and trucks could be run on renewables: “only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc.” — dieoff.org/synopsis.htm (still there, unedited, as of now, 2019!). For guys like Hanson, and Malthus, innovation and technical progress are impossible; never mind the history of the last several centuries.
487 zebra 16 Jan 2019:
“your “full electrification by 2060” makes no sense as an extrapolation. Can you explain how you get that?”
Simple arithmetic, based on figures given for explosive growth of production, from Bloomberg. You can do it in your head; not hard; e.g. what is 50 million/year x 25 years (not counting hundreds of millions produced UP TO that point)? And btw I meant approximately 2060; of course there are wildcards that can’t be accounted for and no one can predict accurately that far out.
“Much as I love the Musk and Tesla dynamic, I don’t see tent-factories driven by an obsessive genius springing up throughout the land.”
Not driven by an “obsessive genius” (straw man), but by necessity and economic advantage, as well as environmental awareness. Gigafactories going up in FOUR MONTHS?! Yes, it is happening. Just watch.
“I don’t see (or want to see) the US ending up like China. In fact, what’s more likely here is to have a dictatorial, racist, repressive, regime just like theirs, but run by the fossil fuel oligarchs.”
China is not a particularly dictatorial, racist, or repressive regime. Most of what you think you know about China is derived from a lying CIA-influenced mainstream media with a Sinophobic, racist, fascist agenda. Just to take one small example: the Tiananmen “massacre” never happened. That’s right, never happened. It was a lie. I can provide documentation if you wish. That’s just one big lie, of hundreds. This has been going on for many decades. Hence you (and I, and everyone in these parts) are STEEPED in lies, and have been from birth, and those lies are what ultimately ramify in popular attitudes such as the one you just expressed (“repressive regime”). It takes years, and a lot of effort, to get past the lies.
I agree that we are likely to see something like that HERE, however. We are already moving in that direction.
BPL: “Magical thinking is the belief that one[’]s own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world …”
Killian: Magical Thinking: “it denotes the belief that one[’]s thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world”
there is NO difference here, including the typos :)
BPL: No, he does not, and neither do you if you think that’s it. Will you for Christ’s freaking sake CRACK A BOOK?
Calm down Bart, as it happens I have a degree in psychology and have cracked more books than you’ve Googled
OTOH, “Wishful thinking applies to what one dreams of but does not think of as realistically possible.” is incorrect – wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. That is, one ignores any other realistic possibility.
Killian: The only positive comment I remember from you over the last two years was the recent “Good post” post of yours.
AB: You’re a smart guy. You know that when a mammal behaves in a way that you want it to act in the future your wise choice is to reinforce the behavior. Thus, it seems that your internal goal is to “correct” my current non-abusive behavior. Thus, it appears that you get some internal boon from fighting.
Or are you acting counter-productively? (Yep, it’s tough to shed a grudge)
And remember, I freely admit that I was a total jerk when I came here. Heck, I’ve changed my handle several times so as to try to reinvent myself in a better form. I think I’ve done well.
AlBundy @479, I don’t wish to zoom in here, but leave an email address if you want and we can talk.
Killian @481,
“One need not say verbatim what is inferrable from their statements/suggestions, etc. ”
Your “inferences” are just your subjective opinion. You are effectively shoving words in peoples mouths. Ask them what they really think.
Killian @482,
“I *do* call you out on your lack of chops on these issues, for lying so many times it is impossible to keep track, etc., but never for your opinion.”
False. I have plenty of knowledge of all these issues. You have called me every name imaginable, precisely over opinions I have posted. For example, you didn’t like my opinions on sea level rise so you called me a fool. Its interesting that the latest research I posted on UV near the start of the thread, supports my view far more than yours.
Regarding ‘honesty’, take a look in a mirror.
“You are attacking character, not content.”
Totally false. I don’t call you names, or impugn character, although frankly you deserve it. I state facts, and confine my remarks to content and all we get from you in return is personal attacks and empty rhetoric.
Killian @ 488
“extolling the virtues of primitive people”
“never have”
You are spending time arguing about the difference between extolled and pointing out? Nit picking time wasting pedantry that totally misses the point. Tedious to the point of being far worse than Victor. Victor has been boreholed over nit picking over language, so you should be to.
It is not accurate either for you to deny to deny that you extol the virtues of primitive peoples, because you certainly do extol the virtues of primitive peoples. You so obviously love them or at least strongly admire them, its all over this website, and there is nothing wrong with that, but its foolish denying it.
Your comments on “denigrating”, more nit picking time wasting pedantry.
That’s all you have isn’t it. Nitpickery. Because your ideas are all flawed and / or inconsistent, that is all you can concentrate on. Nitpickery of the english language.
Al Bundy @493, basically your comments on population here do make sense. You have often suggested positive incentives over various things as tool to change behaviour. I also like this approach, but the trouble is the right wing don’t because they are anti tax and government spending, and would rather use failed and punitive policies that end up costing us all in the long term, more than sensible policies that cost a little more in the short term. I tell you, I wish I knew how to change that mindset.
And yes Hilter has given even the mildest forms of population control a bad name. We are captive to our history, and inability to separate reason from emotion.
Just on the nuclear power issue (again). I do emphasise I used to hate this and even went on protest marches, but I read an article recently comparing rates of death, injury and disease between nuclear power and coal and even wind power, based on the same megawatt hours. Despite some nasty nuclear accidents, nuclear power is safest. I would still not want to see millions of reactors around the world, but nuclear power seems a viable option for certain specific applications. Ultimately the technology comes up against resource limits, I think uranium is in limited supply and hard to substitute for, but I’m not 100% sure.