#1–So, prelim indications are that geese shouldn’t be raised within 50 m of a wind turbine. Wow.
#2–Ditto pigs. Double wow.
#3–A little more troubling, but highly preliminary. And it’s interesting that the badgers didn’t leave the setts near turbines. If they were stressed, it wasn’t sufficient to cause them to migrate.
Etc. ad nauseam. Complete refusal to take the issue seriously. Suppose the badgers CAN’T migrate, due to the nearby territory already being occupied? What about the knock-on effects on the rest of the ecosystem if the badgers aren’t fulfilling the function of their ecological niche? We KNOW what the effects of radiation are; if you manage to keep people away, you get thriving populations of once-rare species.
Of the 15 URLs I gave, 3 are from the NIH, a fourth is another .gov site, another is an Australian government site, one from a UK academic institution, and 4 more are from generally well-regarded repository sites. That’s 10 of the 15. Further, if there was any SHRED of evidence that nuclear energy caused the same effects, it would be enough to close the entire industry down immediately.
I wouldn’t be surprised if siting of an industrial wind turbine will soon require an EIS which details the negative effects on fauna, as well as payment of impact fees to nearby landowners who can no longer carry out any number of activities on the affected land.
prlsays
295
David B. Benson @295
— the [Ranger Uranium Mine] is closed, so it appears that the press is misleading and Engineer-Poet isn’t so far off.
It had stopped mining, but was still processing ore for the period that I quoted the statistics from (2020). It stopped mining in 2012, but continued processing stockpiled ore until Jan 2021.
If the Westmoreland project goes ahead, that that will change the balance once more.
The only thing misleading about the Australian press treatment of this aspect of uranium mining is that it discusses the Olympic Dam mine as a “uranium mine”, when, as you said, uranium only makes up about a quarter of that mine’s revenue. That’s because, for various reasons, uranium is seen as more contentious here than other non-ferrous metal mining (copper/silver/lead/zinc/etc), though, on balance, that’s probably a mistaken view as far as health and environmental effects go.
Killiansays
The Saami slap down Bill Gates, geoengineering and nuclear.
“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past, and you will ignore us again. We have run out of excuses, and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people.” ~Greta Thunberg
Agreed. Sustainability is ultimately local. Expecting governments and businesses and the wealthy to unmake themselves for the benefit of all is flatly crazy.
Killiansays
296
nigelj says:
2 Apr 2021 at 10:18 PM
Killian @292, at no time did I or the research quoted refer to a keto very high meat diet.
Good god… Did you graduate elementary school with that reading comprehension?
Numerous studies show diets with typical meat consumption use more land than vegetarian diets. I don’t understand why anyone would argue with that. Nobody else here is.
Numerous studies which ARE NOT about regenerative systems. How many times do I have to tell you to stop claiming studies about apples are about watermelons?
Further, you just said people who know fuck-all about regenerative systems are not saying regenerative systems are more productive and would reduce land area needed for meat… because they know fuck-all.
Dumb, but funny. LOL…
More ignorant drivel:
I said “regenerative farming points to the same outcome: A low meat diet.” This is because its not clear that it makes super efficient use of land.
Buillshit. It’s abundant;y clear. Your denial of that means nothing to anyone, not even yourself. Truth is. It does not require your acknowledgment nor approval.
It might improve efficiency, but it needs more evidence from independent field trials.
Horseshit. Fukuoka alone proves you wrong: Two crops in a year with zero inputs and increasing outputs as soil improves. And that’s from 70 years ago. Rodale proves your wrong. The Gervaes family proves you wrong. Greening the desert proves you wrong.
Everything proves you wrong.
Just stop. Your propaganda is disgusting.
nigeljsays
Killian @305,
I did misinterpret what you originally said about vegetarianism but I do not see how that justifies all the vitroil you posted. I only responded because you appeared to want a discussion. In future I will be IGNORING you again.
You took my terminology of a meat based diet and just assumed I meant a lot of meat. I never did. I was just differentiating it from vegetarianism. If you had read the study, even just the important bits, and looked at my numbers and how I derived them you would have realised I obviously couldn’t have meant a very high meat diet.
The examples you quote appear to be a couple of farms self reporting on productive output of regenerative farming. Could be full of mistakes and bias, or comparing apples with oranges. Some of its not even relevant to what I said. Show me independent field trials written up in a scientific journal or something close to that. Until this sort of thing is done, most people probably won’t take regenerative farming seriously. I do think it has plenty of other merits.
I wouldn’t be surprised if siting of an industrial wind turbine will soon require an EIS which details the negative effects on fauna, as well as payment of impact fees to nearby landowners who can no longer carry out any number of activities on the affected land.
I, on the other hand, would be quite surprised to see either any time soon.
As for the first case, the badger study failed to show any functional harm whatever, and was preliminary anyway. I’m guessing that had something in the decade since done so WRT *any* species, that study would have been cited too, in the original Gish gallop.
To the second point, I’ve seen wind turbines amid the fields from Texas to Ontario, often enough with farmers busily running combines around their bases. True, I’ve never seen anyone trying to raise poultry there. But last I heard, no-one was forcing farmers to take turbines if they don’t want them. Many do, for the very good reason that it’s a dependable revenue stream, in a notoriously risky business.
My previous comment should not be read to suggest that there is never any issue with wind; any industrial activity is apt to have some problematic aspect sometime, somewhere.
Research (and mitigation) are ongoing. For instance:
Of the 15 URLs I gave, … another is an Australian government site
The site is the Australian Parliament House Web site (aph.gov.au), but the document is not from the Australian Parliament, nor from any Australian government agency. The clue to that is the author’s affiliation.
The logo at the top of the paper is for a conference, so it would appear that it’s not a report commissioned by the Australian Parliament or government.
It may have been considered by a parliamentary committee on environmental aspects of wind turbines, but then if you wanted the “Australian government” view on it, you’d want to cite the report (or reports – Australian parliamentary committees can deliver both a majority and minority report) from that committee to the government.
There was an Australian Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines in 2014/15, but it doesn’t list that paper under either its Submissions nor its Additional Documents lists, so I’m not sure where, if ever, the Salt paper linked to by EP was considered (or if it was considered) by the Australian Parliament. There was both a majority report and a dissenting report from the committee.
On the basis of that report, the (Australian) Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines was established. The publications that they list refer to papers by Salt, but not the one linked to, though it may still have been considered by the Scientific Committee.
nigeljsays
Hybrid cars might not have a long future. Having two engines is just silly, and only exists because of range limitations of batteries, but range is improving fast. Remember blackberry phones which combine old and new tech? Fading fast. People dont really love intermediate tech, that combines old and new. Audi have already cancelled the design of all new internal combustion engines. They clearly dont have much faith in synfuels or biofuels.
306 nigelj says:
4 Apr 2021 at 6:07 PM Until this sort of thing is done, most people probably won’t take regenerative farming seriously. I do think it has plenty of other merits.
1. Why don’t you bitch at the scientists who haven’t given a shit about this world-saving practice instead of the practitioners who are proving it?
2. Have been posted here. A goddamned 30-year trial, for one, that showed greater yields, carbon sequestration, higher nutritional quality of food, etc., and all based on the absolute minimum one would do for regenerative food production. Now, if that’s what happens in a minimalist system, what would a full system do?
Thirty. Goddamned. Years. That’s far beyond any of the bullshit papers you’ve presented that don’t even measure regenerative systems.
You’re a climare solutions denialists and always have been. Get lost.
nigeljsays
The “regenerative farming” advocates often quote Rosedales 30 year trial as proof of concept. So I googled it:
“FARMING SYSTEMS TRIAL….Started in 1981, Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional grain cropping systems in North America….”
It makes claims its ‘competitive’ with conventional yeilds from industrial agriculture. It doesn’t claim to be more productive than conventional agriculture. It doesn’t look like an independent evaluation. It seems to be self reporting.
Other independent studies on organics show organics are typically 30% less productive than industrial agriculture, although it varies depending on the specific crop:
Although organics are apparently different to regnerative agriculture. However the Rosdale trial mentioned the word “organic”.
The Rosdale farm makes claims it sequesters soil carbon. The claims that organic and similar forms of farming like regenerative farming can be made to sequester more soil carbon than conventional agriculture have been backed up by several good independent scientific studies.
I’ve been through the energy numbers for assisted (carbon lossless) conversion of biomass to fuels, and they are surprisingly achieveable. I don’t have the numbers for energy losses as sensible heat (I did a very detailed spreadsheet on that stuff for a patent application a few years ago and of course I can’t find it now) but the error should be relatively small.
Here are the assumptions I started out with:
1. 1 billion dry metric tons/yr of biomass (lignocellulose) per year (somewhat below NREL’s estimate of the limits).
2. 45% carbon by mass.
3. 17.4 GJ/ton heat of combustion.
4. 100% conversion to CO and H2 by gasification with steam.
The input biomass has 17.4 EJ/yr heat of combustion (initial chemical energy). Full gasification of 450 million MT of carbon with water yields 1.05 gigatons of carbon monoxide and 0.15 gigatons of hydrogen. This yields 32.49 EJ heat of combustion, or 30.79 quads. If converted to methanol, it would yield 25.8 quads of liquid fuel as per my previous post.
The difference between the energy of the input biomass and the syngas product is 13.39 EJ/year. This comes out to about 424 GW thermal power; this is not even as much as average US electric power consumption. If we could engineer nuclear plants which operate at perhaps 1200°C, they could supply the required process heat directly with a reactor fleet not much more powerful than what we’re operating today. Of course, wind and solar could assist via e.g. plasma-arc gasification of biomass as a dump load, but the nuclear pathway would have a much smaller environmental footprint (and probably lower capital costs).
Such high-temperature reactors could also drive open-cycle gas turbines which need no cooling water. I shouldn’t need to mention just how well a heat-driven biomass conversion process meshes as a thermal dump load in lieu of electric generation, allowing a great deal of flexibility as to load-following on the grid.
So far I’m only describing a carbon-neutral fuel scheme, but it’s possible to do better. Carbon monoxide can be steam-reformed to CO2 and hydrogen, and the CO2 can potentially be sequestered. 1.05 GT of CO plus steam reacts to 1.65 GT of CO2 plus 0.075 GT of H2, with a consequent increase in HHV of 0.6 EJ. This isn’t much but it isn’t quite trivial either. Of course, a nuclear steam supply would be ideal for feeding the RWGS reaction.
This also solves the energy-stockpile problem. Sudden spikes in demand such as are caused by heat waves and cold snaps are a poor match for capital-intensive energy sources. Stockpiling energy as methanol, dimethyl ether or hydrogen is one way to get full utilization out of such sources while maintaining the ability to follow demand surges. Methanol in particular is handy, as it’s a room-temperature liquid which can be easily cracked to CO and H2 at temperatures even LWRs can reach; then the CO can be reformed to H2 with a bit of steam. This yields a carbon-free stream of fuel which can be generated from bulk-storable stockpiles upon demand and distributed by pipeline.
Killiansays
A principle of Permaculture is bio-diversity (also among humans). Oh, gee! Look! Science catches up!
Okay, I goofed up above. Gasification of 450 mmt of carbon with steam yields 1.05 Gt of CO but only 75 mmt of H2. That’s only enough hydrogen to convert all the CO to formaldehyde. To make methanol, another 75 mmt of H2 is required.
Producing this hydrogen via electrolysis of water at 50 kWh/kg H2 requires 3750 TWh of electric power, an amount roughly equal to total annual electric consumption in the USA. Using high-temperature steam electrolysis this would be reduced by about 35%, to roughly 2440 TWh (still about 60% of annual US electric generation).
This is a fairly difficult thing to do, but it’s in the realm of the possible. Going “all renewable” would take several times as much material and effort, which places it way beyond feasibility.
Killiansays
I wonder if BPL still thinks climate/social justice is something we should not pursue. In 2009 I said
6 ccpo says:
28 Jan 2009 at 10:24 AM
Thanks, gents, for some great work and even better response to the jackals whose hackles you’ve raised.
Query: once things are so bad it’s impossible for even the most uneducated among us to deny ACC (Anthropogenically-forced Climate Change/Chaos), can we march people such as Exxon and Inhofe off to the Hague for crimes against humanity?
Cheers
to which BPL replied:
42 Barton Paul Levenson says:
29 Jan 2009 at 11:01 AM
May writes:
“can we march people such as Exxon and Inhofe off to the Hague for crimes against humanity?”
That would be fine by me! The level of reprehensible irresponsibility seems criminal.
This kind of talk makes our job much harder. It makes AGW defenders sound like people with a political agenda.
I have long considered such weak responses to climate criminality, abd centrist, incremental responses to climate change to be enabling behaviors of climate denialism.
BPL, do you still think we should just let them do what they wish with no significant consequences? Anybody else?
The impacts of climate disruption, especially on the world’s poor, “must immediately move to the center of genocide studies,” a group the world’s leading genocide scholars say in a statement issued yesterday, April 8. They call on their own field, as well as all of us, to cease being “bystanders in the face of what amounts to omnicide.”
EP,
Good stuff. The nuclear/biomass pair fit well since both are 24/7 processes.
Wind and solar could produce the extra hydrogen your concept requires.
Everyone gets to be part of the solution. I like it.
Richard Caldwellsays
Nigel,
As EP’s analysis shows, hybrids aren’t going away.
EVs are just too heavy. Lots more wear and tear and resources and whatnot.I’ll invert your question:
Why carry half a ton of batteries around when 500 pounds of battery+engine+fuel will do a better and more efficient job for less money/resources, especially since batteries are in short supply?
Richard Caldwellsays
Nigel,
Consider roads, tyres and microplastics. Consider vehicle structure. 500 pounds is one heck of a lot of weight to add to a regular car for little to negative utility. And SUVs? Trucks? Ships? Planes?
Then there’s safety and access to a relatively failsafe energy supply. Would you rather have an EV or a hybrid in an emergency? EVs become paperweights quite fast when the grid fails. Meanwhile, a hybrid can keep your lights on without your having to stack even more batteries somewhere.
If you want to get really prepared, fuel tanks are cheap and small compared to a battery bank.
About the only way EVs are superior to a hybrid is glamour. That shine will get mundane when hybrids evolve to have tiny 60+% efficient air-cleaning engines.
[Do you] think we should just let [climate change profiteers] do what they wish with no significant consequences? Anybody else?
I don’t see any possibility of establishing a more sustainable society without constructively addressing what is often termed “social justice.” However, justice here needs to be more about creating more equitable structures and less about “punishing evildoers.”
And I think BPL has something of a point, pragmatically speaking. After all, it’s not as if this particular cat has been belled, and there’s the way a powerful and unscrupulous person fights to retain every last toy they do or might possess, present and future, versus the way they fight when utter personal ruin is on the line.
Finally, there’s an “eyes on the prize” aspect. Twenty to life for Charles Koch (a distinction without a difference, given that he’s 85) would do little to mitigate emissions or feed the hungry that neutering his political and social power wouldn’t do already. And the latter would have to come first (or at least concurrently) in any case.
Michael Sweetsays
Hey Engineer Poet:
Instead of wasting so much time doing incorrect calculations, why don’t you read the peer reviewed literature? Connelly et al 2016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032116002331
does all the calculations for using methane (some from biomaterials) as long term storage for a renewable energy system. They find that it will be economic for an All Energy system (the entire economy) for all Europe. The first step in their system is to eliminate nuclear since it is too expensive and inflexible. The limit on obtainable biomaterials is lower than your wild scheme uses.
Williams et al 2021 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284
concludes that using nuclear is too expensive and inflexible. That is an important conclusion since this group in the past always pushed nuclear. Prices of wind and solar have gotten so low that no other energy systems can compete. They also use methane for long term storage and they use biomaterials. Existing storage of methane is about enough to provide all the back-up renewable energy needs so little additional storage needs to be built. Your scheme of going back and forth between hydrogen and methanol is too complicated and wastes most of the energy. If you want to use hydrogen (Like Jacobson et al 2018), store the hydrogen in existing methane storage. Converting to methanol and back just wastes energy.
Of course your plan uses nuclear reactors that have not been designed yet (expect 10-20 years to design them, 15 years to build a pilot plant, and five years to test it and in 2060 you will be ready to build your combination reactor/chemical synthesis plant. If you can find a material to build the valves at that temperature [they use “unobtainium” in MSR’s]).
But hey, why bother to cite the peer reviewed literature on a scientific web site? It is better to just make up your own argument./sarc Your posts should go straight to the bore hole.
Nuclear is uneconomic, the materials do not exist and it is too slow to build. Actual scientific energy researchers all use wind and solar for bulk energy with other renewables to finish out the build.
Gavin: if you got an energy researcher to write an article for RealClimate it would be really interesting.
Good stuff. The nuclear/biomass pair fit well since both are 24/7 processes.
I figured that the biomass would be things like corn stover, logging slash and so forth. I’m still working on the energy balances for those things (MAJOR update on the blog post is in the works, as I’ve rediscovered my chemical/energy analysis work and am incorporating it).
Wind and solar could produce the extra hydrogen your concept requires.
In truth, probably not. They require far too much land, and I expect them to be pushed out of favor once the paranoia about nuclear abates.
Everyone gets to be part of the solution. I like it.
The “renewables” people get to hate the nuclear part, and the nukees get to hate the biomass part. As I said, something for everyone to hate.
What we really need is a floor price on energy, to prevent… wait, I’m not even sure what I mean right now. It’s 5:30 AM and I haven’t had one minute of sleep in a bed in close to 24 hours. I need to take a break before coming back to this subject.
To my mind, the mechanical simplicity of the EV drivetrain far outweighs the other advantages listed. After all, if the grid is well and truly down, then so are gas pumps. But any good EV prepper has solar cells, a battery bank and can “island”… and they can still back that with a gas generator if they really want belt and suspenders.
As to weight, gotta love the Aptera. Maybe it’ll get off the ground this time. (Heh, heh.)
Consistent with BTS and BT2, we identify potential biomass resources of one billion tons or more per year in the United States.
…
Combined resources total 1.2 billion tons under the base-case scenario….
If DOE is lying, why should I take your papers seriously either?
Ruinables are even LESS flexible (they cannot produce with wind or sun that simply aren’t there, a problem you never have with uranium), and I just showed you how to get that flexibility by using the petroleum-replacement system as a discretionary load for the nuclear side. And if nuclear power is too expensive, why are German electric bills driving people into energy poverty as the country de-nuclearizes, while French rates are among the lowest in Europe? Why is Germany still burning lignite?
Prices of wind and solar have gotten so low that no other energy systems can compete.
Because they’re subsidized out the wazoo. Put the costs of giving them grid priority and the expenditures for tax credits and RECs into the accounting, and they become unaffordable.
They also use methane for long term storage and they use biomaterials.
Methane is a horrible storage medium. It’s a far worse GHG than CO2, and its high negative heat of formation forces the wastage of large amounts of energy in its synthesis. Methane is a waste product of anaerobic bacteria precisely because of all the energy released in forming it from other compounds. It doesn’t contribute to photochemical smog because it is so stable. I propose MeOH because it does not persist in the environment.
Existing storage of methane is about enough to provide all the back-up renewable energy needs so little additional storage needs to be built.
Whose storage? New England sure doesn’t have any; when they run into the limits of pipeline capacity, they have to switch to oil (which also has its storage and transport limits).
Your scheme of going back and forth between hydrogen and methanol is too complicated and wastes most of the energy. If you want to use hydrogen (Like Jacobson et al 2018), store the hydrogen in existing methane storage.
The reservoirs better be free of sulfur-containing minerals, or you’ll put H2 in and get H2S out.
Converting to methanol and back just wastes energy.
Heat of reaction of CO and H2 to make CH4+H2O is -250.14 kJ/mol; the heat of reaction of CO and H2 to make CH3OH is barely more than half that, −128.13 kJ/mol.
Of course your plan uses nuclear reactors that have not been designed yet
That’s only if you want to do direct gasification of biomass. Electricity works just as well, and LWRs are well-suited to electric generation. LWR steam is more than hot enough to crack methanol to CO and H2; the reaction starts at about 180°C if you do it over a catalyst.
A mole of methanol releases 574.8 kJ if burned to CO2 and liquid water. The 3 moles of hydrogen it can make if reformed make 857.46 kJ ditto, and it can be done with nuclear heat at 200 to 250°C; this effectivly makes a way to move nuclear heat around by pipeline. At a density of 0.792, one liter of MeOH and about a half-liter of water can be reformed to 1661 liters of hydrogen gas.
nigeljsays
A 15% difference in weight between EVs and hybrids is of no huge significance.
There is also the hydrogen fuel cell option to consider. Honda clarity below. Its kerb weight appears much the same as Tesla model 3 EV (looks like a similar size car). This is surprising, but it might reflect a heavy storage tank for the hydrogen. Not pushing this car. I own a honda civic and was just curious.
325 Barton Paul Levenson says:
11 Apr 2021 at 7:10 AM
K 320: I wonder if BPL still thinks climate/social justice is something we should not pursue.
BPL: I wonder if Killian knows what a “straw man argument” is.
You don’t.
Killiansays
326 Kevin McKinney says:
11 Apr 2021 at 6:21 PM
#320, Killian–
[Do you] think we should just let [climate change profiteers] do what they wish with no significant consequences? Anybody else?
I don’t see any possibility of establishing a more sustainable society without constructively addressing what is often termed “social justice.” However, justice here needs to be more about creating more equitable structures and less about “punishing evildoers.”
As if the two can be done separately. How are they mutually exclusive? You cannot, e.g., have *any* true justice for all without ending the stranglehold of the wealthy on socio-economic-political processes.
You propose asking them sweetly?
there’s the way a powerful and unscrupulous person fights to retain every last toy they do or might possess, present and future, versus the way they fight when utter personal ruin is on the line.
No, there isn’t. These are two sides of the same coin, You are making a distinction without a difference.
Finally, there’s an “eyes on the prize” aspect. Twenty to life for Charles Koch (a distinction without a difference, given that he’s 85)
And certainly he’s the only one… Jesus…
would do little to mitigate emissions or feed the hungry that neutering his political and social power wouldn’t do already. And the latter would have to come first (or at least concurrently) in any case.
First? Hardly. And very unlikely. It is far more likely the climate movement brings legal changes as the majority finally asserts itself.
But none of this is even relevant. The question is, do you support ecocide and omnicide being made law and justice pursued – regardless how difficult it might be?
So far you seem to be saying justice will just be magical and/or all these horrible people will suddenly start turning into Ghandis.
I am never impressed by, “Can’t be done!” arguments.
Finally, there’s an “eyes on the prize” aspect.
Yeah, I completely forgot I created the Regenerative Simplicity model for grassroots-up creation of a regenerative future.
Context, Kevin. Never forget the context. And maybe actually answer the question. All you have done is say it would be hard and seem to imply justice is not important. Is that your stance? That we can change to regenerative without any justice along the way?
Mr. Know It Allsays
315 – Kevin McKinney
“The latest from Norway, epicenter of the EV revolution.”
Ah, yes, Norway, EV utopia:
Oil industry
Oil production has been central to the Norwegian economy since the 1970s, with a dominating state ownership (Heidrun oil field)
Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to over 40% of total exports and constitute almost 20% of the GDP.[172] Norway is the fifth-largest oil exporter and third-largest gas exporter in the world, but it is not a member of OPEC. In 1995, the Norwegian government established the sovereign wealth fund (“Government Pension Fund – Global”), which would be funded with oil revenues, including taxes, dividends, sales revenues and licensing fees. This was intended to reduce overheating in the economy from oil revenues, minimise uncertainty from volatility in oil price, and provide a cushion to compensate for expenses associated with the ageing of the population.
The government controls its petroleum resources through a combination of state ownership in major operators in the oil fields (with approximately 62% ownership in Statoil in 2007) and the fully state-owned Petoro, which has a market value of about twice Statoil, and SDFI. Finally, the government controls licensing of exploration and production of fields. The fund invests in developed financial markets outside Norway. Spending from the fund is constrained by the budgetary rule (Handlingsregelen), which limits spending over time to no more than the real value yield of the fund, originally assumed to be 4% a year, but lowered in 2017 to 3% of the fund’s total value.[173]
Oil fields
Between 1966 and 2013, Norwegian companies drilled 5085 oil wells, mostly in the North Sea.[174] Of these 3672 are utviklingsbrønner (regular production);[174] 1413 are letebrønner (exploration); and 1405 have been terminated (avsluttet).[174]
Oil fields not yet in production phase include: Wisting Central—calculated size in 2013, 65–156 million barrels of oil and 10 to 40 billion cubic feet (0.28 to 1.13 billion cubic metres), (utvinnbar) of gas.[175] and the Castberg Oil Field (Castberg-feltet[175])—calculated size 540 million barrels of oil, and 2 to 7 billion cubic feet (57 to 198 million cubic metres) (utvinnbar) of gas.[176] Both oil fields are located in the Barents Sea.
The pro nuke folks really believe that we can muster the techno prowess to use nuclear power safely and yet, whenever there is an accident, we end up with messes that technology cannot address and we end up seeing environmental damage on an unacceptable scale.
At this moment, I am thinking about the Tepco decision to dump 1 million tons of contaminated Fuku water into the ocean. That is covered in the article linked below.
I am on the fence about the small nuclear reactors. I think they are a better design than what we have seen in the past and less likely to create a mess that we can’t clean up, but I am not sure that is true. It might be propaganda from the industry that I have no ability to penetrate to see the truth about the small nukes.
One thing I know for sure is that the pro nuke folks have never done a good and complete job of cleaning up a large nuclear accident site. I am specifically thinking of Hanford, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Hanford is probably the worst of those sites, but I am not sure that is true. These are big messes and I challenge the pro nuke folks to demonstrate the ability to manage the accident sites responsibly as a good faith act to increase trust in this dangerous industry.
The wealthiest 10% of people were responsible for almost half of the rise in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2015, the Independent reports. This is according to a new report from the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour, which says government policies should focus on the “polluter elite” in tackling the climate crisis, the paper adds. BBC News says: “The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.” It adds that the “wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called ‘polluter elite’ – contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015”. According to the Guardian, the authors want to “deter SUV drivers and frequent fliers” and encourage the wealthy to insulate their homes. They also “urge the UK government to reverse its decision to scrap air passenger duty on UK return flights” and want ministers to reinstate the green homes grant, the paper adds.
mike @335 — No, Hanford is not a nuclear accident site. It is rather the result of overly hasty weapons plutonium production.
Three Mile Island is a radiological nothing, almost all just about journalist alarmism.
Fukushima has been overdone due to Japanese radiophobia, not physical or biological fact.
That leaves Chernobyl, the result of bad operator training and no containment on a reactor design which should never have been used for a power reactor.
You have been ill-served by the ignorant journalists and the foolish anti-nuclearites.
michael Sweetsays
Engineer poet at 330:
So nothing from the peer reviewed literature that supports your position. It seems like there is a 100% consensus of energy researchers that nuclear will not provide any significant amount of energy in the future. When you cannot find anything peer reviewed to support your claims that indicates that your claims are just hot air.
Nuclear is not more flexible than renewables. In France they turn off nuclear power stations on the weekend because they do not need the power. Most of the pumped storage in the USA was built to store excess nuclear power at night to use during the day. Since no serious researchers use nuclear power in a future energy system we do not know how much storage would be needed for a nuclear system. Claims by nuclear supporters that nuclear does not need storage are simply deliberate lies.
Nuclear receives more subsidies than renewable energy. All nuclear reactors built worldwide have received subsidies from the government. In Tampa, Florida, where I live, ratepayers were charged $1.5 billion for a nuclear plant that was never even started. In Georgia ratepayers have paid billions in interest for plants that have not generated a single watt of energy. Your talk of renewable subsidies is simply BS.
Go on with your fantasy plans as long as you like. The peer reviewed literature has already worked out the issue of reforming biomass into energy products. Your calculations are not new ideas, they are old news.
Killiansays
336 Mike says:
13 Apr 2021 at 11:59 AM
Net zero emissions must be reached before 2030 for 2°C target, new analysis says
Who cares? 2C is a suicidal target. The real story is, if we have 10 years to stay below 2C, we have no years to save civilization and a huge swath of biota, including ourselves, ergo there is one pathway: Simplification. (Shut up, nigel.)
As I have long said… Sadly, none are listening closely and only a few are begrudgingly willing to admit *some* of what I’ve been saying all these years is true.
The hardest thing is to break through our own bullshit and let the facts simply… be.
Killiansays
335 Mike says:
13 Apr 2021 at 9:22 AM
The pro nuke folks really believe that we can muster the techno prowess to use nuclear power safely and yet, whenever there is an accident, we end up with messes that technology cannot address and we end up seeing environmental damage on an unacceptable scale.
…One thing I know for sure is that the pro nuke folks have never done a good and complete job of cleaning up a large nuclear accident site. I am specifically thinking of Hanford, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Hanford is probably the worst of those sites, but I am not sure that is true. These are big messes and I challenge the pro nuke folks to demonstrate the ability to manage the accident sites responsibly as a good faith act to increase trust in this dangerous industry.
Principles:
Zero Waste.
Small, slow solutions.
Natural before mechanical, mechanical before tech, tech only if necessary or as Bridge Technology.
Design for needs.
Do not impose design, let it emerge.
Etc.
*Zero Waste.*
Obvious FAIL.
*Small, slow solutions.*
Obvious FAIL. Good solutions are applicable anywhere by any community with the necessary, and sustainable, resource base.
*Natural before mechanical, mechanical before tech, tech only if necessary or as Bridge Technology.*
Obvious FAIL.
*Design for needs.*
Do we *need* massive amounts of electricity to live satisfying, abundant lives? No.
*Do not impose design, let it emerge.*
Is nuclear a naturally-arising technology? No. It is a war technology forced upon humanity by top-down forces that violate the same set of design principles.
Nuclear violates multiple Ecological Design Principles. It is not a viable solution. It’s utility, if any, may be for off-world activities.
The pro nuke folks really believe that we can muster the techno prowess to use nuclear power safely and yet, whenever there is an accident, we end up with messes that technology cannot address and we end up seeing environmental damage on an unacceptable scale.
WHAT environmental damage? Be specific. There was one chunk of forest at Chernobyl which was effectively radiation-burned by I-131 exposure. The long-term effect is that the whole area has become a thriving wildlife refuge!
At this moment, I am thinking about the Tepco decision to dump 1 million tons of contaminated Fuku water into the ocean. That is covered in the article linked below.
The total tritium inventory at Fukushima is less than 10 grams. Cosmogenic tritium comes to several kilograms per year. A sensible government would just have ordered that the ALPS water be loaded onto barges, pushed out into the Pacific beyond the local fishery, and dumped.
One thing I know for sure is that the pro nuke folks have never done a good and complete job of cleaning up a large nuclear accident site. I am specifically thinking of Hanford, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island.
These are big messes and I challenge the pro nuke folks to demonstrate the ability to manage the accident sites responsibly as a good faith act to increase trust in this dangerous industry.
A “dangerous industry” which is provably safer in major accidents than coal-fired power is when it’s working as designed.
You’re another fossil-fuel shill, coming here to spread FUD about the only proven method of de-carbonizing grid power, aren’t you?
Net zero emissions must be reached before 2030 for 2°C target, new analysis says
Net zero by 2050 is not going to work out well.
Chernobyl is the only accident which did measurable damage to the environment, and it was both highly local and temporary. We could have a Three Mile Island every year and be just fine. So make up your mind about what’s worse: a very rare glitch which mostly wrecks some machinery with little or no impact outside the plant, or a climate-disruption-induced mass extinction event.
Especially consider that the push for “renewables” since the 1970’s oil price shocks has seen fossil fuel consumption CLIMB almost every year since. Nuclear energy is the only proven way to reverse that trend; it has almost completely decarbonized the grids in France, Sweden and Ontario.
David B. Bensonsays
michael Sweet @339 — To begin to correct your misinformed state, read various pages of the World Nuclear Association website. For example, the pages about each country with nuclear power activity will demonstrate that nuclear power plants are widely used.
So nothing from the peer reviewed literature that supports your position.
I don’t bother reading it unless it comes recommended from someone who isn’t ideologically blinkered, as you are. Even then, I rarely have time. I’ve got my own analyses to do, which you may have noticed are mostly outside the various boxes those researchers must respect if they’re to ever get another grant. That’s not one of my problems.
I have seen a number of my ideas get picked up by others. Nissan’s e-POWER scheme is the concrete realization of something I’d been saying for years: if an engine can be relieved of the burden of providing “driveability” by means of a battery or other energy storage handling the immediate demands, it can instead be optimized for emissions and efficiency. That is precisely what Nissan has done. They may not have gotten the idea directly from me, but I was not shy about putting it out there.
It seems like there is a 100% consensus of energy researchers that nuclear will not provide any significant amount of energy in the future.
Those “researchers” are idiots who appear to believe that Russia, China and India do not exist. FFS, they appear to believe that France, Sweden and Ontario don’t exist either! Those last 3 are existence proofs that grids CAN be decarbonized to an almost arbitrary degree, and nuclear power is a big part of it.
When you cannot find anything peer reviewed to support your claims that indicates that your claims are just hot air.
So you take peer-review as stronger evidence than an existence proof? You don’t live in the real world AT ALL. I spent years working with stuff that would sometimes literally blow up if I got stuff wrong. I have video of some of the blow-ups, too. When the facts don’t conform to my thinking, I adjust my thinking.
Here is a free copy of the Connelly 2016 paper
I’ll try to find the time to read it.
Nuclear is not more flexible than renewables. In France they turn off nuclear power stations on the weekend because they do not need the power.
So your “proof” for the claim that nuclear power isn’t flexible is France’s demonstration of… flexibility? Don’t forget the “gray” control rods that the French use to ramp reactor power by finer gradations than are otherwise practical.
I think this is silly. There are all kinds of demand-side measures the French could use instead, to make use of the generating capacity they are otherwise wasting. Charging PHEVs at night and using industrial and petrochemical process heating as dump loads are two good ones.
Most of the pumped storage in the USA was built to store excess nuclear power at night to use during the day.
And one familiar to me, Ludington in Michigan, is being upgraded to handle the vagaries of “renewables”.
To no avail. The scheduled closure of the Palisades plant on the shore of Lake Michigan will take out more emissions-free electric generation than all of Michigan’s wind farms produce. This is not just a giant step backwards, it’s a crime against humanity and the only planet which supports us.
Since no serious researchers use nuclear power in a future energy system we do not know how much storage would be needed for a nuclear system. Claims by nuclear supporters that nuclear does not need storage are simply deliberate lies.
Ye gods, you cite the existence of PHS plants built to let nuclear plants run flat-out while following demand, and believe this is evidence that nuclear power can’t profitably exploit storage?! You are REALLY bad at thinking things through. That’s part and parcel of being Politically Correct; you outsource your thinking to others and become an NPC.
Nuclear receives more subsidies than renewable energy.
Not per-kWh, they don’t. Robert Bryce claims that solar receives 250x the subsidies per-kWh that nuclear does, and wind receives 150x as much, at least in the USA. Further, if you count defense budgets as subsides for COMMERCIAL NPPs, you are equating apples and watermelons.
The peer reviewed literature has already worked out the issue of reforming biomass into energy products.
ORLY? Where can I buy motor fuel which incorporates fixed carbon sourced from lawn clippings, forestry slash and switchgrass? Nowhere, that’s where.
Your calculations are not new ideas, they are old news.
You are pathetic. You cannot recognize what has been made clear right before your eyes. The failure is entirely yours.
nigeljsays
Mike @335, much of my life I’ve been sceptical about nuclear power, particularly its safety. However a few years back I had some time on my hands and had a closer look. Nuclear power is actually one of the safest forms of electricity as below in terms of deaths per unit of electricity generated. Just googled a couple of sources below at random that do not appear to come from the nuclear industry.
Of course when nuclear does goes wrong its dramatic and serious, and the waste remains toxic for ages. Nuclear power has to have good safety regulation and systems. Goes without saying hopefully.
However it should be clearly noted that wind and solar power are also one of the safest sources of power. These are all additional benefits of mitigating climate change.
——————————————–
Michael Sweet @339
“In France they turn off nuclear power stations on the weekend because they do not need the power.”
So what? Renewables often provide either a deficit or surplus of power. No system is going to be perfect.
Power sources aren’t determined by people writing research papers. They are decided by generating companies making choices, sometimes influenced by governments, and it will be on profitability, reliability, output, and carbon taxes and subsidies.
I just don’t care what they build as long as its zero carbon, and is not some completely crazy scheme. Many countries have had a mixture of generating sources for decades, and it works.
nigeljsays
Locking up climate denialists is certainly tempting and would at least bring some justice. Crazy, self serving people peddling deceit and lies. But given how much America values free speech what are the chances of America making climate denial illegal?
And how would you differentiate denial from just questioning of science? It would be a legal nightmare. And it would be a slippery slope. Next the GOP will want to lock up people talking about the theory of evolution. Plus what KM said.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Bill Gates is going to save the world by dimming the sun (5 minute video).
Maybe best not to take such things at face value. The lead author is apparently David Spratt a businessman and author of several books, not a climate expert. This study is based on some sort of arctic methane bomb feedback. Realclimate.org has consistently ruled that out.
Even if hes right, it leaves few options. We could try something like a covid 19 lockdown strategy, except it would need to be global and maybe ten times more severe and last for years, which would be miserable and challenging, judging by the covid experience. Another option might be to go onto a war footing to scale up zero carbon energy and negative emissions strategies which would need a lot of technology as well as natural approaches, given the short time frame. There are huge challenges. We actually need to do something radical anyway even if we have until 2050.
@279:
Etc. ad nauseam. Complete refusal to take the issue seriously. Suppose the badgers CAN’T migrate, due to the nearby territory already being occupied? What about the knock-on effects on the rest of the ecosystem if the badgers aren’t fulfilling the function of their ecological niche? We KNOW what the effects of radiation are; if you manage to keep people away, you get thriving populations of once-rare species.
Of the 15 URLs I gave, 3 are from the NIH, a fourth is another .gov site, another is an Australian government site, one from a UK academic institution, and 4 more are from generally well-regarded repository sites. That’s 10 of the 15. Further, if there was any SHRED of evidence that nuclear energy caused the same effects, it would be enough to close the entire industry down immediately.
I wouldn’t be surprised if siting of an industrial wind turbine will soon require an EIS which details the negative effects on fauna, as well as payment of impact fees to nearby landowners who can no longer carry out any number of activities on the affected land.
295
David B. Benson @295
It had stopped mining, but was still processing ore for the period that I quoted the statistics from (2020). It stopped mining in 2012, but continued processing stockpiled ore until Jan 2021.
If the Westmoreland project goes ahead, that that will change the balance once more.
The only thing misleading about the Australian press treatment of this aspect of uranium mining is that it discusses the Olympic Dam mine as a “uranium mine”, when, as you said, uranium only makes up about a quarter of that mine’s revenue. That’s because, for various reasons, uranium is seen as more contentious here than other non-ferrous metal mining (copper/silver/lead/zinc/etc), though, on balance, that’s probably a mistaken view as far as health and environmental effects go.
The Saami slap down Bill Gates, geoengineering and nuclear.
https://theraven.substack.com/p/saami-indigenous-back-down-gates
“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past, and you will ignore us again. We have run out of excuses, and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people.” ~Greta Thunberg
Agreed. Sustainability is ultimately local. Expecting governments and businesses and the wealthy to unmake themselves for the benefit of all is flatly crazy.
296
nigelj says:
2 Apr 2021 at 10:18 PM
Killian @292, at no time did I or the research quoted refer to a keto very high meat diet.
Good god… Did you graduate elementary school with that reading comprehension?
Numerous studies show diets with typical meat consumption use more land than vegetarian diets. I don’t understand why anyone would argue with that. Nobody else here is.
Numerous studies which ARE NOT about regenerative systems. How many times do I have to tell you to stop claiming studies about apples are about watermelons?
Further, you just said people who know fuck-all about regenerative systems are not saying regenerative systems are more productive and would reduce land area needed for meat… because they know fuck-all.
Dumb, but funny. LOL…
More ignorant drivel:
I said “regenerative farming points to the same outcome: A low meat diet.” This is because its not clear that it makes super efficient use of land.
Buillshit. It’s abundant;y clear. Your denial of that means nothing to anyone, not even yourself. Truth is. It does not require your acknowledgment nor approval.
It might improve efficiency, but it needs more evidence from independent field trials.
Horseshit. Fukuoka alone proves you wrong: Two crops in a year with zero inputs and increasing outputs as soil improves. And that’s from 70 years ago. Rodale proves your wrong. The Gervaes family proves you wrong. Greening the desert proves you wrong.
Everything proves you wrong.
Just stop. Your propaganda is disgusting.
Killian @305,
I did misinterpret what you originally said about vegetarianism but I do not see how that justifies all the vitroil you posted. I only responded because you appeared to want a discussion. In future I will be IGNORING you again.
You took my terminology of a meat based diet and just assumed I meant a lot of meat. I never did. I was just differentiating it from vegetarianism. If you had read the study, even just the important bits, and looked at my numbers and how I derived them you would have realised I obviously couldn’t have meant a very high meat diet.
The examples you quote appear to be a couple of farms self reporting on productive output of regenerative farming. Could be full of mistakes and bias, or comparing apples with oranges. Some of its not even relevant to what I said. Show me independent field trials written up in a scientific journal or something close to that. Until this sort of thing is done, most people probably won’t take regenerative farming seriously. I do think it has plenty of other merits.
#301, E-P–
I, on the other hand, would be quite surprised to see either any time soon.
As for the first case, the badger study failed to show any functional harm whatever, and was preliminary anyway. I’m guessing that had something in the decade since done so WRT *any* species, that study would have been cited too, in the original Gish gallop.
To the second point, I’ve seen wind turbines amid the fields from Texas to Ontario, often enough with farmers busily running combines around their bases. True, I’ve never seen anyone trying to raise poultry there. But last I heard, no-one was forcing farmers to take turbines if they don’t want them. Many do, for the very good reason that it’s a dependable revenue stream, in a notoriously risky business.
My previous comment should not be read to suggest that there is never any issue with wind; any industrial activity is apt to have some problematic aspect sometime, somewhere.
Research (and mitigation) are ongoing. For instance:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/environmental-impacts-and-siting-wind-projects#:~:text=As%20with%20all%20energy%20supply,wildlife%20like%20birds%20and%20bats.
EP@301
The site is the Australian Parliament House Web site (aph.gov.au), but the document is not from the Australian Parliament, nor from any Australian government agency. The clue to that is the author’s affiliation.
The logo at the top of the paper is for a conference, so it would appear that it’s not a report commissioned by the Australian Parliament or government.
It may have been considered by a parliamentary committee on environmental aspects of wind turbines, but then if you wanted the “Australian government” view on it, you’d want to cite the report (or reports – Australian parliamentary committees can deliver both a majority and minority report) from that committee to the government.
The URL in question is: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=1917a491-4e41-4685-b445-4b15bb005f43
There was an Australian Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines in 2014/15, but it doesn’t list that paper under either its Submissions nor its Additional Documents lists, so I’m not sure where, if ever, the Salt paper linked to by EP was considered (or if it was considered) by the Australian Parliament. There was both a majority report and a dissenting report from the committee.
On the basis of that report, the (Australian) Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines was established. The publications that they list refer to papers by Salt, but not the one linked to, though it may still have been considered by the Scientific Committee.
Hybrid cars might not have a long future. Having two engines is just silly, and only exists because of range limitations of batteries, but range is improving fast. Remember blackberry phones which combine old and new tech? Fading fast. People dont really love intermediate tech, that combines old and new. Audi have already cancelled the design of all new internal combustion engines. They clearly dont have much faith in synfuels or biofuels.
Hydrogen-based transport? Not so much…
https://thehydrogenskeptics.blogspot.com/2021/03/painting-hydrogen-in-bright-colors-is.html?m=1
“Hydrogen: the future of electricity storage?”
https://www.ft.com/content/c3526a2e-cdc5-444f-940c-0b3376f38069
306 nigelj says:
4 Apr 2021 at 6:07 PM
Until this sort of thing is done, most people probably won’t take regenerative farming seriously. I do think it has plenty of other merits.
1. Why don’t you bitch at the scientists who haven’t given a shit about this world-saving practice instead of the practitioners who are proving it?
2. Have been posted here. A goddamned 30-year trial, for one, that showed greater yields, carbon sequestration, higher nutritional quality of food, etc., and all based on the absolute minimum one would do for regenerative food production. Now, if that’s what happens in a minimalist system, what would a full system do?
Thirty. Goddamned. Years. That’s far beyond any of the bullshit papers you’ve presented that don’t even measure regenerative systems.
You’re a climare solutions denialists and always have been. Get lost.
The “regenerative farming” advocates often quote Rosedales 30 year trial as proof of concept. So I googled it:
https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/
“FARMING SYSTEMS TRIAL….Started in 1981, Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional grain cropping systems in North America….”
It makes claims its ‘competitive’ with conventional yeilds from industrial agriculture. It doesn’t claim to be more productive than conventional agriculture. It doesn’t look like an independent evaluation. It seems to be self reporting.
Other independent studies on organics show organics are typically 30% less productive than industrial agriculture, although it varies depending on the specific crop:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/09/the-organic-farming-yield-gap/?sh=3b5f47945e0e
Although organics are apparently different to regnerative agriculture. However the Rosdale trial mentioned the word “organic”.
The Rosdale farm makes claims it sequesters soil carbon. The claims that organic and similar forms of farming like regenerative farming can be made to sequester more soil carbon than conventional agriculture have been backed up by several good independent scientific studies.
The latest from Norway, epicenter of the EV revolution.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/07/85-plugin-electric-share-in-norway-combustion-falls-below-10/
For those who are not in denial of solutions, soil basics and more: Ray Archuletta educates farmers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yExpSwpRkEs
I have good news on the feasibility front.
I’ve been through the energy numbers for assisted (carbon lossless) conversion of biomass to fuels, and they are surprisingly achieveable. I don’t have the numbers for energy losses as sensible heat (I did a very detailed spreadsheet on that stuff for a patent application a few years ago and of course I can’t find it now) but the error should be relatively small.
Here are the assumptions I started out with:
1. 1 billion dry metric tons/yr of biomass (lignocellulose) per year (somewhat below NREL’s estimate of the limits).
2. 45% carbon by mass.
3. 17.4 GJ/ton heat of combustion.
4. 100% conversion to CO and H2 by gasification with steam.
The input biomass has 17.4 EJ/yr heat of combustion (initial chemical energy). Full gasification of 450 million MT of carbon with water yields 1.05 gigatons of carbon monoxide and 0.15 gigatons of hydrogen. This yields 32.49 EJ heat of combustion, or 30.79 quads. If converted to methanol, it would yield 25.8 quads of liquid fuel as per my previous post.
In 2019, the USA only consumed about 38 quads of petroleum for all purposes. 17.2 quads of that was motor gasoline, of which at least 70% can be replaced by electricity using PHEVs. (I’m getting closer to 80%, and the infrastructure isn’t really in place yet.)
The difference between the energy of the input biomass and the syngas product is 13.39 EJ/year. This comes out to about 424 GW thermal power; this is not even as much as average US electric power consumption. If we could engineer nuclear plants which operate at perhaps 1200°C, they could supply the required process heat directly with a reactor fleet not much more powerful than what we’re operating today. Of course, wind and solar could assist via e.g. plasma-arc gasification of biomass as a dump load, but the nuclear pathway would have a much smaller environmental footprint (and probably lower capital costs).
Such high-temperature reactors could also drive open-cycle gas turbines which need no cooling water. I shouldn’t need to mention just how well a heat-driven biomass conversion process meshes as a thermal dump load in lieu of electric generation, allowing a great deal of flexibility as to load-following on the grid.
So far I’m only describing a carbon-neutral fuel scheme, but it’s possible to do better. Carbon monoxide can be steam-reformed to CO2 and hydrogen, and the CO2 can potentially be sequestered. 1.05 GT of CO plus steam reacts to 1.65 GT of CO2 plus 0.075 GT of H2, with a consequent increase in HHV of 0.6 EJ. This isn’t much but it isn’t quite trivial either. Of course, a nuclear steam supply would be ideal for feeding the RWGS reaction.
This also solves the energy-stockpile problem. Sudden spikes in demand such as are caused by heat waves and cold snaps are a poor match for capital-intensive energy sources. Stockpiling energy as methanol, dimethyl ether or hydrogen is one way to get full utilization out of such sources while maintaining the ability to follow demand surges. Methanol in particular is handy, as it’s a room-temperature liquid which can be easily cracked to CO and H2 at temperatures even LWRs can reach; then the CO can be reformed to H2 with a bit of steam. This yields a carbon-free stream of fuel which can be generated from bulk-storable stockpiles upon demand and distributed by pipeline.
A principle of Permaculture is bio-diversity (also among humans). Oh, gee! Look! Science catches up!
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158762095660549&id=721550548
Okay, I goofed up above. Gasification of 450 mmt of carbon with steam yields 1.05 Gt of CO but only 75 mmt of H2. That’s only enough hydrogen to convert all the CO to formaldehyde. To make methanol, another 75 mmt of H2 is required.
Producing this hydrogen via electrolysis of water at 50 kWh/kg H2 requires 3750 TWh of electric power, an amount roughly equal to total annual electric consumption in the USA. Using high-temperature steam electrolysis this would be reduced by about 35%, to roughly 2440 TWh (still about 60% of annual US electric generation).
This is a fairly difficult thing to do, but it’s in the realm of the possible. Going “all renewable” would take several times as much material and effort, which places it way beyond feasibility.
I wonder if BPL still thinks climate/social justice is something we should not pursue. In 2009 I said
to which BPL replied:
I have long considered such weak responses to climate criminality, abd centrist, incremental responses to climate change to be enabling behaviors of climate denialism.
BPL, do you still think we should just let them do what they wish with no significant consequences? Anybody else?
All this triggered by this twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/SaleemulHuq/status/1380713107098492929?s=20
Okay, I cleaned up and corrected my analysis above and posted it at The Ergosphere:
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2021/04/a-feasible-zero-carbon-petroleum.html
EP,
Good stuff. The nuclear/biomass pair fit well since both are 24/7 processes.
Wind and solar could produce the extra hydrogen your concept requires.
Everyone gets to be part of the solution. I like it.
Nigel,
As EP’s analysis shows, hybrids aren’t going away.
EVs are just too heavy. Lots more wear and tear and resources and whatnot.I’ll invert your question:
Why carry half a ton of batteries around when 500 pounds of battery+engine+fuel will do a better and more efficient job for less money/resources, especially since batteries are in short supply?
Nigel,
Consider roads, tyres and microplastics. Consider vehicle structure. 500 pounds is one heck of a lot of weight to add to a regular car for little to negative utility. And SUVs? Trucks? Ships? Planes?
Then there’s safety and access to a relatively failsafe energy supply. Would you rather have an EV or a hybrid in an emergency? EVs become paperweights quite fast when the grid fails. Meanwhile, a hybrid can keep your lights on without your having to stack even more batteries somewhere.
If you want to get really prepared, fuel tanks are cheap and small compared to a battery bank.
About the only way EVs are superior to a hybrid is glamour. That shine will get mundane when hybrids evolve to have tiny 60+% efficient air-cleaning engines.
K 320: I wonder if BPL still thinks climate/social justice is something we should not pursue.
BPL: I wonder if Killian knows what a “straw man argument” is.
#320, Killian–
I don’t see any possibility of establishing a more sustainable society without constructively addressing what is often termed “social justice.” However, justice here needs to be more about creating more equitable structures and less about “punishing evildoers.”
And I think BPL has something of a point, pragmatically speaking. After all, it’s not as if this particular cat has been belled, and there’s the way a powerful and unscrupulous person fights to retain every last toy they do or might possess, present and future, versus the way they fight when utter personal ruin is on the line.
Finally, there’s an “eyes on the prize” aspect. Twenty to life for Charles Koch (a distinction without a difference, given that he’s 85) would do little to mitigate emissions or feed the hungry that neutering his political and social power wouldn’t do already. And the latter would have to come first (or at least concurrently) in any case.
Hey Engineer Poet:
Instead of wasting so much time doing incorrect calculations, why don’t you read the peer reviewed literature? Connelly et al 2016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032116002331
does all the calculations for using methane (some from biomaterials) as long term storage for a renewable energy system. They find that it will be economic for an All Energy system (the entire economy) for all Europe. The first step in their system is to eliminate nuclear since it is too expensive and inflexible. The limit on obtainable biomaterials is lower than your wild scheme uses.
Williams et al 2021 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284
concludes that using nuclear is too expensive and inflexible. That is an important conclusion since this group in the past always pushed nuclear. Prices of wind and solar have gotten so low that no other energy systems can compete. They also use methane for long term storage and they use biomaterials. Existing storage of methane is about enough to provide all the back-up renewable energy needs so little additional storage needs to be built. Your scheme of going back and forth between hydrogen and methanol is too complicated and wastes most of the energy. If you want to use hydrogen (Like Jacobson et al 2018), store the hydrogen in existing methane storage. Converting to methanol and back just wastes energy.
Of course your plan uses nuclear reactors that have not been designed yet (expect 10-20 years to design them, 15 years to build a pilot plant, and five years to test it and in 2060 you will be ready to build your combination reactor/chemical synthesis plant. If you can find a material to build the valves at that temperature [they use “unobtainium” in MSR’s]).
But hey, why bother to cite the peer reviewed literature on a scientific web site? It is better to just make up your own argument./sarc Your posts should go straight to the bore hole.
Nuclear is uneconomic, the materials do not exist and it is too slow to build. Actual scientific energy researchers all use wind and solar for bulk energy with other renewables to finish out the build.
Gavin: if you got an energy researcher to write an article for RealClimate it would be really interesting.
@322:
I figured that the biomass would be things like corn stover, logging slash and so forth. I’m still working on the energy balances for those things (MAJOR update on the blog post is in the works, as I’ve rediscovered my chemical/energy analysis work and am incorporating it).
In truth, probably not. They require far too much land, and I expect them to be pushed out of favor once the paranoia about nuclear abates.
The “renewables” people get to hate the nuclear part, and the nukees get to hate the biomass part. As I said, something for everyone to hate.
What we really need is a floor price on energy, to prevent… wait, I’m not even sure what I mean right now. It’s 5:30 AM and I haven’t had one minute of sleep in a bed in close to 24 hours. I need to take a break before coming back to this subject.
#323 & 4, RC–
To my mind, the mechanical simplicity of the EV drivetrain far outweighs the other advantages listed. After all, if the grid is well and truly down, then so are gas pumps. But any good EV prepper has solar cells, a battery bank and can “island”… and they can still back that with a gas generator if they really want belt and suspenders.
As to weight, gotta love the Aptera. Maybe it’ll get off the ground this time. (Heh, heh.)
@327:
I leave that sort of thing to people like Ed Lyman and Mark Z. Jacobson. Oh, wait, I leave the lying to people like them.
Because it’s paywalled.
That’s not what DOE says, and has been saying since 2005.
If DOE is lying, why should I take your papers seriously either?
Ruinables are even LESS flexible (they cannot produce with wind or sun that simply aren’t there, a problem you never have with uranium), and I just showed you how to get that flexibility by using the petroleum-replacement system as a discretionary load for the nuclear side. And if nuclear power is too expensive, why are German electric bills driving people into energy poverty as the country de-nuclearizes, while French rates are among the lowest in Europe? Why is Germany still burning lignite?
Because they’re subsidized out the wazoo. Put the costs of giving them grid priority and the expenditures for tax credits and RECs into the accounting, and they become unaffordable.
Methane is a horrible storage medium. It’s a far worse GHG than CO2, and its high negative heat of formation forces the wastage of large amounts of energy in its synthesis. Methane is a waste product of anaerobic bacteria precisely because of all the energy released in forming it from other compounds. It doesn’t contribute to photochemical smog because it is so stable. I propose MeOH because it does not persist in the environment.
Whose storage? New England sure doesn’t have any; when they run into the limits of pipeline capacity, they have to switch to oil (which also has its storage and transport limits).
The reservoirs better be free of sulfur-containing minerals, or you’ll put H2 in and get H2S out.
Heat of reaction of CO and H2 to make CH4+H2O is -250.14 kJ/mol; the heat of reaction of CO and H2 to make CH3OH is barely more than half that, −128.13 kJ/mol.
That’s only if you want to do direct gasification of biomass. Electricity works just as well, and LWRs are well-suited to electric generation. LWR steam is more than hot enough to crack methanol to CO and H2; the reaction starts at about 180°C if you do it over a catalyst.
A mole of methanol releases 574.8 kJ if burned to CO2 and liquid water. The 3 moles of hydrogen it can make if reformed make 857.46 kJ ditto, and it can be done with nuclear heat at 200 to 250°C; this effectivly makes a way to move nuclear heat around by pipeline. At a density of 0.792, one liter of MeOH and about a half-liter of water can be reformed to 1661 liters of hydrogen gas.
A 15% difference in weight between EVs and hybrids is of no huge significance.
There is also the hydrogen fuel cell option to consider. Honda clarity below. Its kerb weight appears much the same as Tesla model 3 EV (looks like a similar size car). This is surprising, but it might reflect a heavy storage tank for the hydrogen. Not pushing this car. I own a honda civic and was just curious.
https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity-fuel-cell
You don’t.
As if the two can be done separately. How are they mutually exclusive? You cannot, e.g., have *any* true justice for all without ending the stranglehold of the wealthy on socio-economic-political processes.
You propose asking them sweetly?
No, there isn’t. These are two sides of the same coin, You are making a distinction without a difference.
And certainly he’s the only one… Jesus…
First? Hardly. And very unlikely. It is far more likely the climate movement brings legal changes as the majority finally asserts itself.
But none of this is even relevant. The question is, do you support ecocide and omnicide being made law and justice pursued – regardless how difficult it might be?
So far you seem to be saying justice will just be magical and/or all these horrible people will suddenly start turning into Ghandis.
I am never impressed by, “Can’t be done!” arguments.
Yeah, I completely forgot I created the Regenerative Simplicity model for grassroots-up creation of a regenerative future.
Context, Kevin. Never forget the context. And maybe actually answer the question. All you have done is say it would be hard and seem to imply justice is not important. Is that your stance? That we can change to regenerative without any justice along the way?
315 – Kevin McKinney
“The latest from Norway, epicenter of the EV revolution.”
Ah, yes, Norway, EV utopia:
Oil industry
Oil production has been central to the Norwegian economy since the 1970s, with a dominating state ownership (Heidrun oil field)
Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to over 40% of total exports and constitute almost 20% of the GDP.[172] Norway is the fifth-largest oil exporter and third-largest gas exporter in the world, but it is not a member of OPEC. In 1995, the Norwegian government established the sovereign wealth fund (“Government Pension Fund – Global”), which would be funded with oil revenues, including taxes, dividends, sales revenues and licensing fees. This was intended to reduce overheating in the economy from oil revenues, minimise uncertainty from volatility in oil price, and provide a cushion to compensate for expenses associated with the ageing of the population.
The government controls its petroleum resources through a combination of state ownership in major operators in the oil fields (with approximately 62% ownership in Statoil in 2007) and the fully state-owned Petoro, which has a market value of about twice Statoil, and SDFI. Finally, the government controls licensing of exploration and production of fields. The fund invests in developed financial markets outside Norway. Spending from the fund is constrained by the budgetary rule (Handlingsregelen), which limits spending over time to no more than the real value yield of the fund, originally assumed to be 4% a year, but lowered in 2017 to 3% of the fund’s total value.[173]
Oil fields
Between 1966 and 2013, Norwegian companies drilled 5085 oil wells, mostly in the North Sea.[174] Of these 3672 are utviklingsbrønner (regular production);[174] 1413 are letebrønner (exploration); and 1405 have been terminated (avsluttet).[174]
Oil fields not yet in production phase include: Wisting Central—calculated size in 2013, 65–156 million barrels of oil and 10 to 40 billion cubic feet (0.28 to 1.13 billion cubic metres), (utvinnbar) of gas.[175] and the Castberg Oil Field (Castberg-feltet[175])—calculated size 540 million barrels of oil, and 2 to 7 billion cubic feet (57 to 198 million cubic metres) (utvinnbar) of gas.[176] Both oil fields are located in the Barents Sea.
HOW DARE YOU!
:)
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
Did you know everyone in Norway is a millionaire due to oil funds? The internet does not lie:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-millionaires-idUSBREA0710U20140108
:)
The pro nuke folks really believe that we can muster the techno prowess to use nuclear power safely and yet, whenever there is an accident, we end up with messes that technology cannot address and we end up seeing environmental damage on an unacceptable scale.
At this moment, I am thinking about the Tepco decision to dump 1 million tons of contaminated Fuku water into the ocean. That is covered in the article linked below.
I am on the fence about the small nuclear reactors. I think they are a better design than what we have seen in the past and less likely to create a mess that we can’t clean up, but I am not sure that is true. It might be propaganda from the industry that I have no ability to penetrate to see the truth about the small nukes.
One thing I know for sure is that the pro nuke folks have never done a good and complete job of cleaning up a large nuclear accident site. I am specifically thinking of Hanford, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Hanford is probably the worst of those sites, but I am not sure that is true. These are big messes and I challenge the pro nuke folks to demonstrate the ability to manage the accident sites responsibly as a good faith act to increase trust in this dangerous industry.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/13/fukushima-japan-to-start-dumping-contaminated-water-pacific-ocean?utm_term=8f9fee256cea401765adfd0dff9b43ca&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email
Net zero emissions must be reached before 2030 for 2°C target, new analysis says
http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/04/net-zero-emissions-must-be-reached.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29
Net zero by 2050 is not going to work out well.
Cheers
Mike
The wealthiest 10% of people were responsible for almost half of the rise in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2015, the Independent reports. This is according to a new report from the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour, which says government policies should focus on the “polluter elite” in tackling the climate crisis, the paper adds. BBC News says: “The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.” It adds that the “wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called ‘polluter elite’ – contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015”. According to the Guardian, the authors want to “deter SUV drivers and frequent fliers” and encourage the wealthy to insulate their homes. They also “urge the UK government to reverse its decision to scrap air passenger duty on UK return flights” and want ministers to reinstate the green homes grant, the paper adds.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/polluter-elite-climate-crisis-policies-b1830291.html?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210413&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
mike @335 — No, Hanford is not a nuclear accident site. It is rather the result of overly hasty weapons plutonium production.
Three Mile Island is a radiological nothing, almost all just about journalist alarmism.
Fukushima has been overdone due to Japanese radiophobia, not physical or biological fact.
That leaves Chernobyl, the result of bad operator training and no containment on a reactor design which should never have been used for a power reactor.
You have been ill-served by the ignorant journalists and the foolish anti-nuclearites.
Engineer poet at 330:
So nothing from the peer reviewed literature that supports your position. It seems like there is a 100% consensus of energy researchers that nuclear will not provide any significant amount of energy in the future. When you cannot find anything peer reviewed to support your claims that indicates that your claims are just hot air.
Here is a free copy of the Connelly 2016 paper: https://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/smart-energy-europe-a-100-renewable-energy-scenario-for-the-europ. It is not exactly the same but contains all the same information. If you read the related articles at Skeptical Science you would have known about this free copy.
Nuclear is not more flexible than renewables. In France they turn off nuclear power stations on the weekend because they do not need the power. Most of the pumped storage in the USA was built to store excess nuclear power at night to use during the day. Since no serious researchers use nuclear power in a future energy system we do not know how much storage would be needed for a nuclear system. Claims by nuclear supporters that nuclear does not need storage are simply deliberate lies.
Nuclear receives more subsidies than renewable energy. All nuclear reactors built worldwide have received subsidies from the government. In Tampa, Florida, where I live, ratepayers were charged $1.5 billion for a nuclear plant that was never even started. In Georgia ratepayers have paid billions in interest for plants that have not generated a single watt of energy. Your talk of renewable subsidies is simply BS.
Go on with your fantasy plans as long as you like. The peer reviewed literature has already worked out the issue of reforming biomass into energy products. Your calculations are not new ideas, they are old news.
Who cares? 2C is a suicidal target. The real story is, if we have 10 years to stay below 2C, we have no years to save civilization and a huge swath of biota, including ourselves, ergo there is one pathway: Simplification. (Shut up, nigel.)
As I have long said… Sadly, none are listening closely and only a few are begrudgingly willing to admit *some* of what I’ve been saying all these years is true.
The hardest thing is to break through our own bullshit and let the facts simply… be.
Principles:
Zero Waste.
Small, slow solutions.
Natural before mechanical, mechanical before tech, tech only if necessary or as Bridge Technology.
Design for needs.
Do not impose design, let it emerge.
Etc.
*Zero Waste.*
Obvious FAIL.
*Small, slow solutions.*
Obvious FAIL. Good solutions are applicable anywhere by any community with the necessary, and sustainable, resource base.
*Natural before mechanical, mechanical before tech, tech only if necessary or as Bridge Technology.*
Obvious FAIL.
*Design for needs.*
Do we *need* massive amounts of electricity to live satisfying, abundant lives? No.
*Do not impose design, let it emerge.*
Is nuclear a naturally-arising technology? No. It is a war technology forced upon humanity by top-down forces that violate the same set of design principles.
Nuclear violates multiple Ecological Design Principles. It is not a viable solution. It’s utility, if any, may be for off-world activities.
@335:
WHAT environmental damage? Be specific. There was one chunk of forest at Chernobyl which was effectively radiation-burned by I-131 exposure. The long-term effect is that the whole area has become a thriving wildlife refuge!
The total tritium inventory at Fukushima is less than 10 grams. Cosmogenic tritium comes to several kilograms per year. A sensible government would just have ordered that the ALPS water be loaded onto barges, pushed out into the Pacific beyond the local fishery, and dumped.
Hanford is a nuclear weapons installation, not a power station. Three Mile Island Unit 2 was fully decontaminated to the point of being fit for return to service, though it never was; it is now in SAFSTOR status. And this is ALL that’s left of the plant at Big Rock Point.
A “dangerous industry” which is provably safer in major accidents than coal-fired power is when it’s working as designed.
You’re another fossil-fuel shill, coming here to spread FUD about the only proven method of de-carbonizing grid power, aren’t you?
@336:
Chernobyl is the only accident which did measurable damage to the environment, and it was both highly local and temporary. We could have a Three Mile Island every year and be just fine. So make up your mind about what’s worse: a very rare glitch which mostly wrecks some machinery with little or no impact outside the plant, or a climate-disruption-induced mass extinction event.
Especially consider that the push for “renewables” since the 1970’s oil price shocks has seen fossil fuel consumption CLIMB almost every year since. Nuclear energy is the only proven way to reverse that trend; it has almost completely decarbonized the grids in France, Sweden and Ontario.
michael Sweet @339 — To begin to correct your misinformed state, read various pages of the World Nuclear Association website. For example, the pages about each country with nuclear power activity will demonstrate that nuclear power plants are widely used.
@338: Amen to that.
@339:
I don’t bother reading it unless it comes recommended from someone who isn’t ideologically blinkered, as you are. Even then, I rarely have time. I’ve got my own analyses to do, which you may have noticed are mostly outside the various boxes those researchers must respect if they’re to ever get another grant. That’s not one of my problems.
I have seen a number of my ideas get picked up by others. Nissan’s e-POWER scheme is the concrete realization of something I’d been saying for years: if an engine can be relieved of the burden of providing “driveability” by means of a battery or other energy storage handling the immediate demands, it can instead be optimized for emissions and efficiency. That is precisely what Nissan has done. They may not have gotten the idea directly from me, but I was not shy about putting it out there.
Those “researchers” are idiots who appear to believe that Russia, China and India do not exist. FFS, they appear to believe that France, Sweden and Ontario don’t exist either! Those last 3 are existence proofs that grids CAN be decarbonized to an almost arbitrary degree, and nuclear power is a big part of it.
So you take peer-review as stronger evidence than an existence proof? You don’t live in the real world AT ALL. I spent years working with stuff that would sometimes literally blow up if I got stuff wrong. I have video of some of the blow-ups, too. When the facts don’t conform to my thinking, I adjust my thinking.
I’ll try to find the time to read it.
So your “proof” for the claim that nuclear power isn’t flexible is France’s demonstration of… flexibility? Don’t forget the “gray” control rods that the French use to ramp reactor power by finer gradations than are otherwise practical.
I think this is silly. There are all kinds of demand-side measures the French could use instead, to make use of the generating capacity they are otherwise wasting. Charging PHEVs at night and using industrial and petrochemical process heating as dump loads are two good ones.
And one familiar to me, Ludington in Michigan, is being upgraded to handle the vagaries of “renewables”.
To no avail. The scheduled closure of the Palisades plant on the shore of Lake Michigan will take out more emissions-free electric generation than all of Michigan’s wind farms produce. This is not just a giant step backwards, it’s a crime against humanity and the only planet which supports us.
Ye gods, you cite the existence of PHS plants built to let nuclear plants run flat-out while following demand, and believe this is evidence that nuclear power can’t profitably exploit storage?! You are REALLY bad at thinking things through. That’s part and parcel of being Politically Correct; you outsource your thinking to others and become an NPC.
Not per-kWh, they don’t. Robert Bryce claims that solar receives 250x the subsidies per-kWh that nuclear does, and wind receives 150x as much, at least in the USA. Further, if you count defense budgets as subsides for COMMERCIAL NPPs, you are equating apples and watermelons.
ORLY? Where can I buy motor fuel which incorporates fixed carbon sourced from lawn clippings, forestry slash and switchgrass? Nowhere, that’s where.
You are pathetic. You cannot recognize what has been made clear right before your eyes. The failure is entirely yours.
Mike @335, much of my life I’ve been sceptical about nuclear power, particularly its safety. However a few years back I had some time on my hands and had a closer look. Nuclear power is actually one of the safest forms of electricity as below in terms of deaths per unit of electricity generated. Just googled a couple of sources below at random that do not appear to come from the nuclear industry.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=Fossil%20fuels%20and%20the%20burning,The%20second%20is%20accidents.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=37cb5c6b709b
Of course when nuclear does goes wrong its dramatic and serious, and the waste remains toxic for ages. Nuclear power has to have good safety regulation and systems. Goes without saying hopefully.
However it should be clearly noted that wind and solar power are also one of the safest sources of power. These are all additional benefits of mitigating climate change.
——————————————–
Michael Sweet @339
“In France they turn off nuclear power stations on the weekend because they do not need the power.”
So what? Renewables often provide either a deficit or surplus of power. No system is going to be perfect.
Power sources aren’t determined by people writing research papers. They are decided by generating companies making choices, sometimes influenced by governments, and it will be on profitability, reliability, output, and carbon taxes and subsidies.
I just don’t care what they build as long as its zero carbon, and is not some completely crazy scheme. Many countries have had a mixture of generating sources for decades, and it works.
Locking up climate denialists is certainly tempting and would at least bring some justice. Crazy, self serving people peddling deceit and lies. But given how much America values free speech what are the chances of America making climate denial illegal?
And how would you differentiate denial from just questioning of science? It would be a legal nightmare. And it would be a slippery slope. Next the GOP will want to lock up people talking about the theory of evolution. Plus what KM said.
Bill Gates is going to save the world by dimming the sun (5 minute video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wwIBUCBrF8
“Net zero emissions must be reached before 2030 for 2°C target, new analysis says”
http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/04/net-zero-emissions-must-be-reached.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29
Maybe best not to take such things at face value. The lead author is apparently David Spratt a businessman and author of several books, not a climate expert. This study is based on some sort of arctic methane bomb feedback. Realclimate.org has consistently ruled that out.
Even if hes right, it leaves few options. We could try something like a covid 19 lockdown strategy, except it would need to be global and maybe ten times more severe and last for years, which would be miserable and challenging, judging by the covid experience. Another option might be to go onto a war footing to scale up zero carbon energy and negative emissions strategies which would need a lot of technology as well as natural approaches, given the short time frame. There are huge challenges. We actually need to do something radical anyway even if we have until 2050.