Interesting article from MSN / Fortune on climate change 1

[JoshPlumSE]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...A1484MQ?cvid=24cb73afffe242308df7ef3b67b1a779

 

[GregLocock]

Perhaps the senior research scientist could explain how his cheap renewables cause vast increases in the cost of electricity and more unreliable supply?

You can add California to that graph at your leisure.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I'm not yet convinced that subsiding the "virtue signaling" of rich people (by giving incentives to buy Teslas, or install solar panels on their roofs) is really the most cost effective way of reducing our carbon footprint.

I really think that we could take that same money and use it to fund nuclear plants (or even combined cycle gas turbines) to replace coal fired power. And, that this would be a significantly more efficient (in dollars cost per ton reduction in CO2 output).

Also, I think it would be interesting to compare the cost of rooftop solar panels (in terms of cost per kWh) to the cost per kWh of something like the Ivanpah solar plant. Not that Ivanpah would work everywhere, but in desert climates like the southwest (Southern CA, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico), it might be the way to go.

 

[dik]

I'm pretty sure he's on the mark; an excellent article. One thing missed is that I think governments are in collusion with big business and have no intention of addressing climate change. They will not act proactively but consequentially.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

Greg... Canada's nearly off the list, but we have a high carbon footprint.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

Unless you have hydro electricity, or some renewable source, a Tesla is not necessarily a good choice.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

Subsidising EVs has been shown to be a very expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions. It varies by country of course.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications...-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-gillingham

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

Think about this, in order to subsidize green energy projects, countries must pay for it with oil. All of the countries with wealth to subsidize are all oil, gas, or coal producing countries and are simply paying for their pet projects with more fossil fuels.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

I'll have to see if I can find the primary source, but I heard that grid storage equivalent to just 5% of daily usage would be enough to balance out intermittency from solar and wind. They also said grid storage is good at countering AC frequency changes from sudden changes of load on conventional generators.

The problem, I suspect, is that pumped hydro is the only really mature technology in the bunch, and most places don't have the topography to use it.

My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

http://xkcd.com/319/

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Think about this, in order to subsidize green energy projects, countries must pay for it with oil. All of the countries with wealth to subsidize are all oil, gas, or coal producing countries and are simply paying for their pet projects with more fossil fuels.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Hypocrisy? Non fossil fuel energy is certainly more expensive than fossil fuels in today's economy. We've had 200 years of industrialization that is all focused on fossil fuels. We've got all kinds of infrastructure developed around the concept of fossil fuels.

We have to use the tools available to us today to build the tools of tomorrow. So, your point is valid, but fairly obvious to me personally.

I'm pretty sure he's on the mark; an excellent article. One thing missed is that I think governments are in collusion with big business and have no intention of addressing climate change. They will not act proactively but consequentially.

I definitely thought it was an interesting article. I'll take issue with a few things from that article:
a) That quote which formed the basis of the article, "First, climate impacts were thought to be a gradual and slowly increasing set of problems that would be manageable by well-understood technological and management processes. Second, mitigation was thought to be expensive and damaging to the economy. By that way of thinking, climate change would on balance be expensive to prevent and only moderately damaging." I think this is a patently false statement. I think from the beginning (at least from the Al Gore documentary and Nobel prize and such) were based on the concept of "imminent global catastrophe" from the very beginning. And, that the only way to solve this problem was immediate and drastic change. Therefore, government needed to seize control of the economy and disrupt everyone's lives and lifestyles.... except, of course, for those global elitist rulers who were in charge. Their lifestyles couldn't be looked at or be sacrificed. I may be exaggerating a bit, of course.

b) He then goes on to claim that the severity of climate change has been underestimated. Claiming that drought, fires, hurricanes and such are all more severe now than previously (without citing any quantifiable evidence to support this). Kind of fear mongering here, IMO.

c) Now, where he is more likely to be correct is the rapid nature of innovation / technology when the economic demand calls for it. I genuinely believe that if we were smarter about how we invested our funds into fighting global warming then we'd be doing better now. However, even the large amounts of money dumped into millionaire's virtue signaling has had a huge benefit. Essentially, it's proof of concept. We do have an economic demand for these items (electric cars, hybrid cars, roof top solar, etc). Hopefully, we can take a step back from these less efficient expenditures and let the market take over. That, hopefully, would allow us to spend our money on things that will more efficiently reduce our CO2 emissions.

 

[rb1957]

one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard is the Canadian Oil Sands advertising to become carbon neutral, only because everyone wants/needs to be "carbon neutral" just as everything was "hi Fi" in the 70s. Do they really mean that their FF product is carbon neutral, or "only" that their extraction process is ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[dik]

Thanks Josh... I had no idea of what his model predicted to what has occurred, and the observed results may have been more dramatic. The recent storm Nicole, gained strength more rapidly than they usually do determined by measurements that were taken. As far as the severity, again, I have nothing to compare it to. As far as the third item, I hope he is correct, but I think relying on that type of approach, not knowing what is coming, is really not a great thing to do.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

That's government speak... The oilsands is an environmental disaster. No one is publishing the ecological damage and the damage to northern waterways. Our government is pressing ahead with pipelines, which will also damage the environment. On a smaller scale, our government is like the American... run by business interests. Next to his pop, Turdeau is one of our worst PMs.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Our government is pressing ahead with pipelines, which will also damage the environment.

I've never really understood this argument. Has anyone every said that that Alaskan (my company called it the Alyeska pipeline) has been problematic for the environment? Not to my knowledge. And, that's after 55 years. And, it's an 800 mile pipeline. By just about all measures, it must be the most environmentally friendly way to ship oil. Oil tanker ships and trucks may crash (or leak). Pipelines don't crash, and you can generally prevent leaks with good maintenance. Practically, all you have to do is send "pigs" through the pipe to check for corrosion or maintenance issues.

I remember hearing someone saying that the wild like (specifically caribou?) love it. They like to follow along it for their winter migration because it is warmer.

The only significant leaks I'm aware of were caused by sabotage. So, if that's the danger you're talking about, it's not a good argument. It's like saying, "living her isn't safe for you and your family." "Why?" "Because I don't like you and I might hurt you."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Dik -

My last comment isn't meant to attack you or your comment. But, to explain why I don't understand your comment. I've heard that comment a lot from the left. But, it's just never made sense to me.

 

[dik]

Wasn't taken as an attack... which comment is a poser? I'm not a leftie... just a conservative with a strong social conscience.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

If it's the pipeline, it's matter of bringing it through a pristine and remote wilderness, and last I heard, the proposed pipeline did not have all the safety features it could have or a guarantee that in the event of a failure, the area would be restored to the original pristine environment.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

It's probably another definition problem. Pristine implies that it cannot be restored. What exactly would be required to restore wilderness to pristine and within what timeframe? It's a common practice of governments to invent impossible rules to stop projects without any legal grounds.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Dik -

Yeah, it was the pipeline comment. I'm not an "expert" in pipelines, but it certainly seems to me that the Trans-Alaskan pipeline has been a near total success. And, it's been friendlier for the environment than any other method of transporting that oil would have been.

You certainly don't get any more "pristine wilderness" than most of the trans-alaskan pipeline. So, that argument seems odd.

Now, it's certainly possible newer pipeline may not have been as well thought out, planned or constructed. But, my tendency is to believe that construction / engineering practices for pipelines have gotten better, not worse in the last 55 years. So, I always want to know "WHY" they fear the environment effects of the pipeline. What is that argument based on? But, I've never really gotten a good answer. I've seen variations on the following:

1) The native people don't like it. We need to respect indigenous people and people of color.
2) We want to reduce oil consumption and CO2 emissions?
3) The other side (Trump, Bush, GOP, big oil, etc ...) is for it.

And, none of those arguments mean anything to me. If we start with the idea that we're worried about the environment, then why is a pipeline worse than transporting it using alternate means.

 

[GregLocock]

" I heard that grid storage equivalent to just 5% of daily usage would be enough to balance out intermittency from solar and wind."

Nope, actual data from UK says 60 hours of storage. So a 1GW optimum mix of wind and solar needs (a) transmission lines all over the country and (b) 60 GWh of storage, about 1/10 of global production of Li batteries in 2020. See the thread A simple challenge for details.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?