Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Virgo » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:20 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:56 am
Virgo wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:34 pm
We have a thread for this specific topic. :anjali:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=7689

Kevin
Hi, Kevin,
That link goes to the "Nuclear Power and Safety" thread. Is that what you intended?
Nuclear Power and Safety is indeed relevant to a couple of posts here (mostly our friend Leeuwenhoek saying that nukes will solve the climate crisis and a couple of us disagreeing) but not to the most recent ones.

:namaste:
Kim
That's not nuclear?

Kevin

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:04 am

Virgo wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:20 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:56 am
Virgo wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:34 pm
We have a thread for this specific topic. :anjali:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=7689

Kevin
Hi, Kevin,
That link goes to the "Nuclear Power and Safety" thread. Is that what you intended?
Nuclear Power and Safety is indeed relevant to a couple of posts here (mostly our friend Leeuwenhoek saying that nukes will solve the climate crisis and a couple of us disagreeing) but not to the most recent ones.

:namaste:
Kim
That's not nuclear?

Kevin
Sometimes it's hard to separate the issues, but in the last couple of days Leeuwenhoek has been saying here that nuclear is a solution to the climate crisis, which obviously belongs in this topic, and Chownah and I have been saying it isn't a solution because of (1) economics and (2) safety, which belongs here as much as to "Nuclear Power and Safety".
:shrug:
We do our best to stay on topic.

:namaste:
Kim

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Virgo » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:29 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:04 am
Sometimes it's hard to separate the issues, but in the last couple of days Leeuwenhoek has been saying here that nuclear is a solution to the climate crisis, which obviously belongs in this topic, and Chownah and I have been saying it isn't a solution because of (1) economics and (2) safety, which belongs here as much as to "Nuclear Power and Safety".
:shrug:
We do our best to stay on topic.

:namaste:
Kim
No worries Kim. Thanks for clarifying.

Kevin

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:36 am

As of this week, if you had to pick the one person who will have the greatest effect - positive or negative - on climate change in the foreseeable future, the answer must be Xi Jinping. It's a good thing he is is on the right side, unlike the guy in second place, Trump.
China’s War on Pollution Will Change the World



China is cracking down on pollution like never before, with new green policies so hard-hitting and extensive they can be felt across the world, transforming everything from electric vehicle demand to commodities markets.

Four decades of breakneck economic growth turned China into the world’s biggest carbon emitter. But now the government is trying to change that without damaging the economy—and perhaps even use its green policies to become a leader in technological innovation. So, as lawmakers attend the annual National People’s Congress, here’s a look at the impact of the environmental focus, at home and abroad. ...
:reading: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018 ... pollution/

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:05 am

Good news!
TOKYO -- The dawn of renewable energy is starting to pinch at companies that build fossil-fuel-fired power plants, forcing substantial layoffs at manufacturers such as Japan's Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems.

Since Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Hitachi merged their thermal power plant operations in 2014 to create Mitsubishi Hitachi, the tide in the energy sector has shifted in favor of low-emission technologies. The company has scrapped its goal of reaching 2 trillion yen ($18.3 billion) in sales, and is now scaling back its production system for power generators running on fossil fuels. ...

Rival manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe are cutting back as well. General Electric has announced it will lay off 12,000 workers around the world at its power operations, while Siemens has said it will cut 6,100 jobs at businesses linked to power plant equipment. Demand for thermal power plants in 2017 amounted to just one-fourth of production capacity at Mitsubishi Hitachi, GE and Siemens combined....

around 80% of plans for new coal-fired power plants in India -- 533 gigawatts in all -- have been halted or canceled. ...

Global investment in renewable electricity generation totaled $297 billion in 2016, while that in thermal power generation came to just $143 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. In 15 leading European nations, renewables accounted for 34% of all electricity produced in that year. Wind and solar power are already more cost competitive than thermal facilities in some cases, and will only grow more so as adoption spreads.
:reading: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends ... achi-Power

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:13 pm

It is beyond dispute that nuclear electric could have, and can in the future, be one factor in helping to solve the climate crisis. It can do this relatively cost effectively and using current proven technology.
The role for nuclear electric power usually proposed is as one of a diverse mix of sources.
  • Many of the highly publicized electric power studies have specifically excluded nuclear power. Those studies were feasibility estimates using getting closer to zero carbon emissions using renewable power sources alone.
  • However, the studies (over 20) that looked at using a mix of nuclear and other renewable power have concluded that it makes sense from a technical and cost matter to use some percentage of nuclear power in the mix.
  • Expect large increases (%50) in electrical power demands in the next decades. It's generally assumed that a lower carbon future will mean replacing current fossil fuel users with electric power. That means that we should be planning on massive increases in electrical power demands -- perhaps a %50 increase by 2050.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:35 pm

Low emissions
Few countries consume more energy per capita than Sweden, yet Swedish carbon emissions are low compared with those of other countries. According to the latest statistics from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the average Swede releases 4.25 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) per year into the atmosphere, compared with the EU average of 6.91 tonnes and the US average of 16.15 tonnes. Sweden has found a way to reduce emissions while the economy is growing.

The reason for this low emission rate is that 83 per cent of electricity production in Sweden comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power.
Cogeneration from combined heat and power (CHP) plants accounts for 10 per cent of the electricity output in Sweden, and these are mainly powered by biofuels. About 7 per cent of the electricity comes from wind power.
https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/
  • Sweden uses almost equal amounts of hydro-electric and nuclear electric -- in other words about %40 from each.
    That's an impressive amount of hydro-electric power!
  • Sweden has a special tax on nuclear power and subsidies for wind and solar. In other words nuclear power costs extra because of Swedish government policy.
  • Sweden is about %91 to the zero carbon electrical power goal. It's second only to Norway (%97).
  • Canada comes in at # 5 at %79.
So currently Sweden has a kind of 'have your cake and eat it too' policy. Discourage nuclear power and have an official push for renewables yet continue to rely heavily on nuclear power. Even more because Sweden exports significant amounts of power to surrounding countries. Lithuania imports about 1/4 of the electricity it uses from Sweden!

------------------------------------------
Lithuania imports 70% of its power mostly from Sweden, and the average price of electricity is among the highest in EU.[3][4][5] In 2015, transmission lines connected Lithuania to Sweden (700MW) and Poland (500MW).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Lithuania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrici ... _in_Sweden
https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/

-------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ourse.html
Country - % zero carbon electrical generation
Norway 97
Sweden 91
France 89
Switzerland 86
Canada 79
Brazil 74
Slovakia 72
Austria 68
New Zealand 65
Finland 62
Belgium 60
Colombia 60
Look at the graph in the NYT/New York Times article -- only a small % of electric power in these top low carbon countries comes from wind and solar. The major renewable source is hydro-electric. In most developed countries the easy hydro-electric opportunities have been mostly 'tapped out'.
Also there is a large contingent of environmentalists who put other considerations before reducing green house gases.

chownah
Posts: 7533
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:35 am

Sweden latest nuclear reactor was built in 1985 and two have been closed since 1985 without replacement. Sweden had a law disallowing building new nuclear reactors but has changed that law to allow for replacing existing reactors as they become outdated but so far I think there are no plans to build any replacements but only that it would be allowed by law.

Also, sweden has not yet solved their high level nuclear waste problem. It is currently being held in interim facilities while long term solutions are still being studied.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:30 am

Just quickly ... here's another twist on pumped hydro as a storage solution -
It’s an idea that could position Australia as a world leader in pumped hydro storage: using sea water as the basis for this established method of generating and storing energy.

Earlier this month, ANU researchers funded by ARENA identified 22,000 sites around Australia suitable for pumped freshwater hydro energy storage. Now, a feasibility study funded by ARENA has examined whether it would be both economically and technically viable to develop a pumped hydro facility that utilises sea water as its storage medium.

If built, the proposed hydro facility – on South Australia’s Spencer Gulf near Port Augusta – would be the only one of its kind anywhere and a total game-changer for mainstreaming renewable energy.

A similar facility was built on the Japanese Island of Okinawa in 1999. Though the technology was considered successful it was dismantled in 2016 because waning demand meant the electricity it supplied was no longer needed. ...
:reading: https://arena.gov.au/blog/cultana/

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:23 am

Anyone here live in Phoenix?
Plight of Phoenix: how long can the world’s 'least sustainable' city survive?

Phoenix gets less than eight inches of rainfall each year; most of the water supply for central and southern Arizona is pumped from Lake Mead, fed by the Colorado river over 300 miles away. Anthem’s private developer paid a local Native American tribe to lease some of its historic water rights, and pipes its water from the nearby Lake Pleasant reservoir – also filled by the Colorado.

That river is drying up. This winter, snow in the Rocky Mountains, which feeds the Colorado, was 70% lower than average. Last month, the US government calculated that two thirds of Arizona is currently facing severe to extreme drought;

Phoenix and its surrounding area is known as the Valley of the Sun, and downtown Phoenix – which in 2017 overtook Philadelphia as America’s fifth-largest city – is easily walkable, with restaurants, bars and an evening buzz. But it is a modern shrine to towering concrete, and gives way to endless sprawl that stretches up to 35 miles away to places like Anthem. The area is still growing – and is dangerously overstretched, experts warn.

“There are plans for substantial further growth and there just isn’t the water to support that,” says climate researcher Jonathan Overpeck, who co-authored a 2017 report that linked declining flows in the Colorado river to climate change. “The Phoenix metro area is on the cusp of being dangerously overextended. It’s the urban bullseye for global warming in north America.”
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018 ... vive-water

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:25 pm

Electricity generation in the US is going green one city at a time.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovati ... 180968410/

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:53 am

MIT Technology Review
Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy
Evidence points to the need for a broader range of clean power beyond just wind and solar.
by James Temple February 26, 2018
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6103 ... he-energy/
A growing number of US cities and states have proposed or even passed legislation that would require producing all electricity from renewable energy sources like solar and wind within a few decades.

That might sound like a great idea. But a growing body of evidence shows it’s not.

It increasingly appears that insisting on 100 percent renewable sources—and disdaining others that don’t produce greenhouse gases, such as nuclear power and fossil-fuel plants with carbon-capture technologyis wastefully expensive and needlessly difficult.

In the latest piece of evidence, a study published in Energy & Environmental Science determined that solar and wind energy alone could reliably meet about 80 percent of recent US annual electricity demand, but massive investments in energy storage and transmission would be needed to avoid major blackouts. Pushing to meet 100 percent of demand with these resources would require building a huge number of additional wind and solar farms—or expanding electricity storage to an extent that would be prohibitively expensive at current prices. Or some of both.
Just getting to 80 percent of demand reliably with only wind and solar would require either a US-wide high-speed transmission system or 12 hours of electricity storage. A storage system of that size across the US would cost more than $2.5 trillion for a battery system.
--------------
FYI: A attempt was made to to start a new thread for this type of topic that is only partly climate related but it was denied ...

chownah
Posts: 7533
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:14 am

Here is another take on the issues raised in the MIT Technology Review opinion piece reference above:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jaco ... tesWWS.pdf
This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy systems (for
electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) to ones powered entirely by wind, water, and sunlight
(WWS). The plans contemplate 80–85% of existing energy replaced by 2030 and 100% replaced by 2050. Conversion
would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of B39.3% with B82.4% of this due to
the efficiency of electrification and the rest due to end-use energy efficiency improvements. Year 2050 end-use
U.S. all-purpose load would be met with B30.9% onshore wind, B19.1% offshore wind, B30.7% utility-scale
photovoltaics (PV), B7.2% rooftop PV, B7.3% concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, B1.25% geothermal
power, B0.37% wave power, B0.14% tidal power, and B3.01% hydroelectric power. Based on a parallel grid
integration study, an additional 4.4% and 7.2% of power beyond that needed for annual loads would be supplied
by CSP with storage and solar thermal for heat, respectively, for peaking and grid stability. Over all 50 states,
converting would provide B3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and B2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for
the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the B3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional
energy sector. Converting would also eliminate B62 000 (19 000–115000) U.S. air pollution premature mortalities
per year today and B46 000 (12000–104 000) in 2050, avoiding B$600 ($85–$2400) bil. per year (2013
dollars) in 2050, equivalent to B3.6 (0.5–14.3) percent of the 2014 U.S. gross domestic product. Converting
would further eliminate B$3.3 (1.9–7.1) tril. per year in 2050 global warming costs to the world due to U.S.
emissions. These plans will result in each person in the U.S. in 2050 saving B$260 (190–320) per year in energy
costs ($2013 dollars) and U.S. health and global climate costs per person decreasing by B$1500 (210–6000) per
year and B$8300 (4700–17 600) per year, respectively. The new footprint over land required will be B0.42% of
U.S. land. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, will be B1.6% of
U.S. land. Thus, 100% conversions are technically and economically feasible with little downside. These roadmaps
may therefore reduce social and political barriers to implementing clean-energy policies
.
Notice the last sentence of this summary which I have made red.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:29 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:53 am
FYI: A attempt was made to to start a new thread for this type of topic that is only partly climate related but it was denied ...
The "climate change debate" falls naturally into three topics: climate science + climate change mitigation + climate politics and opinion
This thread seems to cover the first two and our other one covers the third. RealClimate - http://www.realclimate.org - has recently separated the first from the second for clarity, alternating
Unforced Variations: Apr 2018
Filed under: Climate Science Open thread — group @ 1 April 2018
This month’s open thread for general climate science discussions.

with
Forced responses: Mar 2018
Filed under: Climate Science Open thread Solutions — gavin @ 1 March 2018
This month’s open thread on responses to climate change (politics, adaptation, mitigation etc.). Please stay focused on the overall topic.
on a month-by-month basis.
That works pretty well for them, but we don't get so much traffic. So your idea was a good one but I don't think we really need it.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:34 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:14 am
Here is another take on the issues raised in the MIT Technology Review opinion piece reference above:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jaco ... tesWWS.pdf
This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy systems (for
electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) to ones powered entirely by wind, water, and sunlight
(WWS). The plans contemplate 80–85% of existing energy replaced by 2030 and 100% replaced by 2050. Conversion
would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of B39.3% with B82.4% of this due to
the efficiency of electrification and the rest due to end-use energy efficiency improvements. Year 2050 end-use
U.S. all-purpose load would be met with B30.9% onshore wind, B19.1% offshore wind, B30.7% utility-scale
photovoltaics (PV), B7.2% rooftop PV, B7.3% concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, B1.25% geothermal
power, B0.37% wave power, B0.14% tidal power, and B3.01% hydroelectric power. Based on a parallel grid
integration study, an additional 4.4% and 7.2% of power beyond that needed for annual loads would be supplied
by CSP with storage and solar thermal for heat, respectively, for peaking and grid stability. Over all 50 states,
converting would provide B3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and B2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for
the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the B3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional
energy sector. Converting would also eliminate B62 000 (19 000–115000) U.S. air pollution premature mortalities
per year today and B46 000 (12000–104 000) in 2050, avoiding B$600 ($85–$2400) bil. per year (2013
dollars) in 2050, equivalent to B3.6 (0.5–14.3) percent of the 2014 U.S. gross domestic product. Converting
would further eliminate B$3.3 (1.9–7.1) tril. per year in 2050 global warming costs to the world due to U.S.
emissions. These plans will result in each person in the U.S. in 2050 saving B$260 (190–320) per year in energy
costs ($2013 dollars) and U.S. health and global climate costs per person decreasing by B$1500 (210–6000) per
year and B$8300 (4700–17 600) per year, respectively. The new footprint over land required will be B0.42% of
U.S. land. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, will be B1.6% of
U.S. land. Thus, 100% conversions are technically and economically feasible with little downside. These roadmaps
may therefore reduce social and political barriers to implementing clean-energy policies
.
Notice the last sentence of this summary which I have made red.
chownah
:goodpost:

My own feeling is that we can (and will, I hope) get to 80% quite quickly and cheaply but that the conversion gets harder and more expensive from then on, and at some point - maybe 90% or 95% - it will become apparent that we will get more bang for the buck by tackling other emission sources first, so that's what we will do.
But let's get to 80% before worrying about that, and fast!

:namaste:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests