Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Ray]

And it's also one of the negative factors in e.g. the current California wildfires. Lots of plant biomass from the spring is now withering and thus releasing previously stored CO2 again, and it is additionally providing an excellent fuel source for wildfires.

BTW, we're discussing the excess CO2 production that can be considered as a pollutant, not the CO2 that's part of the natural cycles.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,
You seem to be implying that the human being (of Homo Sapiens species) is not a natural creature. The carbon that we're releasing into the atmosphere was previously sequestered into the soil, or upprer crust, from vegetation that flourished millions of years ago.

Coal was formed through the fossilization of forest trees and other plants, and oil through the interaction of bacteria, algae and plankton.
The carbon in these fossils is now being re-released into the atmosphere as a result of a natural evolutionary process that has taken place during the development of life on earth, which has resulted in the great prevalence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, a sub species of Homo Sapiens, which is current humanity.

There are always positives and negatives about natural cycles. In fact, the positive cannot exist without the negative, and the negative cannot exist without the positive. Electricity cannot flow without the existence of both a positive and a negative.

The major negatives about the burning of fossil fuels are the real pollutants of harmful chemical emissions into the atmosphere, which directly affect human health, and the degradation of the environment through unrestricted mining and waste products that are not properly dealt with, and land which is not properly rehabilitated after the mining has ceased.

The major positives are increased human welfare and economic development through the use of cheap and efficient energy sources, and the greening of the planet due to the reintroduction of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

Some of the negatives also apply to the mining of Lithium and rare earth metals for battery storage, in order to combat the partially illusive threat of increasing CO2 levels.

A science of climate change which only focuses on the negative aspects of CO2 emissions, is very poor science.

The following video of a TED talk, by a qualified ecologist, provides an interesting solution to the problems we face in the future, by using the positive effects of elevated CO2 levels in combination with a change in farming practices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

[Alan Goldhammer]

I received a justifiable complaint about a series of political statements unrelated to the topic at hand.  Those posts were totally unnecessary and have been either edited or removed.  This is the LAST time I will put up with this and will close the thread down and report back to Chris that the experiment did not work.  You all have been warned.

[Tim Lookingbill]

This thread was the only place I could think to post about my recently discovered 200+ acre landfill just 2.5 miles from a newly built hospital in my local town I've lived for ten years. In fact it's my first landfill I've ever visited or even lived this close to as a native Texan all my life. It's kinda' funny because I moved to this town for its clean air, land and water since it sits right over an aquifer recharge zone. From telling folks I randomly meet about this landfill I don't even think most of the locals knew about this landfill either.

It's been there since 1988 and I've never heard of it when visiting this small town over the years. I found it this year from its huge grassy hill off on the distant horizon in the newly developed northeast sector of the town where this hospital is located. Approaching this hill driving on a paved farm road I smelled the familiar burning antifreeze odor I thought at first was from my car only to find that it was from all the methane gas vent pipes peppered across the entire hill as well as from the smoke stack pipe with a flame as I found out later was the city's and Waste Management Corp.'s approach to renewable energy by burning this methane trapped in this hill to put back into the electric grid.

I looked up online if there were any regulations for how close one should build a hospital to a landfill and all that came up was articles on how hospital waste was filling up landfills. I could not reword the search term to get a hit on any regulatory info about landfills and hospitals only to find an article that stated the EPA says there's no harm breathing this air if you live at least 2 miles.

Then an even more disturbing article mentioned a degreaser type chemical in these landfills was found by EPA to be more dangerous than first studied and that both NASA and the defense department who used this chemical told federal authorities to have the EPA to change their statement.

WTF?!

[Alan Goldhammer]

there is a nice story in the New York Times today about the impact of beavers in the Denali refuge in Alaska.  Increasing temperatures have expanded the range of the beaver with a resulting adverse impact on the permafrost layer:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/climate/arctic-beavers-alaska.html?_r=0 

[Robert Roaldi]

We think we know a lot about trees, but there is always new info coming on stream. This is an hour long episode of a long-standing science series Nature of Things on CBC TV. I am not sure if everyone will be able to see it: http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/what-trees-talk-about. I didn't fully appreciate the degree of interconnectedness of a stand of trees, nor their effect on climate/weather. It's not too revelatory on the topic of climate chance per se, but it adds to fundamental knowledge.

[Robert Roaldi]

State of large-scale battery development: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/batteries-canada-technology-1.4455998.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Thanks for posting that article about trees, Robert. I live in a Arbor Day Foundation designated "Tree City USA" town of New Braunfels and I'm not surprised by some of the findings related in that link.

Developers really take issue with the regulations established to preserve the trees in this town and across the state of Texas. It's because of trees my landlord has to shut off the water to our apartment complex to dig up the log size roots that bust the water pipes.

I can live with that since I'm now paying for an allocated water bill.

[Ray]

If trees could talk, they would thank us profusely for raising CO2 levels, and wish us Merry Christmas. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If trees could talk, they would thank us profusely for raising CO2 levels, and wish us Merry Christmas. 

And trees will outlive mankind, long after we have made ourselves extinct.

Cheers, and enjoy a Merry Christmas while we can,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

One of America's green energy companies does it again saving South Australia power problem.  "Better then hoped for." Who needs Paris?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-battery-australia-20171226-story.html

[Alan Klein]

Getting back to photography, here's a nice NY Times photo essay of Climate Change scientists at work in the field.
https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/the-scientists-who-track-climate-change-in-the-field/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Multimedia&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

[Ray]

One of America's green energy companies does it again saving South Australia power problem.  "Better then hoped for." Who needs Paris?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-battery-australia-20171226-story.html

Alan,
I can't find any information on the actual cost of this battery storage compared with alternative backup strategies. How long are the batteries expected to last before replacement is required, for example?

In my search, I came across the following article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/marketing-con-fears-as-elon-musks-sa-battery-costs-remain-secret/news-story/64597062cc83ffd06cbe5fbc6bf14227

We should also bear in mind the following comment from the article you quoted.

"It can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage."

PS. I just found an alternative view from one of those bloody climate change deniers. 

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/12/11/south-australias-mega-battery-a-costly-exercise-in-green-vanity-signalling/

"South Australians wake every day to an unfolding economic nightmare: they pay the highest retail power prices in the world, while suffering routine load shedding (scheduled power cuts) and mass blackouts (unscheduled), whenever wind power output collapses on a total and totally unpredictable basis. Businesses are being wiped out and whole industries are under threat.

A bit like one of Baldrick’s ‘cunning plans’, SA’s vapid Premier, Jay Weatherill signed up with Californian carpetbagger, Elon Musk to squander $150 million of taxpayers’ money on a battery which could notionally power SA for four minutes when the wind stops blowing."

[Alan Klein]

Ray, My post was just a poke at the Paris accord supporters to show that you don't have to be a member country to make money off of green energy.  You only need to be a brash entrepreneur.  In fact, being involved with government will just slow you down. 

Also, as I posted before #326, the batteries cost a fortune for each person served.  Here's a copy of an earlier post I made in this thread.:

"I've read elsewhere that the batteries will cost Australia $50 million which works out to about $1700 for each of the 30,000 homes effected.  Of course that's the build price.  What about upkeep, maintenance, and eventual replacements of the batteries?  It's not a one-time charge.

I also read that they still have to build diesel -fired plants: "The state has yet to say how much it would pay for the battery, which is part of a A$510 million ($390 million) plan that includes diesel-fired generators to help keep the lights on following a string of blackouts over the past 18 months."

So the cost of electricity  based on $390 million/30,000 homes is actually $13,000 per home.  So much for "free" electricity.  And you still need the diesel plants burning "dirty" carbon fuel for backup.  It seems that energy-rich Australia will continue to pay the highest for electricity for years to come.  The current politicians won't last long when taxes go up to pay for all this free stuff. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-power-tesla/tesla-cranks-up-big-battery-in-australia-idUSKBN1DN0B4?il=0"

[Robert Roaldi]

Cost/benefit analyses rarely are complete. That is, if someone wants to show that something can't be done, it's easy to come up with reasons why it can't. Mention lots of costs, but never mention benefits.

A few years, people were saying that "full-size" sensors would never be produced in quantity because of silicone wafer failure rates , etc., and now we're surrounded by full-frame cameras that don't really cost all that much. What's expensive today is cheap tomorrow.

At the moment, there are lots of people pointing out all the reasons that we can't move away from resource-based energy, pointing all the things that are wrong with the "alternate" energy sources. And the arguments all seem to make sense, they always do, since they only point out the costs and leave out the benefits.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume that there was no oil industry and someone discovered oil next week. Arguments would immediately begin about the "costs" and "benefits" of switching to oil. Would the modern-day world agree to having large petro-chemical plants in our suburbs, would we agree to destroying the Louisiana coast, would we agree to putting lead in the atmosphere, etc. All of the things that may be wrong with "alternates" are also wrong with resource-based energy. We're just used to those, so we think they're normal.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Cost/benefit analyses rarely are complete. That is, if someone wants to show that something can't be done, it's easy to come up with reasons why it can't. Mention lots of costs, but never mention benefits.

This is often forgotten in discussions related to alternative energy.  There are lots of conceptual ideas that fail in this type of analysis.  We are starting to see lots of electric car charging stations in parking garages in my area.  I wonder if anyone has really thought about where this energy comes from.  In additiona, people can sign up to receive their home electricity from renewable sources.  This is just a "feel-good" idea and one that is not terribly practical.  Consider what would happen if everyone in the US did this; there would not be nearly enough supply for all those who wanted it.  Here is a story from my hometown newspaper:  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-cca-renewables-20170708-story.html

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ray, My post was just a poke at the Paris accord supporters to show that you don't have to be a member country to make money off of green energy.  You only need to be a brash entrepreneur.  In fact, being involved with government will just slow you down.

It's saddening that so many do not understand the meaning of the Paris accord, but one learns to manage one's expectations ...

For those who do care about their health and earthly belongings, I'll add the following consideration which is part of the Paris accords:
How to respond to the justified critical remarks by e.g. the Indian Government, saying that "What moral authority do the Western industrialized countries think they have, to deny India our 150 years of rapid economic development, after they polluted the world's atmosphere for that long?

Well, that's exactly one of the things that the Paris accord addresses. It's not about brash entrepreneurs (there will always be some). It's not about denying other entrepreneurs to sell coal or use it to generate power. It's about providing a coordinated global approach towards a sustainable future and a healthier environment. However, that global approach will have to (amongst others) phase out the use of fossil fuel, matching the capabilities of individual countries in doing so without hurting their development, as much as possible. It will be a painful exercise for some, but less painful than inaction, which will also cost a lot more than managing the transition.

One of the solutions incorporated in the Paris accords is to assist developing countries in providing easy access to resources that allow them to skip the fossil fuel-based power generation, and start using renewable energy sources instead. That will help not only the suppliers of those technologies (companies that have invested in technological know-how), but also the developing countries (in changing living conditions for their populations for the better), and the rest of the world also benefits from improved conditions (health and climate).

Also, as I posted before #326, the batteries cost a fortune for each person served.

You failed to add how much they save in required capacity of the remaining power generation facilities, and the cost of having no energy for periods of time. You also seem to have misunderstood the purpose of such buffer capacity storage facilities. I'm not saying that the specific example is an optimal solution, but that the principle of not using a virtually free source of energy (solar, wind, and hydro) is stupid. And also that building in some form of buffer capacity to bridge the variable availability of those sources only makes sense.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Hey guys, check the global warming that's going on in Erie, Pa. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is often forgotten in discussions related to alternative energy.  There are lots of conceptual ideas that fail in this type of analysis.  We are starting to see lots of electric car charging stations in parking garages in my area.  I wonder if anyone has really thought about where this energy comes from.

Yes, good point, but it's being addressed by modern installations.

As an example, at the edge of my town, a renewed train-station is being built, including underpasses for local traffic that doesn't have to wait anymore for the trains crossing the local roads. Part of the effort to get people out of their cars is to provide viable transportation alternatives with fewer drawbacks for society.

Therefore, a 5-story parking garage for 600-vehicles is part of the facility, and it is 100% energy neutral, solar panels on the roof. It generates as much power as it needs to be operated, including all the electrical installations for lighting, elevators, entrance gates with automated payment, and a growing number of charging stations for electric cars, etc. And it doesn't look too bad from the outside either, which can't be said for all buildings. During the construction, lots of environmentally friendly materials like wood were used that have a reduced impact on CO2 emissions (e.g. compared to the production of concrete/cement).

To solve the issue of fossil-fuel based power generation for a.o. those trains, and the rest of the country, our government has announced a prohibition by law to produce utility energy with coal as a fuel, by 2030 or sooner if possible. New tenders for Windfarms are now subsidy-free, because the builders have become more experienced and efficient, and the government is forthcoming is assigning locations (mostly at sea, given our specific geographical situation) with already existing powerlines to shore, and/or a possibility to use excess energy for the production of Hydrogen.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Cost/benefit analyses rarely are complete. That is, if someone wants to show that something can't be done, it's easy to come up with reasons why it can't. Mention lots of costs, but never mention benefits.

A few years, people were saying that "full-size" sensors would never be produced in quantity because of silicone wafer failure rates , etc., and now we're surrounded by full-frame cameras that don't really cost all that much. What's expensive today is cheap tomorrow.

At the moment, there are lots of people pointing out all the reasons that we can't move away from resource-based energy, pointing all the things that are wrong with the "alternate" energy sources. And the arguments all seem to make sense, they always do, since they only point out the costs and leave out the benefits.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume that there was no oil industry and someone discovered oil next week. Arguments would immediately begin about the "costs" and "benefits" of switching to oil. Would the modern-day world agree to having large petro-chemical plants in our suburbs, would we agree to destroying the Louisiana coast, would we agree to putting lead in the atmosphere, etc. All of the things that may be wrong with "alternates" are also wrong with resource-based energy. We're just used to those, so we think they're normal.

Bob, the government had little to do with the advancement of silicon chips except as they support space and military requirements.  Better chips for cameras were developed because companies compete with one another, hence the constant sales pitch of the never ending argument of quantity of pixels and DR.  It's become a competitive wedge issue for buyers that the camera manufacturers are sure to satisfy.  The same with solar and other green products.  They will develop regardless due to free market demands and competition. 

[Alan Klein]

It's saddening that so many do not understand the meaning of the Paris accord, but one learns to manage one's expectations ...

For those who do care about their health and earthly belongings, I'll add the following consideration which is part of the Paris accords:
How to respond to the justified critical remarks by e.g. the Indian Government, saying that "What moral authority do the Western industrialized countries think they have, to deny India our 150 years of rapid economic development, after they polluted the world's atmosphere for that long?

Well, that's exactly one of the things that the Paris accord addresses. It's not about brash entrepreneurs (there will always be some). It's not about denying other entrepreneurs to sell coal or use it to generate power. It's about providing a coordinated global approach towards a sustainable future and a healthier environment. However, that global approach will have to (amongst others) phase out the use of fossil fuel, matching the capabilities of individual countries in doing so without hurting their development, as much as possible. It will be a painful exercise for some, but less painful than inaction, which will also cost a lot more than managing the transition.

One of the solutions incorporated in the Paris accords is to assist developing countries in providing easy access to resources that allow them to skip the fossil fuel-based power generation, and start using renewable energy sources instead. That will help not only the suppliers of those technologies (companies that have invested in technological know-how), but also the developing countries (in changing living conditions for their populations for the better), and the rest of the world also benefits from improved conditions (health and climate).

You failed to add how much they save in required capacity of the remaining power generation facilities, and the cost of having no energy for periods of time. You also seem to have misunderstood the purpose of such buffer capacity storage facilities. I'm not saying that the specific example is an optimal solution, but that the principle of not using a virtually free source of energy (solar, wind, and hydro) is stupid. And also that building in some form of buffer capacity to bridge the variable availability of those sources only makes sense.

Cheers,
Bart

Just because the Indian and Chinese governments prevented growth until recently because of stupid economic and political decisions, does not mean the more advanced societies should give up their gains to live better that they worked hard for.  That argument is used by individuals who sat on their asses, didn't push their children to get educations, and then demand that others who worked hard and pushed their children to get educated now owe them a living.  Re-distribution of wealth.  Sounds like the Communists.   

Additionally, the Chinese will produce at least the equal amount of CO2 that they already produce when they pollute foreign countries with 800 new coal fired electric generation plants throughout the world during the next ten years.  How does Paris help with that?  It's a joke.  China reduces its pollution and moves it off shore.  Brilliant plan, Paris.