A Guest Post by Islandboy
The EIA released the latest edition of their Electric Power Monthly on September 25th, with data for July 2018. The table above shows the percentage contribution of the main fuel sources to two decimal places for the last two months and the year to date.
For the month of July, the total amount of electricity generated was the second highest amount generated for any single month since January 2013 at 410,148 GWh, 2,302 GWh less than the amount generated in July 2016. Coal and Natural Gas fueled almost 68.5% of US electricity generation in July and while the contribution from Coal increased from 27.36% in June to 28.18% in July, the contribution from Natural Gas also increased by slightly more than five percentage points, reaching an unprecedented 40.28% up from 35.02% in June. Nuclear power generated 72,456 GWh, 3.97% more than it did in June but, due to the increase in total generation, the percentage contribution to the total actually declined to 17.67% from 18.77% in June.
In July, the contribution from All Renewables at 13.01% fell further below that from Nuclear at 17.67%, similar to July 2017 when the ramp up of total generation resulted in the percentage contribution from All Renewables falling further below that from Nuclear. The absolute contribution from Solar declined from it’s all time high in June of 10,880 GWh to 10,049 GWh, with the corresponding percentage contribution declining to 2.45% as opposed to 2.93% in June. The amount of electricity generated by Wind decreased by almost 35%, from 24,411 GWh to 15,897 GWh and coupled with the increased total generation, the percentage contribution declined from 6.58% to 3.88% in July. The contribution from Hydro decreased 13.53% from 27415 GWh in June to 23706 GWh, resulting in the percentage contribution decreasing from 7.39% in June to 5.78%. The combined contribution from Wind and Solar decreased to 6.33% from 9.51% in June. Consequently the contribution from Non-Hydro Renewables also decreased to 7.23% from 10.48%. The contribution of zero emission and carbon neutral sources, that is, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas and other biomass decreased to 30.68% from 36.64% in June.
The graph below helps to illustrate how the changes in absolute production affect the percentage contribution from the various sources.
The chart below shows the total monthly generation at utility scale facilities by year versus the contribution from solar. The left hand scale is for the total generation, while the right hand scale is for solar output and has been deliberately set to exaggerate the solar output as a means of assessing it’s potential to make a meaningful contribution to the midsummer peak. The scale on the y axes has been adjusted to display TWh instead of GWh as suggested by Dennis (Coyne) earlier this year to make the comparison a little easier. In July 2018 the output from solar at 10,049 GWh, was 3.64 times what it was four years ago in July 2014. Solar energy appears to have peaked in June, the month of the summer solstice, so it is looking like the peak monthly output for 2018 is likely to be 10,880 GWh, barring the remote chance that more is generated in August.
The chart below shows the monthly capacity additions for 2018. In July Natural Gas contributed 82.78 percent of new capacity. With 7.45 percent of new capacity coming from Wind and Solar contributing 6.85 percent, Natural Gas, Solar and Wind made up almost 99.94 percent of new capacity in July. The only capacity added that is not fueled by Natural Gas, Wind or Solar was a 1MW cogen plant, fueled by Distillate Fuel Oil (at the Loma Linda University. In July 2018 the total added capacity reported was 1,576 MW, compared to the 1,667 MW added in May 2017.
The chart below shows the monthly capacity retirements so far for 2018. In July the only retirements were three units powered by internal combustion engines, fueled by Landfill Gas, two 1 MW units in Maryland and a 1.7 MW unit in Texas, for a total of 3.7 MW.
Following the report on the edition of the EPM with data for March, there was some discussion about coal consumption for the production of electricity. At the request of peakoilbarrel.com member Shyam, I am including a table of the top ten states in order of coal consumption for electricity production for July.
The Mythology of Work
Eight Myths that Keep Your Eyes on the Clock and Your Nose to the Grindstone
Here is a primitive fishing method for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEIWrH7u-Gk
Here is a whole list of primitive technology methods and structures.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+primitive+technology
Thanks… And we can bend the concept of ‘primitive’ technology, too, by flipping the notion of ‘modern’ technology as what’s, in a sense, primitive or less ‘evolved’.
Nice, thanks for sharing. Of course nature has to be clean for stuff like that to make the most sense. Also, if technology is too efficient, we can run out of crabs to eat.
You might be interested in the Morris Canal. Even though it had high elevations to cross it was at it’s root all solar powered. The inclined planes were run by water turbines using the drop of the plane, fed from a lake at the peak altitude.
http://canalsocietynj.org/mcdata.htm
Neat
“Elon is not a flake, he is a practical genius that thinks way beyond what is possible today.” ~ GoneFishing
Scientist Lays Out 5 Huge Problems With Elon Musk’s Hyperloop
—————
Look up Australia, cable cars could ease our traffic woes
Yep, cable cars are a nice way to travel as long as there are not high winds. Not scalable to high density commute regions though that hundreds of thousands of people per hour up to millions per hour.
According to Train-Media, the daily number of train passengers in the Greater Tokyo Area is approximately 20 million. This is more than the individual populations of over 100 countries in the world. Annual train ridership is a staggering 13 billion people, or twice the population of the entire world! By comparison, Germany’s trains only transport 10 million passengers per year, or less than 1% of the trains in Tokyo, yet its population is only a little more than twice that of the Greater Tokyo Area.
In summary, Tokyo’s rush hour moves the populations of whole countries within the confines of the city boundaries every morning and evening. It is a mass migration movement where the density of people on the trains is close to the practical maximum to the point any train ride becomes uncomfortable. It is amazing that the system works as well as it does, but it has to because any delay will grind the system to a halt, with incoming passengers stranded and overflowing the train stations. The only way to alleviate the congestion is more businesses relocating farther from the city centre or rental prices in the centre decreasing sharply, and more high-rise units being built.
http://www.elsi.jp/en/blog/2015/11/blog1126.html
And that is just the trains. Yikes.
For comparison, NYC area rail transport
The largest and most important is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), a public benefit corporation in the state of New York, which runs all of the city’s subways and buses and two of its three commuter rail networks. Ridership in the city increased 36% to 2.2 billion annual riders from 1995 to 2005, far outpacing population growth.[27][28] Average weekday subway ridership was 5.076 million in September 2006, while combined subway and bus ridership on an average weekday that month was 7.61 million.[29] Wikipedia
Ah yes, Tokyo Station, a continually evolving complex that can be downright terrifying to non-Japanese speaking travelers. As I recall, the main building has 10 platforms serving 20 tracks. It’s the busiest station in Japan with roughly 3,000 trains per day, God alone knows how many passengers.
Your ticket, written in Japanese, tells you the platform, where to stand on that platform, and exactly when to board. If you mess up (in busy times trains come and go every few minutes), you could wind up anywhere. That said, once you get the hang of it, the system is almost unbelievably efficient. Maybe you don’t have to be able to read Japanese now to understand your ticket (that you must get from a vending machine – also requiring knowledge of Japanese)? When I was first in Japan, even streets didn’t have names but with Expos, etc. a lot has been done to make travel easier for foreigners.
If you happen to find yourself lost in Japan (and you don’t know the language), ask teenage kids. They all study English and are always looking for an opportunity to speak to native English speakers.
“By comparison, Germany’s trains only transport 10 million passengers per year, or less than 1% of the trains in Tokyo, yet its population is only a little more than twice that of the Greater Tokyo Area.”
That number is nonsense.
70 million passengers are transported in long distance trains (ICE, IC) per year in Germany.
Check the numbers for trainstation of cities like Hannover, Hamburg, Frankfurt. E.g. Hannover (500.000 citizens) sees more than 250.000 passengers at the trainstaion per day.
Hi Ulenspiegal, good catch on that German number. However, it is just a typo. If one does the calculation using 100 million passengers it is less than 1 percent of the Tokyo number as the article indicates. Using the 10 million number makes it less than one-tenth of one percent. Just a typo, no intended BS.
You compare oranges and apples:
The German number I gave was passengers only in long-distance trains.
The Japanese number conprises commuters and long-distance travellers.
My Hannover number proves that in some German cities the rail transport system moves the equivalent of half of the cities population per day, that is very Japanese. Got it?
To make a point you have to compare the numbers of the Tokyo area with the Rhein-Ruhr area. Have not found good data on the latter yet, sorry.
Hey guys, how about including such things as fun, leisure and enjoyment in your calculations and perspectives.
Moving a whole lot of people somewhere might be great in some ways, but not necessarily in others. That’s in large part why I put the first comment (about work) in these threads.
The recently-opened aerial cableway/gondola in Vietnam looks fun, what do you think?
What makes your heart sing? Are you having fun? As much as you could?
Because we need solutions for existing problems, here communting on tracks is the most efficient.
I live in a city which evaluates a cable car along a river, nice but only a small minor theatre of war.
The real difference is the density. The Greater Tokyo Area is small compared to Germany yet it has insane levels of transport density I would not wish upon anyone. Still, they make it work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNiVttnvt2A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7kor5nHtZQ
Imagine the heat load in those cars with over 250 people stuffed in a car, nearly touching each other. Each person is about 100 watts.
“The Greater Tokyo Area is small compared to Germany yet it has insane levels of transport density I would not wish upon anyone.”
We are talking here about a factor of two at best, not your order of magnitude:
Tokyo area: 14.000 km^2, 40 million people
Rhein Ruhr; 7.000 km^2, 11 million people
Such areas have the advantage of economy of scale, e.g.(expensive) subway systems make economically sense.
Ok, Germany is almost as stupid as Japan as far as density. You are there, won’t argue that. You win! Have fun shoving them in like sardines.
Glad my ancestors migrated. No electric underground trains near here, only surface ones miles away. No big cities anywhere near either. Lots of trees.
https://www.ase.org/resources/energy-efficient-subway-systems-world
Regenerative power for subways and cranes.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-energy-efficient-subway#gs.2dBsnoI
Interestingly, the German number for long distance travel (71 million) is only for first six months of 2018, according to Statistisches Bundesamt. Obviously, the source I used in my previous post did not cite it correctly.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/09/PD18_355_461.html;jsessionid=B89ED02121F1841F24FA64201327757C.InternetLive2
The number of commuters for six months is given as 5.8 billion passengers (I suppose this actually mean trips) for Germany.
This gives 32 million trips per day, or 16 million people out of 83 million are transported to work and back.
One of the keywords in the article I quoted is ‘mitigate’.
There are, of course, a multitude of issues surrounding trains, planes and automobiles, as well as what technology is appropriate (the hows, wheres, whys, whens, etc.).
Aerial cableways, despite some apparent disadvantages (although it can get pretty windy in mountainous regions where they especially preside [including in Japan] often to the relative exclusion other forms of mass transport) may be the safest, cheapest and fastest to build forms of mass public transit along with many other advantages. As such, I obviously think we may do well to consider them, and more often, and in areas and applications not normally considered. Aerial cableways also move more than people.
It’s also important to note the already so-called ‘developed’ and/or ‘infrastructurally-saturated’ contexts (such as of planes, trains and automobiles) in which aerial cableways are considered and implemented, with one implication being that it can sometimes be an apples to oranges comparison.
Tokyo and cities like it may experience unexpected effects from energy and related socioeconomic contraction that may make aerial cableways increasingly viable, such as where, for example, older previously-existing transport-related infrastructure becomes increasingly prohibitive to build, maintain and operate.
Two last points about wind:
Sometimes, with higher-than-usual windspeeds, many things are shut down, such as in the contexts of winter storms and whatnot.
Also, more advanced aerial cableways may be able to handle faster windspeeds, such as using damping-related technology as well as with additional cables– which, incidentally, and as a fringe benefit, can also increase the length of their spans.
Roosevelt Island Tram & Hurricane Sandy
Doug and others. Some interesting topics on the ELSI blog.
http://www.elsi.jp/en/blog/index.html
Just in case anybody missed the significant data from this months EPM, Natural Gas generated 40.28% of the total for the month, a whopping 165196 GWh! This is more than any single source has generated for a single month since January 2013. It reinforces the point that gas is what is replacing coal up to now. In the future it is likely to also be the case that electricity generated by wind and solar will cost less than that generated using coal.
The current US administration seems to be intent on tipping the scales with their most recent appointment:
Coal lobby pleased as Trump nominates ally McNamee to FERC
Dive Insight:
If McNamee is seated on FERC he could give the Trump administration a more consistent ally than the independent-minded Powelson, who retired from FERC in August to lead a water company trade group.
Already, McNamee has worked on one of the White House’s most controversial proposals. Last year, he helped pitch the DOE’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which would have provided cost recovery to plants with 90 days of fuel onsite, pumping the plan at regulatory conferences and defending it in front of Senate lawmakers this July.
“A lot of the organized markets have distortions in them that aren’t representative of an actual free-serving market, so the thought is you need to remove some of those distortions and get some more parity,” McNamee said in response to a question from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
FERC unanimously rejected the plan in January, but McNamee’s argument at the hearing echoes a frequent talking point from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry — namely that there is “no free market” in the energy industry, so saving uneconomic plants from retirement will not undermine market functions.
Draining the swamp?
“Draining the swamp?”
They are diverting several rivers into it and shipping in alligators by the truckload.
NAOM
Islandboy
If you do any reading on the slate of upcoming CCGT power plants in the US, you will see that gas generated electricity will continue to rapidly increase in percentage and absolute terms.
Just one particular example, the Guernsey Power Station, in Guernsey county, Ohio, will produce 1,650 Mw while only requiring 25 fulltime employees
You will, I am sure, appreciate the significance of one thousand, six hundred and fifty on demand Megawatts … in a plant financed completely with private funding.
The folks up in New England are on track to be the biggest role models for hydrocarbon consumption as their coming travails will provide a jolting wakeup as to the consequences of proceeding wholeheartedly down the path of renewables.
The $2 billion plus cost (WAY plus) to build 800 Mw (nameplate) generation via offshore whirleys will be contrasted with the just opened, privately funded Footprint plant in Salem Harbor.
The near 700 Mw from Footprint, dispatchable, will be more than double the offshore’s 320 Mw (unreliable and intermittant).
Most people are ignorant of, and completely removed – presently – from these realities.
As the expected, very expensive drama plays out during New England cold snaps the next few years, the backlash is apt to be ferocious.
First of all, you cannot compare the costs or capabilities of wind power to fossil fuel power unless all pollution and destructive land/water use is captured and eliminated. Then they can be compared. To do anything else is logically impaired and ethically compromised by the end justifies the means methodology.
Natural gas puts out a continuous stream of waste and needs a continuous stream of drilling, refining and transport with all that entails in materials, energy, land and pollution. Oh yeah, solve the leakage and permanent capping problems too.
So come back with a comparison of costs and capacity factors when you have solved those major problems.
Using the world as a toilet has to stop, had to stop long ago. Time to grow up and be responsible for our actions even if it means doing things differently and being somewhat uncomfortable at times.
You can’t make a man understand something if his salary depends on his not undrrstanding it…
That plus the fact that most people really are completely clueless about reality and our current predicament.
People like Coffeeguyz sincerely believe we can continue to use all manner of fossil fuels without consequences to the sustaining systems of this planet. He and others like him are gravely mistaken.
False beliefs lead to deadly endings. The ladder of logic must be true at every point or it shatters.
The near 700 Mw from Footprint, dispatchable, will be more than double the offshore’s 320 Mw (unreliable and intermittant).
Well, no. The design spec is 674MW (see http://www.footprintsalemharbor.com/ ). That’s the absolute maximum. The average capacity factor for CCGT plants is much less – maybe 56%. So, the the cost per average MW is almost double the nominal cost, and the actual production is likely to be quite similar to the wind farm. https://www.powermag.com/gas-combined-cycle-capacity-factors-beat-coal-for-first-time-ever/
Now you have to add in the cost of the NG, which is probably rather higher than at the wellhead. I don’t have the time to find the figures and lay out the calculations, but I suspect the wind farm is quite competitive.
And, of course, that’s before you figure in the external costs of pollution, which (as Gonefishing notes) are very, very real.
Nick
I believe we had a similar discussion a few years back concerning the terms capacity factor, utilization rate, efficiency factor, and a couple other concepts/terms.
Run through some of the FAQS on the EIA site and you will clearly see that the rate of utilization is what is being described when various methods of electricity generation are discussed.
When Footprint, or any other Combined Cycle Gas Plant, are said to have a nameplate capacity of X Megawatts, those plants will be able to deliver at the gate 100% of that amount.
If they are only in use 12 hours of a 24 hour day, their utilization rate would be 50%.
Capacity factor relating to wind farms is simply the amount of electricity actually produced relative to its maximal potential.
The Block Island wind farm has a trailing 12 month capacity factor of 39%, as can be seen on the EIA site map (great tool).
An additional criteria, efficiency, breaks down the total heat content of the fuel relative to the amount of electrical output.
Modern CCGPs regularly exceed 60% efficiency with the latest iterations approaching 65%.
The fact that these plants are designed to be ramped up and down on short notice – tracking market demand throughout the day – along with their high efficiency are the reasons that several dozens of these plants are being built.
Well, sometimes “capacity factor” is also called “utilization rate”.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html
So, CCGT has a “utilization rate” around 55%, and offshore wind often is around 40%. Which makes the actual average output of these two plants pretty similar, if you do the math.
This particular plant says it has 58% efficiency, but that’s a whole different thing.
Are we in agreement here?
Nick
Agreement?
Kinda, sorta and it goes sumptin like dis …
As displayed recently on the other thread, Dennis and Mr. P employed different sources to describe the 2P/3P concepts.
Seeming – to me – raising the concept of a Higher Authority to pretty incredible highs.
I take a completely different approach.
I use a proprietary framework called “Coffeeguyzz’ Real World Stuff”. That is, what a reasonably informed layperson may understand in day to day situations.
Take capacities for offshore whirleys as an example.
A cutting edge turbine from Siemens, GE, at al may produce 6 Megawatts at full production.
6 Mw nameplate capacity.
Now, stick this whirley off the coast of England and production records will show 21,000 Megawatts produced in a year, whereas 52,000 Mw would be 100% production over same time frame.
So … this whirley COULD have produced 52k, but wound up with 21k.
The UTILIZATION may be 100% as the gizmo was out there the entire time, but actual juice was, understandably, much less.
Now, a CCGP plant – say Footprint – can crank out 674 Megawatts anytime the operator puts his coffee cup down, reaches over, and flips a switch.
If that action results in 12 hours per day operation, then the UTE rate would be 50%, obviously.
In fact, if you glance at the New England ISO site from today you would see the customary ramp up from early morning is exclusively due to gas-fueled generation (72% … wind 3%].
So, bouncing around different terms and concepts can be very helpful in understanding the ‘broader’ issues at hand. But, again, the Real World Stuff is my primary guide as long as the crucially important input data and interpretation are valid.
This is something I constantly strive to ensure is the case … which is why I appreciate engaging in respectful, informed individuals such as yourself who hold contrary views to my own.
So, if a wind plant is producing 21MWh vs it’s maximum of 52, then it’s utilization is 40%. That’s exactly what you and I said above.
So, we agree that a wind farm with nominal capacity of 800MW at 40% would produce an average of 320MW. And, a 674MW CCGT gas plant at 50% utilization would produce .50 x 674 = 337MW on average.
I know you’d like to look at more issues, like intermittency and dispatchability, but I’d like to come to agreement on this narrow issue of how many kWhs these plants would produce, on average.
Are we agreed on those numbers?
Hi Nick. The standard capacity factor is as Coffeguyzz said.
If a nuc plant operates at full power for 90% of the time, its CF= 90%
If a wind turbine operates at 1/2 power rating for 1/2 the time, its CF=25%
Simple, and useful. Particularly when comparing sites to put new wind facilities, or selecting turbine models or tower heights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
Uhm…isn’t that equivalent to what I said?
If you disagree, then please tell me: how is it different from what I said???
ok Nick. I thought you were replacing the standard terminology used in the industry ‘capacity factor’ to something else (‘utilization rate’). Pardon
Nick
To continue to conjoin different aspects, capacity factor along with rate of utilization can – and will – provide a numerically correct outcome if you seek an average number of produced megawatts over a 24 hour period for a CCGP.
I have been unsuccessful over a multi year period in attempting to discourage Dennis from obtaining and then using average numbers in shale wells as the Real World Stuff gets wildly distorted when going down that path.
To, as an example, combine and ‘average out’ wells from Hilcorp in Beaver county with Cabot wells in Susquehannah county would be both numerically accurate and not even close to recognizing what is going on.
When Footprint operates – as Hickory’s example showed using nukes – at 100% capacity (674 Mw output) for maybe 10 hours during a normal day … maybe 15 hours during heat spells as just occurred, this dispatchable nature is HIGHLY attractive to the market as operating costs are minimal in slack periods of demand.
So, yes, one can incorporate periods of zero output if a particular presentation is sought.
This would be both accurate and extremely misleading in real world circumstances.
Coffeeguyzz,
For those investing in a power plant they are interested in profits and whether a plant is capable of producing 650 MW 24/7 (note that these plants need maintenance so that never happens) matters little, what matters is the average output of the plant over its life as that determines revenue. So Utilization rate matters crucially to an investor, the possibility of higher output only matters if it actually happens as potential output creates no revenue, only actual real world output matters.
I attempt to create scenarios for what will happen to oil output in a tight oil play based on the information I have.
Doesn’t really matter what the distribution of output from the wells is. If 100 wells produce an average of 100 b/d over some period (say a year), then average output is for that basin is 10 kb/d if those are the only 100 wells producing in that basin for that year. You would of course say that well x operated by company y was producing at a maximum rate of 500 b/d for one month, and I would reply, who cares, if 90 wells produced at 10 b/d over 90% of the period in question, I don’t single those wells out and say, output is poor, that would be cherry picking.
I just report and use average output from all the producing wells. The result of the model using well completion data and well profile data from the NDIC and shared by Enno Peters is a model like the one shown in the chart below for the period from Jan 2005 to Oct 2017. Works fairly well in my opinion.
“If a wind turbine operates at 1/2 power rating for 1/2 the time, its CF=25%”
It’s not quite as simple as that. In reality wind power is highly variable. In some locations (eg. the desert southwestern US) solar output is probably more predictable than wind with a set pattern of output and very little cloud cover. Nevertheless, for a given wind turbine, or even for large groups of turbines, the output can be very variable from one minute to the next. Below is a graph found on the web page at the following URL, showing the combined output of all the 5000+ wind turbines feeding the grid in the UK in March 2014.:
http://www.viaspace.com/biomass_versus_alternatives.php
The actual capacity factor is calculated by finding the area under the graph, which in the case of this particular graph is 32.4%. The result is the same as if the turbines generated a steady 32.4% of their rated output all the time or their rated output for 32.4% of the time and nothing the rest of the time.
This is neither simple nor useful when considering “sites to put new wind facilities, or selecting turbine models or tower heights.” For wind turbines to be economically viable, the goal should be to maximize capacity factor. However the daily and seasonal profile of the wind resource is going to affect what other generating assets will be necessary to satisfy demands being placed on the grid at any given instant. The section headed “Biomass Compared to Solar and Wind” from the web page linked above does a pretty good job of outlining the challenges of integrating variable, intermittent power sources into a grid.
To get an illustration of the challenges faced by grid operators with respect to the various sources one can look at the charts showing data from the Australian Energy Market Operator at the web page below:
https://opennem.org.au/#/all-regions
or the charts for power in Germany produced by Fraunhoffer ISE at the link below:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
The main challenge of grid operators as increased amounts of solar and win are added to the grid, is balancing the desire for lower costs with the economic interests of the various owners of generating assets. Apparently solar and wind can produce electricity at the lowest cost when the zero fuel cost resources are available but, more use of wind and solar results in lower utilization of sources that can be called upon at any instant (dispatchable), making the unit cost of energy produced by dispatchable sources higher or making their operations less economically viable.
Not simple by any stretch of the imagination.
Island boy- thanks for taking the time to reiterate what I said.
Don’t see how writing ‘This is neither simple nor useful when considering “sites to put new wind facilities, or selecting turbine models or tower heights.” ‘> constitutes reiterating what you said but, carry on!
to conjoin different aspects, capacity factor along with rate of utilization
Capacity factor is actual production divided by theoretical maximum (nameplate) production.
What do you mean by “rate of utilization”?
Rate of utilization … how much time the plant is actually cranking out the juice over a given timeframe, e.g., 12 hours producing over a one day (24 hour) span equals 50% utilization.
It would ordinarily be operating at 100% capacity factor (674 Mw in Footprint’s case) during this period.
It would ordinarily be operating at 100% capacity factor (674 Mw in Footprint’s case) during this period.
You’ve not using these terms in a standard way. As a result, you may not be thinking about these plants operations in a realistic way.
Very few plants operate at 100% for very long periods. When they do, one might say that they are operating at “100% of capacity”, but not that they are at “100% capacity factor”.
Capacity factor” is a statistical description of actual versus potential over a reasonably long period of time, perhaps a month, year, or even the life of the plant. One can refer to utilization to mean the same thing, but I believe that’s less common. And, one could refer to “utilization” for a short period, say 12 or 24 hours. But, I don’t think it makes sense to say that a CCGT plant would normally operate at 100%: as you’ve said elsewhere, they vary their output quite a bit, so 100% output is the maximum and is somewhat rare (though it might happen for an extended time during a high demand period of the year) – it’s not really the norm.
Which brings back to where we started, which was clarifying that the Footprint plant is likely to operate at well below 60% “utilization”, which is not that far from the 40% capacity factor for the offshore wind farm.
Nick
Raw data numbers from EIA Electricity Data browser …
Footprint came online sometime in June, 2018. Plant ID# 60903.
First full month production was July at 166,926 Megawatt hours.
At 100% rate of utilization, 100% balls to the wall output of 674 Mw for the 744 hours in July, 501,456 Megawatt hours could have been produced.
Again, for you, Dennis, or anyone working with these numbers, you must be aware that the DEMAND for this product (electricity) is the ONLY revenue stream for producers.
Today’s New England’s ISO charts show the Real World Stuff on how this plays out.
To wit, at early AM hours, NE demanded under 9,500 Mw juice. This afternoon, from 4 to 6 PM, they will demand about 16,500 Mw.
Almost the ENTIRE supplement (9.5 to 16.5), will come from Footprint and the other CCGPs up thataway.
And that’s how it works.
(Point of reference … Block Island offshore wind – plant ID# 58035 – produced 7,300+ Mwh for both June and July. At 30 Mw capacity for the 744 hours in July, 100% output for 100% of the time would be over 22,000 Mwh … if’n ah counted proper on mah fingers and toes).
Hmm. A number of things to respond to.
Two things: New England generators get paid not only for the kWhs they produce, but the firm capacity they provide:
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/02/20180208_pr_fca12_initial_results_release.pdf
2nd, there’s a fair amount of solar power that’s not being counted, because it’s on the roofs of consumers. That’s why the demand curve doesn’t peak sharply at noon or 1pm, but instead rather later.
It wouldn’t make sense to rely only on direct wind power, and nobody is suggesting such a thing. But, that doesn’t mean that fossil fuels are needed in the medium and long term: wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear etc will do just fine.
Here is a capacity factor quiz-
Can you name the location of a PV production site that has been operating with a CF of well over 90%?
Hmm. Sounds like something in space…
Correct Nick- kind of. I was considering the International Space Station., but I now think I am wrong on this. I’ve been having trouble finding the published CF, and they do spend time in the shade, which I should have realized.
Power to the Permian
The Permian Basin, which produces almost 4 million barrels of oil a day, has expanded so quickly that suppliers of the electricity needed to keep wells running are struggling to keep up. The Delaware portion alone consumed the equivalent of 350 megawatts this summer, tripling the load from 2015. That’s enough to power about 280,000 U.S. homes. And providers say the draw is likely to triple again by 2022.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-29/power-to-the-permian-spotty-at-best-outrun-by-a-fracking-boom
On July 18, 2018, electricity demand in the area served by the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) reached a new all-time hourly peak load of 72,192 megawatts (MW) during the hour starting at 4:00 p.m. That record was itself surpassed the following day during the hour starting at 5:00 p.m., with load reaching 73,259 MW. The previous record of 71,110 MW occurred on August 11, 2016. Despite some sporadic power outages, ERCOT managed this new record demand without any widespread loss of load to the system.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36775
America’s oldest operating nuclear power plant to retire on Monday
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37055
Yes, people do not realize how much energy it takes to get energy. We are only getting 60 percent of the energy of gasoline at the vehicle, the other 40 was expended across oil, gas, coal and electric power to produce the oil, transport it, refine it and distribute it. Then we only get about 20 percent of that, the rest is heat waste. In total the gasoline fueled car is about 12 percent efficient on average (there are some high efficiency models that might hit 20 to 24 percent(electric hybrids) but are nothing compared to PV and EV combined which breaks the efficiency equation and the whole FF mining, refining, distribution, pollution system.
Your comment reminds me of the iconic US energy flows chart, the latest of which shows waste or “rejected energy” at 66.7%.
Energy Flows US 2017
Yeah, I have that one saved. If you look back on POB we have had detailed discussion on this topic in the past.
Is Your Local Lawmaker A ‘Fossil Fool?’ Sierra Club Targets Environmental Foes In Midterms
Candidates who side with polluters against the environment are marked for defeat in November’s elections.
The Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest environmental group, is targeting nearly a dozen lawmakers it wants to defeat in November’s midterm elections in order to help elect candidates working to address climate change and other green interests.
The group launched a new campaign on Tuesday in which it labeled 10 congressional candidates “Fossil Fools” for supporting the oil and gas industry with a simple message: “We have an opportunity to send them home.”
“Everything we’ve worked for decades is under assault by this administration, there is no check and no accountability coming from Congress,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a phone interview. “Whether it’s our clean air or our clean water that Americans want to see protected, or whether its our progress on climate change ― our values are under assault from coast to coast.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fossil-fools-sierra-club-midterms_us_5ba9c509e4b0375f8f9ff19f
Dana Rohrabacher is in your neighborhood.
That idiot really needs to go.
Like yesterday
This has been going on for decades, now it’s just more up front and accelerated because Congress has abdicated it’s responsibility. The dumbocrats did little to stem the steady erosion of our system and our environment when they had the chance.
Floods. Wildfires. Yet Few Candidates Are Running on Climate Change.
By Trip Gabriel
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/environment-climate-elections.html
Dan McCready is a boyish ex-Marine, a solar energy entrepreneur and a favorite candidate of national Democrats hoping to nab a Republican seat in their battle for the House.
His company, Double Time Capital, says its mission is to hasten “our country’s important transition to clean energy” because of climate change.
But as a candidate in a conservative-tilting battleground district, Mr. McCready’s environmental message is much more muted. Climate change is not directly named among 13 top issues on his website. And though his latest TV commercial features solar panels and boasts that the 35-year-old, first-time candidate helped make North Carolina a leader in solar power, the ad highlights Mr. McCready’s ability to balance a budget and meet a payroll. It does not mention “environment” or “climate change.”
The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans running for federal office do not mention the threat of global warming in digital or TV ads, in their campaign literature or on social media.
For scores of Democrats running in reddish districts and hoping to win a majority in the House, and for Democratic Senate candidates running in states President Trump won, highlighting climate change risks handing conservative voters a motivating issue to turn out against them.
The contradictions were highlighted in Mr. McCready’s district as Hurricane Florence tore through its eastern end in September.
Mr. McCready and his Republican opponent, Mark Harris, who rejects established climate science, each rushed to deliver food and emergency supplies to the hard-hit city of Lumberton, in one of the poorest counties in the state.
As flooding forced many from their homes, most residents pointed to more tangible culprits than the climate: the failure to dredge the Lumber River; a gap in the city’s levees.
“The climate and stuff, that’s God’s work,” said Rodney Locklear, a 62-year-old forklift driver, whose home was one of the few on Canal Street not made uninhabitable by the rising waters. “If man was in control of the climate, he’d have a grudge against someone and hell, he wouldn’t give him no sun — wouldn’t give him no rain, no wind.”
There is a lot I could say but instead I will quote George Monbiot from 2012 as he fully realized that peak oil was not happening.
There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world’s most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.
Humanity seems to be like the girl in Guillermo del Toro’s masterpiece Pan’s Labyrinth: she knows that if she eats the exquisite feast laid out in front of her, she too will be consumed, but she cannot help herself. I don’t like raising problems when I cannot see a solution. But right now I’m not sure how I can look my children in the eyes.
I will let miners strip the Amazon, vows Brazil poll favourite Jair Bolsonaro
Environmentalists are expressing alarm that Brazil, home to the largest remaining rainforest in the world, may soon elect a president who believes that the Amazon should be exploited for its mineral resources. (Behind paywall on the Times).
There’ll be more and more of this as resources get tight, economies falter and the extreme ideologues and demagogues take over. The environmental is always going to lose out to evolved (and still evolving) reproductive drive in the long run. Enjoy the ride as best you can.
Same theme, different song:
BUILDING SEA WALLS IS A SMALL BAND-AID ON A GAPING WOUND
“A seawall is innovative, it symbolizes a major problem with how we approach coastal erosion and rising sea levels. Councils around Australia must choose between long-term adaption to a changing coastline, or fighting an expensive rearguard battle to protect mainly private property.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-sea-walls-small-band-aid-gaping.html#jCp
And,
VIETNAM’S CHILDREN AND THE FEAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE
“One little girl draws a nightmarish picture of people calling for rescue as they drown in rising water. Another sketches a huge snake with sharp teeth to show the power and danger of flooding. These disturbing images are the work of children at a primary school in Can Tho province, a region of Vietnam that is regularly swamped. They live in the Mekong Delta, a huge plain of rivers and rice-fields that’s popular with tourists but lies only just above the surface of the ocean. The land itself is sinking and, at the same time, the level of the sea is rising, as global warming causes the water to expand and the ice caps to melt. That’s why the delta, one of the world’s greatest centres for rice production and home to 18 million people, is recognised as especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45738136
Not forgetting,
CHARITY URGES AID FOR SINKING CITIES
“Cities such as Jakarta—which is sinking 25 centimetres (0.8 feet) each year—Bangkok, Houston and Shanghai risk being inundated within decades as a mixture of poor planning, megastorms and higher tides wreaks havoc.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-charity-urges-aid-cities.html#jCp
I can see the red top headlines already: Houst-gone, Shang-low, Bangk-not-ok. Hiding human suffering that will be on an unimaginable scale.
There is a point where a sea wall can increase the risk of a bigger disaster. Rather than a slow rise of water a sudden failure would create a massive surge. Too much reliance is asking for trouble.
NAOM
Too true, once you see a seawall it’s time for the feet to get moving uphill. Nothing anyone can’t walk away from.
I recall supervising a shipment in New Orleans decades ago and finding it quite strange that I had to walk up stairs from the road level to get up to the water level where the ship was docked. Warning! Warning! City below water level!
We all know what happened later.
Estimable DougL,
The article states that the Mekong Delta is home to 18 million people and is sinking.
Even without ongoing rise in sea level this would be a problem because deltas are always sinking as the sediment they’re made of continues to compact. The fact that there’s a delta there at all tells us that the river brings enough sediment to counteract the sink…I hear a voice from afar: “Dams.” What’s that? “Dams.” What about dams? They generate electricity and…”Dams trap sediment.” So?…Oh. That’s the sediment that would otherwise nourish the delta? “Yes.” Ah. I see. Are there, um, many dams on the Mekong–oh, and on its tributaries? (Pats self on back.) “Yes.” How many? “I lost count but of the big ones China has built 7 and is planning 21 more.”
Doesn’t bode well for 18 million people and for the rice they grow.
I ask the voice: Is this a problem particular to the Mekong? “No.” Name some others? “Mississippi delta”, “Nile delta for starters.” “Yellow River delta”, “Indus River delta”…
How many people are being affected by…never mind. (reaches for glass of port)
In 2012 the bitterly contested first dam on the Lower Mekong, the Xayaburi dam, a $3.8 billion project based on Thai investment and controlled by Bangkok engineering company Ch.Karnchang, began its controversial construction.
According to scientists, both dams pose a major threat to fish migration and food security.
Chhith Sam Ath the Cambodian director of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), told The Diplomat, “The Don Sahong Dam is an ecological time bomb that threatens the food security of 60 million people living in Mekong basin. The dam will have disastrous impacts on the entire river ecosystem all the way to the delta in Vietnam.”
The Lao government plans to build nine dams on the mainstream Mekong, and hundreds more on other rivers and tributaries, claiming that this is the only path to development for one of the region’s poorest countries.
Just across the river from the Don Sahong dam site, on the Cambodian side of the Mekong, ecotourists gather at the Preah Romkel commune. This correspondent witnessed tourists poised with their cameras, trying to catch a glimpse of the three remaining Irrawaddy Dolphins clinging onto their fragile home despite being under daily siege from the dam-builders. This wetlands zone has been a popular destination for ecotourism in both Laos and Cambodia, but WWF warns that damming the Mekong will soon drive all the remaining dolphins to extinction.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/killing-the-mekong-dam-by-dam/
The rising energy consumption in Lao PDR is attributable to its growing population as well as booming economic development.3 From 2014 to 2018 alone, electricity consumption rose from 2.4 billion kWh to 4.24 billion kWh.4 Efficient electrical supply and access are fundamental to meeting the rising energy demand Lao PDR faces and the development goals it has set.
Currently, 80.3 percent of the rural population and 97.4 percent of the urban population have access to electricity.5 However, the government has a goal to provide access to electricity for at least 98 percent of the population by the end of 2030.6
https://laos.opendevelopmentmekong.net/topics/energy/
But…but isn’t hydro green energy? 😉
Yep, less global harm, more local harm. Of course the FF’s still are burning? What could go wrong with that?
http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
Personally, I don’t think that we need to worry much about much anything done now. Most likely the dams won’t be needed and not maintained in the future. The deltas will be under the ocean with new deltas forming as the dams crumble. The oceans will not be a happy place and just the reversing of the carbon soil cycle will undo anything we do now to mitigate climate change.
The game is afoot and it’s a gamey foot.
Synapsid – Vietnam (and the Vietnamese people) is probably my favorite place on planet Earth. All this idiotic dam building there makes me sick — literally. With extreme difficulty I’ll hold my tongue, take my dog for a walk in the bush, then dig out a bottle of single malt, and try to calm myself. Fuck, fucking, fuck………..
DougL,
The walk will be good for you and the dog will be happy. You deserve the single malt, my friend.
Yeah, but he already got a knife in the gut… not everyone in Brazil is in the mood for going back to an authoritarian regime and there are a lot of Brazilians who do understand the true value of the Amazon. Sometimes you actually have to fight for your beliefs!
A buddy of mine (since my high school days in the 70s) has been spending a lot of time in Brazil ever since he returned from living in the US some time after 9/11. He says the polarisation is terrible there and that, there is a kind of right wing backlash going on despite the fact that Brazil has a very large population of poor to desperately poor people. He actually wants to leave Brazil it’s so bad!
Yep, That has been the story in Brazil for as long as I can remember.
As we say there: “same old shit, different flies!”
HAS CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT BEEN UNDERESTIMATED?
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on capping the rise in Earth’s surface temperature at 1.5 deg C above per-industrial levels has not been finalized, with delegates predicting the five-day meet – due to end on Friday (Oct 5) – will go deep into overtime. But a new draft of the 28-page summary for policymakers, obtained by Agence France-Presse, makes it alarmingly clear that the 2 deg C ceiling long seen as the guardrail for a climate-safe world is no longer viable. With only one deg C of warming so far, the planet is reeling from a crescendo of lethal and costly extreme weather events made worse by climate change. Things that scientists have been saying would happen further in the future are happening now,” Ms Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, told AFP. “We thought we had more time, but we don’t.”
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/climate-changing-faster-than-feared-but-why-are-we-surprised
Unsurprisingly,
AT GLOBAL CLIMATE TALKS, U.S. STRESSES UNCERTAINTY AND VALUE OF FOSSIL FUELS
“The United States complained that the report focused too much on sustainable development, which is “beyond the mandate given the authors of the report and beyond the mandate of the IPCC itself.” It admonished the authors to play up areas where it said there were “significant uncertainties,” including on core scientific questions of climate sensitivity and the so-called carbon budget, or the amount the world can still emit while staying within a certain range.”
“The US also noted that global poverty has lessened in the last few decades as fossil fuel use has “exploded” in the developing world.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/global-climate-talks-us-stresses-uncertainty-and-value-fossil-fuels
What is wrong with the last quote? It’s never been possible to decrease poverty without relying on fossil fuels as agents for societal improvement and human progress.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/584984-1.gif
It’s never been possible to decrease poverty without relying on fossil fuels
Kind’ve. In the past fossil fuel was very convenient and cheap.
But…it’s no longer the cheapest or easiest energy source.
We still mostly use fossil fuels, but we don’t need fossil fuel, we need transportation, home heating and cooling, industrial processing, iron smelting, lighting, etc. We don’t need fossil fuel for that: power from wind, solar, nuclear, etc now work better than fossil fuels.
I remember it used to be said (back in the 80s) that Africa would never get phones because there isn’t enough copper in the world for all those land lines. You might say “It’s never been possible to have a phone system without vast amounts of copper”.
Now Africa has 900,000,000 phone lines or something.
It’s happening faster, accelerating faster and (I think the next one is) jerking faster. Plus all the other n-th derivatives. Why are we surprised? And why are we surprised at pretty much F.A. meaningful being done? Just get me that old social media fix and I’ll feel fine. I think by the second half of this century Trump will be seen as the greatest mass murderer of all time.
Yeah, Adolf, Genghis, and Mao will simply pale by comparison.
And the word that would get his attention is “greatest”, the “murderer” bit would hardly even register.
“And the word that would get his attention”
By the second half of this century, it is going to be very difficult to get Trump’s attention, since he will almost certainly be dead. He is what now? 72? That would make him 104 by 2050, perish the thought!
Careful, he could clone himself!
Imagine if he had a brain!
Imagine if he could read?
Doug,
That’s a rethorical question, right?!
There very few people who have a true understanding as to how dire things really are.
No matter where I go, people I meet are either totally clueless or else they are in deep denial of reality!
Cheers!
“No matter where I go, people I meet are either totally clueless or else they are in deep denial of reality!”
What a coincidence Fred, both of us going to the same places. 🙂
No matter where I go I find people spending all their time and energy just trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. That is the primary reality of this grand dream of ours, a dream for the few rich, a horrendous nightmare or Tantalusian effort for most people and the rest of the species on the planet.
These people are too spent to spend the time to not be clueless and they know it won’t help them anyway. In that they are smart and dealing with their own realities as life and the system they were born to has dealt them a hand. . To look at them as ignorant is an injustice and diminishes the spirit of those who judge them. Tragic yes, ignorant or delusional probably not. Just more focused on what works in their current reality or at least what they think might work. Yes they are thinking and no they have not been provided with workable alternatives.
Dramatic change will come soon enough, let’s not rush it. All species and sometimes the whole world has it’s downward times. We just happen to be watching a downward time with a fringe on top.
Trust me, animals know when their species and others are on a descent curve or a rise. They know, we know. We just jabber about it a lot more yet seem to be as impotent in the face of it as if we were ignorant or delusional ourselves, for all our great knowledge. Part of the ape thing I think, to jabber a lot and send out warnings. In this case, it’s difficult to avoid the world we helped make, the source of the danger. So the warnings appear to mostly go unheeded.
Gone fishing,
Well said.
I’m in Hungary at the moment and have met some of the poorer less educated people here. They are warm and welcoming and have survived many corrupt regimes here. They are very resourceful and self sufficient. THEY WILL NOT SURVIVE CLIMATE CHANGE ! It is already outside their doors…
Cheers!
it doesn’t matter, nothing really does.
There is really a much higher probability of a worldwide episodic climate event triggered by the use of nuclear weapons than from any kind of carbon based fuel usage. History has a way of repeating itself, so sadly it’s just a matter of time, probably. Moreover, there are volcanic events to think about in regards to how they affect worldwide climate patterns, as for example during the the Holocene Climate Optimum. That was a period circa 10,000-6,000 years ago where the Arctic Ocean was typically free of perennial ice. There are significantly more factors beyond just what government panels take into consideration, but that’s why empirical science is theoretical in the first place!
Drivel
You are either an imbecile or a troll!
It would interesting to hear from someone on the ground in Spain (Fernando?) about what is happening there politically.
Farewell to Spain’s solar tax
Through the new royal decree, approved by Spain’s Council of Ministers today, the Ministry for the Ecological Transition, directed by Teresa Ribera, has put an end to the so-called “sun tax”, which the Mariano Rajoy Government approved, also by royal decree, in October 2015. The announcement for the scrapping of the notorious tax was already made by Ribera in June.
The main focus of the decree is the introduction of a regulation to support self-consumption across the country. The new rules include: simplified procedures for registering new power generators, not exceeding 100 kW in size, under self-consumption; the right to self-consume energy for community renewable energy projects (according to the Minister, 65% of Spaniards live in a co-operative regime, which will allow them to take advantage of economies of scale); and the removal of all charges for self-consumed power.
This sort of suggests that the Mariano Rajoy Government was in the pockets (on the payroll?) of interests connected with legacy electricity generators (based on centralised FF plants) and that the solar tax was not popular. This move appears to be a complete 180 and certainly appears to be at odds with the status quo!
This was a given. The new guy has grasped power thanks to a method considered almost like a legal coup. (Think of an impeachment to the whole government) He´s in bed with radical leftist in Catalonia, wanting to secede, so the whole thing is wobbly, to say the least.
It is common knowledge here that Rajoy was completely in line with the so-called “kilowatt mafia” and pushing the shameful “sun tax” was just confirmation. In all fairness, it was socialist Zapatero who opened fire by removing each and every incentive to renewables, Rajoy went even further by taxing them heavily. Anyway, this had to be a top priority in the agenda of the newcomer, it was expected to do it ASAP. There are even more serious issues left, specially the “Ley mordaza” (“Gag Act” literally) he will have to address in no time.
There´s not much hope for it anyway. Consider this; Spain went from forcing by law, to buy each and every watt generated by solar photovoltaic setups at five times the official price, to the “sun tax” in a few year´s time. There was a swarm of lawsuits against Spain in the ECJ after Zapatero removed the incentive, because a ridiculous amount of investment money was poured in projects with a break-even period of 25 years or more (at the heavily incentiviced price) that went bankrupt almost instantly. No one is going to trust a country flip-flopping this way after billions upon billions of money have been poured in expensive infrastructure. And everyone knows this is a weak government that will have a hard time to finish the current period (barely two years more, if they can make it) Until then, no one is going to move a lot, if at all.
Regards
Rajoy’s government was widely hated; everyone knew they were corrupt and in the pockets of the fossil-fuel utility companies. It is basically the fascist party, the party of Franco, and passed a “Gag Law” such as you would expect from fascists. Rajoy’s party actually lost the previous election several years ago, but the opposition couldn’t get their act together to unite behind a replacement PM, so he stayed in power.
The opposition finally manged to unify. Rajoy and his top aides got caught with their hands in the cookie jar personally getting kickbacks. The new government is stable and extremely popular, and will last at least a few years and fix a lot of problems.
Water levels continue to drop at Lake Mead, Lake Powell
Colorado River basin, which feeds the two reservoirs, has been drying out over the last two decades
PHOENIX — Water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell are dropping to dangerous levels, reflecting the Colorado River’s worsening “structural deficit,” scientists said.
Scientists from the Colorado River Research Group said Lake Powell has declined because of extra water releases flowing into Lake Mead, the Arizona Republic reported last week.
“I want people to know that what’s going on at Lake Mead is very, very closely tied to what’s going on Lake Powell,” Doug Kenney said, the group’s chair and a professor at the University of Colorado. “We’re draining Lake Powell to prop it up.”
Lake Powell is about 48 percent full, and Lake Mead is about 38 percent full. By the end of the year, Powell’s levels are projected to fall 94 feet (29 meters) below where the reservoir stood in 2000 when it was nearly full.
The Colorado River basin, which feeds the two reservoirs, has been drying out over the last two decades, scientists said. With the demands from farms and cities exceeding the available the water supply, the strains on the river and reservoirs are being compounded by growing population, drought and climate change.
The Colorado River and its tributaries support about 40 million people and more than 7,800 square miles (20,200 square kilometers) of farmland.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/03/lake-mead-lake-powell-drought-colorado-river/
They can’t keep Mead and Powell both full (water estimates were from the wettest 20 years in the last 1000).
If it was up to me, lets blow both– and everything downstream.
It would be good for the planet.
Actually a better plan would be to reduce the amount of water flowing into them.
Look at this wash near Las Vegas for example
https://www.google.de/maps/place/Las+Vegas,+NV,+USA/@36.1532839,-114.9973017,1813m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!8m2!3d36.1699412!4d-115.1398296
It is designed to “prevent flooding” by draining the water off these bone dry hills as quickly as possible. It flows into Lake Meade. It would be better to have a swales in the hill to keep the water from flowing across the surface and build some topsoil.
America could learn a lot from Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl_afnV1E1A
For example, Las Vegas gets a bit more than 10 cm of rain a year — a tenth of a meter. It has an area of 352 square kilometers. A square km is a million meters, so that’s over 35 million cubic meters of water, or 35 billion liters. Call it 36 billion and say the city has 600K people.
That makes 60K liters per capita per year. It’s more than enough especially if the waste water is recycled. And that is from water that falls inside the city limits of the biggest city in the state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bxjl7VMatc
I was thinking that the closure of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) might help the situation but, according to this web page the NGS uses approximately 28,000 acre-feet of water a year, while according to lakepowell.water-data.com/, “Total inflows for water year 2019: 29,828 acre feet” and “Today is day 7 of 365 for the Water Year 2019. We are 2% through the Water Year.” So, the NGS uses less than the total inflows to the lake for the most recent 7 day period. Closing the NGS will do little to solve this particular problem.
Coincidentally, earlier today I listened to this lecture on the Colorado River Basin drought and reservoir levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtPSF4gvWLU&t=5s
Fred, this wasn’t you was it?
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9202131968/h29443EDD/
NAOM
Been transporting my Kayak for about 20 years, still have the same kayak…
Cheers!
We often talk about peak oil, and sometimes peak Nat Gas and coal in terms of production and consumption.
A different angle on this is ‘peak CO2 production’.
There are geologic constraints, political constraints, and funding (debt) constraints on this massive fossil burn, of course.
Just how long and fat will those 3 global post-peak tails be, and the combined look of their collective down-tilting plateau?
My guess is a peak CO2 production yr of 2032. And by 2050 the production will still be at well over 60% 0f the peak. Wild ass guess.
And then there is the long 1/2 life time of CO2 in the atmosphere to consider, and oh yeh, methane.
Top graph- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/introducing-the-wuwt-co2-reference-page/
Fossil fuel burn? Merely looking at the tip of the climateberg. Only the GW deniers and unknowledgeable look at just FF burn CO2. The poles are becoming energetically equal at a period of time when they should be at polar opposites in energy. That means the natural swing has been snuffed in just two centuries instead of 10,000 years. Think that is going to cause some chaos?
Nice to see urgency on global emissions is finally getting through. At this rate we’ll nail the 1.5 C limit with ease.
EU’S BIGGEST COAL-MINING NATION PLANS OUTPUT HIKE TO CUT IMPORTS
“The biggest coal producer in the EU plans to boost output of the dirty fuel by about 10 percent in the next several years to cut down on imports, which are set to jump to a record this year, according to the Polish government. The country, which saw its thermal coal output slumping 7 percent to 53 million tons last year and pledged to fight smog, should raise output by 5 to 6 million tons by the middle of the next decade, Deputy Energy Minister Grzegorz Tobiszowski said on Thursday. Imports, mostly from Russia, are expected to increase to a record 17 million tons this year from 13.3 million tons in 2017, according to state-controlled trader Weglokoks SA.”
http://www.mining.com/web/eus-biggest-coal-mining-nation-plans-output-hike-cut-imports/
Not to worry, this is small potatoes compared to what mother nature is planning.
It’s a dirty business but well grounded.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/worlds-soils-have-lost-133bn-tonnes-of-carbon-since-the-dawn-of-agriculture
A new Yale-led study in the journal Nature finds that warming will drive the loss of at least 55 trillion kilograms of carbon from the soil by mid-century, or about 17% more than the projected emissions due to human-related activities during that period. That would be roughly the equivalent of adding to the planet another industrialized country the size of the United States.
Critically, the researchers found that carbon losses will be greatest in the world’s colder places, at high latitudes, locations that had largely been missing from previous research. In those regions, massive stocks of carbon have built up over thousands of years and slow microbial activity has kept them relatively secure.
https://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions
Hello, this is happening now. Apparently nature does not like being outdone by mere humans, but fear not, we may have had a head start in the race to carbonize the atmosphere and oceans but nature will make us all losers soon enough. Never, ever underestimate the power of the hordes of bacteria on the planet.
And you wonder why I was interested in the Arctic? Let me count the ways. Another time.
Unexpected Future Boost of Methane Possible from Arctic Permafrost
“The mechanism of abrupt thaw and thermokarst lake formation matters a lot for the permafrost-carbon feedback this century,” said first author Katey Walter Anthony at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who led the project that was part of NASA’s Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE), a ten-year program to understand climate change effects on the Arctic. “We don’t have to wait 200 or 300 years to get these large releases of permafrost carbon. Within my lifetime, my children’s lifetime, it should be ramping up. It’s already happening but it’s not happening at a really fast rate right now, but within a few decades, it should peak.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost
And of course, as with all climate related findings, we will get the “greater than previously expected” message a few years from now.
Poland’s run by fascist nutcases. The real question is when the sane countries will start cracking down on the nutcase governments, i.e. by invasion. It’ll happen, only question is when.
Gone Fishing- please explain your comment about Fossil fuel burning merely being something that GW deniers look at. Perhaps I need some deep remediation, but I thought fossil fuel burning was the big issue here. Are you saying no- its cow farts or something. I don’t get your comment.
btw- thanks for the video link on the Colorado River situation.
Fossil fuels, farts and feed back loops. Fossil fuels are first order only… We are dealing with multiple complex and interrelated dynamic systems many of which are at or near tipping points already.
Yeah, that was a great video, glad others are watching it.
Here is my comment in question:
Fossil fuel burn? Merely looking at the tip of the climateberg. Only the GW deniers and unknowledgeable look at just FF burn CO2. The poles are becoming energetically equal at a period of time when they should be at polar opposites in energy. That means the natural swing has been snuffed in just two centuries instead of 10,000 years. Think that is going to cause some chaos?
I just want to be clear about stating focusing on CO2 only from FF burn.
FF CO2 is an initiator, a trigger to dozens of natural feedbacks that once triggered self amplify each other and have a radiative forcing control several times what manmade CO2 could ever do on it’s own. In other words, human produced CO2 is the small player in a much larger system. For the initiator to work it had to occur during a relatively warm period, which we were just about to leave but had not yet.
So those that focus on CO2 are sadly preoccupied with the small factor that has already happened and are ignoring the much larger system. Further addition of FF CO2 will merely accelerate the natural feedbacks, but may have little effect over the long run.
Just one of the large fast natural feedbacks in play now has a radiative forcing range of about 17 w/m2, far in excess of manmade CO2. Another one in force now has a range even larger than that. These exceed the radiation change to the NH due to orbital changes over the last 11,000 years (see my comment above).
Gone Fishing,
This is an excellent point and should have much more attention paid it.
Thanks.
Here is a video of a group of expert permafrost scientists attempting to deconvolute the multiple dependent variables in just that particular niche subsystem. Dealing with non-linear interdependent functions with varying boundaries and property changes is a difficult task. Of course permafrost is also linked to multiple feedbacks from other subsystems.
Methane in the Permafrost: Embracing Uncertainty in the Arctic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5w7si5cQw
Synapsid,
Keep in mind that despite what Gonefishing seems to think, main stream Geophysicists are well aware of the natural feedbacks. Is the understanding perfect? Nope.
The likely emissions of fossil fuel carbon is similar to RCP4.5. The latest understanding of such an emissions scenario (which is likely to be the best approximation of business as usual).
Note that peak fossil fuels in 2025-2030 and the high fossil fuel prices that will result as a consequence, makes the RCP4.5 level of fossil fuel emissions highly unlikely (probability that emissions will be higher than RCP4.5 is about 15% in my estimation). The more likely scenario (probability 50% that emissions might be higher or lower than 1000 Gt of carbon from all sources) is that high fossil fuel prices might result in the rapid transition to EVs, plugin hybrids and other forms of transport that do not rely on fossil fuel along with replacement of coal and natural gas with wind and solar for the production of electricity, in addition better farm practices, better access to women’s healthcare, education, and expanding rights for women worldwide will reduce total fertility levels to below replacement level worldwide which may lead to a peak in human population by 2070 with rapid decline over the ensuing 200 years, bringing human population down to 1 billion or less which will reduce human pressure on the global ecosystem. Expanding forests as well as technical solutions such as concrete that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, and other potential solutions that geochemists might devise t0 remove carbon from the atmosphere could help to mitigate rising carbon levels in the atmosphere.
All of these potential solutions might keep global temperatures near the low end of the gray envelope in the chart below (which assumes carbon emissions of roughly 1500 Gt).
DC,
GoneFishing’s statement that some of the feedbacks (from warming caused by increased amount of atmospheric CO2) have greater radiative forcing than does the CO2 that triggers them is the point that I think should be better known, not among geophysicists but in discussions in all settings.
Increased atmospheric CO2 doesn’t have a lot of daily meaning but show someone, whose home was wrecked by flooding caused by record rainfall, the connection between higher temperatures causing moister air that fuels stronger storms yielding more rainfall–that can make an impression.
Synapsid,
I just think that suggesting the fossil fuel emissions don’t matter is a mistake. It is not the only thing that matters, but many of the natural feedbacks are reduced by reducing fossil fuel emissions. It is correct that reducing aerosol emissions (which will happen as fossil fuel emissions fall) will increase radiative forcing, but aerosols are short lived in the atmosphere and there are beneficial health consequences to reduced aerosol emissions.
Some of the latest thinking on this can be found at the link below:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Seems very unlikely we will remain under 1.5 C of warming, though we should aim low.
DC,
I wouldn’t suggest that fossil-fuel emissions don’t matter.
Far too much of general discussion of global climate change is in terms of CO2 alone, or CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There needs to be much more attention paid, publicly, to the things that hit people–people who might even go out and vote–and that means to the feedbacks.
Consider Tallahassee at the moment.
Synapsid, just look at the IPCC SP 15 page 6, graph D
Non-CO2 radiative forcing pathways.
I tossed the report in the trash after seeing that.
My point (perhaps poorly expressed) was that we can look at the combined CO2 production from the 3 fossil fuel sources and realize that it will peak at some point in this century. And yet the graph of it will not likely be a sharp fall off, as the fuels will have long production tails.
And I do certainly believe that the evidence shows a high probability for big climate warming, just starting to ramp up.
FF CO2 is no longer the prime driver of global warming, nor will CO2/methane levels fall off over the next few thousand years, they will climb. Probably solar radiation management will be attempted, which will severely impact monsoons and reduce evaporation rates globally(droughts anyone?). I doubt if it will be maintained, might not be implemented to full scale so just one more chaotic factor in the mix of chaotic factors.
Of course, even if we end up cutting CO2 by mid to late century, just one feedback can overcome that. Also as we cut CO2 emissions global dimming will go to global brightening and raise the temp quickly at least 1C.
Mankind is the best trap builder on the planet yet ignores two lessons that have been known for a long time.
1) One thing leads to another
2) You should not fool with Mother Nature
Simple lessons for the simple minded. Apparently the complex minded can only ignore them. 🙂
I was talking Co2. Methane is a whole other story, of course. Sorry to have confused you.
You are welcome Hickory. No problem answering your question and you hit on the problem in your response. Yes, the problem is confusion. Not mine, but the confusion caused by people attempting to separate dependent system variables. Sure we can talk about CO2 as if it is independent but it is merely an academic exercise, in reality CO2 is a dependent variable, even fossil CO2 and is as intertwined with methane as visa versa. Methane not only generates CO2 but CO2 generates methane and both are linked to a multitude of other variables across the system. Yes, the ignoring of the confusion and confounding of variables is what does not allow an accurate measure of the earth system and responses.
Gonefishing,
The brightening can be (and is) included in the Global climate models, which are continually improved, though are unlikely to ever be perfect. The system is indeed complex, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future path of emissions and the level of the future response of climate and the interaction of multiple feedbacks.
The mass of carbon in the earth system is far greater than any potential anthropogenic emission. Much of it will be in the form of methane which is 150 times stronger than CO2. Emissions have started, polar energies are equilibrating. Natural emissions across the globe are rising. What will stop that?
The dimming is not even accurately measured at this time since most of it has shifted from North America and Europe to the Asian continent and over the ocean.
You are so sure of your graphical assessment yet admit huge uncertainties. You speak of feedbacks being included in the models but never specify what and how much.
Seeing the world as it is rather than as one hopes it will be is a difficult task. It is easy to ignore relevant information and see the world only through a narrow lens.
Maybe this will help you to a wider view and embrace the uncertainties.
Marcus Aurelius: How to Think Clearly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eB5zqN01oo&list=FLElGtDLioWldbPy5mL5i5OQ&index=2&t=0s
You also might be interested in this one.
Shale Gas: The Technological Gamble That Should Not Have Been Taken by Anthony Ingraffea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfIjCG-zB4
Maybe after a while you will realize why global temps have been rising at 0.04C per year lately. or at least broaden your view.
The graphs show the uncertainty, except my simple bern model which is a far less sophisticated analysis than the Global climate models. Read up on the climate models to find out what is included.
Start here,
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/gcm/
Island-Hopping By Cableway
An Thoi to Hon Thom Island via Phu Quoc Cable Car
(link is of video of the entire journey, beginning at the 3:20 mark)
“Vietnam (and the Vietnamese people) is probably my favorite place on planet Earth.” ~ Doug Leighton
Map of above attached:
“The UN’s 195-nation climate science body plunged deep into overtime Saturday to finalise a report outlining stark options—all requiring a global makeover of unprecedented scale—for avoiding climate chaos.” Will there be any mention of population overshoot? Probably not, it seems to be a taboo topic.
AVOIDING CLIMATE CHAOS MEANS ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ CHANGE:
At current rates of greenhouse gas emissions, Earth will zoom past the 1.5C signpost around 2040, and as early as 2030. After only one degree of warming, the world has seen deadly storms engorged by rising seas and a crescendo of heatwaves, drought, flooding and wild fires made more intense by climate change. Without a radical course change, we are headed for an unliveable 3C or 4C hike. And yet, humanity has avoided action for so long that any pathway to a climate-safe world involves wrenching economic and social change “unprecedented in terms of scale. “Some people say the 1.5C target is impossible,” said Stephen Cornelius, WWF-UK’s chief adviser for climate change, and a former IPCC negotiator.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-climate-chaos-unprecedented.html#jCp
But the difference between possible and impossible is political leadership.
“political leadership” – quickly becoming an oxymoron.
Political procrastination seems the more likely path forward. After all, we must have growth and indeed we do:
Daily CO2 October 4, 2018: 405.44 ppm — October 4, 2017: 402.96 ppm
Meanwhile, raise your glasses boys and girls and drink to a fantastic forward thinking new judge as he battles his way to the top bench: “After weeks of controversy, the US Senate is set for a final vote on the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45771808
The US so loves a soap opera. What will happen next week, stay tuned.
Now that “religion” is taking over, when will the witch burnings start up again? Will scientists be labeled witches and agents of the devil?
The Witch Hunt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HggxcuHAnU
If we had good political leadership the response should (principally) be geoengineering. Humans have innate need to make our environment work for us by shaping our ecosystems. A example is our response to the Dust Bowl. We had a climate change problem created by man but found sufficient ways to survive it.
So with that in mind, if our politicians thought CO2 was a serious problem they would encourage more advanced nuclear technologies. The deal is, we still use reactors mostly from the 60’s and 70’s but the technology behind them has advanced just as much as any other kinds of technology has advanced since then. Nobody today would find a computer from the 60’s adequate for doing any work, so why are we still using nuclear technology from that era?
Nuclear? Highly expensive, dangerous and not scalable.
Do not worry about population overshoot. it will correct itself, unlike global warming.
NAOM
The Human Population in the last 2000 Years. Very interesting animation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/9liidb/the_human_population_in_the_last_2000_years/
Global warming will also correct itself. Just not on any time scale that humans can adjust to.
Attention all armchair astronomers,
“NEW HORIZONS SETS UP FOR NEW YEAR’S FLYBY OF ULTIMA THULE”
The spacecraft is just 69 million miles (112 million kilometers) from Ultima, closing in at 32,256 miles (51,911 kilometers) per hour. Pelletier said the team will eventually have to guide the spacecraft into an approximately 75 by 200-mile (120 by 320-kilometer) “box” and predict the flyby to within 140 seconds. “There is definitely more work to do,” he said. “But we are taking pictures of the most distant world ever explored. How cool is that?”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-horizons-year-flyby-ultima-thule.html#jCp
Christmas present coming up 🙂
NAOM
EDougL,
Did you notice the bit about nova Vulpecula 1670 not being a nova? Interpreted as a collision of a white dwarf with a brown dwarf–they found lithium in the surrounding hourglass nebula.
It awaits your pleasure at Eurekalert.
Yippee, let the burnings begin! Next, stop women, blacks and Hispanics voting. Make America truly great again.
BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION: VICTORY FOR TRUMP IN SUPREME COURT VOTE
“The US Senate has voted to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, after weeks of rancorous debate.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45774174
America is going down the exact path of despot nations. Creating a cult leader. Ignoring the opposition. Packing the courts with sympathetic judges (note that Kavanaugh has already been packing in his chosen clerks). Gerrymandering, voter suppression etc.
I wonder what is next. Arresting opposition politicians and candidates. Party ‘officials’ (alt-right) ‘checking’ voter credentials to see if they are eligible to vote (only if their skin is white and they do not have a Hispanic name). Armed ‘security’ near polling stations – they are not there to dissuade voters, really.
Where will the path lead? Will there be a flood of re-districting pushed through so that they can take advantage of a co-operative Supreme Court?
NAOM
Such is the result of a non-democratic system. When power is concentrated it is easier to control.
Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!
And the games continue…
Judicial fight exposes country hovering near ‘rock bottom’
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judicial-ght-exposes-country-hovering-near-13287345.php
I smiled and read the following to my best buddy this morning and he just yawned, presumably finding the allegation preposterous. I know he’s smart enough not to be drawn into inane arguments, unlike many humans; then, awhile later, walking past a mirror he barked, “speaking of ‘not exceptional intelligence’, have a look in there Doug.” Sigh!
DOG INTELLIGENCE ‘NOT EXCEPTIONAL’
“Scientists reviewed evidence that compared the brain power of dogs with other domestic animals, other social hunters and other carnivorans (an order including animals such as dogs, wolves, bears, lions and hyenas). The researchers, from the University of Exeter and Canterbury Christ Church University, found the cognitive abilities of dogs were at least matched by several species in each of these groups.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181001082153.htm
Now hold on a second. Domestic dogs have, over a long period of time, trained humans to provide them with food, housing, medical care, transportation etc. Who the dumb one?
Gotta go, time for my dog to take me for a walk.
I’ve been thinking about that recent Schellnhuber et.al. paper about whether it’s possible to reach and maintain a stable, if hotter, intermediate temperature. My understanding is in the chart below. We are presently somewhere to the right of point B. If we go past point C, and may have already, then it’s not easy to quickly get back to point B by removing GHG (the Earth has to be cooled somehow as well). If GHG keep getting added then we move up the big arrow and end up in a hothouse condition somewhere between E and F, and that’s probably the end for humans. If we remove GHG then we could get back to some intermediate condition D, which might be stable. To get back to the ice age (lower) branch we’d have to remove so much GHG we’d actually trip back to a glacial condition. D might be stable as, if the GHG is removed further, then the temperature increases and more GHG would be released from the earth sinks; so it’s a negative feedback (things get a bit fuzzy here). The main point is that the longer it’s left before anything is done the warmer D will be, this means more GHG would need to be removed to get to D but also the more GHG would have been released from the earth sinks, and the less chance of success there is. Therefore delaying action and allowing an overshoot makes things exponentially harder, and deniers, whose main aim is to procrastinate so they don’t have to take any personal responsibility or inconvenient actions, should be held accountable accordingly. D is not a good place to be (weather chaos) but better than E or F, and maybe the best, if slim, hope we have.
George —
“If GHG keep getting added then we move up the big arrow and end up in a hothouse condition somewhere between E and F, and that’s probably the end for humans.”
I, for one, can’t imagine any realistic scenario where GHGs aren’t added in large quantities for at least two decades. And, don’t forget, we’re adding 83 million people into the equations every year. Also, right wing governments seem to be emerging in even surprising locations (like Sweden and Brazil), governments with a strong BAU stance. So, I expect that humans, being what they are, will change little then, at some point, start flailing around with so-called “engineering solutions”.
Meanwhile, lets concentrate on something seriously significant. Such as:
KIM KARDASHIAN GETS CALLED OUT FOR BARELY THERE BIKINI: ‘WHY ARE YOU STEALING YOUR DAUGHTER’S BATHING SUIT?’
https://ca.yahoo.com/style/kim-kardashian-gets-called-barely-bikini-stealing-daughters-bathing-suit-214346914.html
Really? See Doug’s post below about the Lilliputians whining that the IPCC pablum is too tough to swallow for the Arabs and Europeans. Odds that we will get into any kind of mass reduction program soon are low.
The reality we face is to prepare for weather chaos, loss of energy, and rising temperature/sea level.
Prepare for the worst, save what we can and change our ways. The battle with the fossil fuel lovers is just beginning. If renewable energy was not so cheap (up front cost) it would not have a chance against the economic religion of present.
The PETM did not kill off the mammals so what makes everyone think that we will all go extinct?
https://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2011/the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum/
Also from Wikipedia: Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.
Humid conditions caused migration of modern Asian mammals northward, dependent on the climatic belts. Uncertainty remains for the timing and tempo of migration.[49]
The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[50][51] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread around the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Extinctions of land animals are more likely from human activity and human induced poisoning than from a warming event. With human population reduced and their social system changed it will not be much of a problem. It was the small ocean life that faired the worst.
deniers, whose main aim is to procrastinate so they don’t have to take any personal responsibility or inconvenient actions, should be held accountable accordingly
George, et all–let’s talk about what you think you do to take any personal responsibility or inconvenient actions. Me, I live in a small old house which I heat only about 600 square feet in the winter. I have air conditioning installed by previous owners but have insulated and put curtains up so I rarely turn it on except the most humid summer days. I use a motorless lawn mower and drive my car sparingly, usually only two or three times a week, and I don’t take air flights around the country or world.
Honestly alot is done for my economic situation, but among family members its common to call my lifestyle crazy and roll there eyes. People I don’t know well are usually far angrier, especially the tough men who think environmentalism threatens manhood so they call me communist, socialist, Eurotrash, un-American, scum, and all the other names in the book. To them the only acceptable way to live is in a 2000+ square foot climate controlled house in the suburbs with a two car garage at least and then a side garage to park your boat and ATV. I just cannot see in my lifetime, the average American sacrificing anything that’s become creature comforts, it just won’t happen. Nobody will ever deliberately go without what makes them happy and they all feel secure in denial.
The crickets heard by the desire to “talk about what you think you do to take any personal responsibility or inconvenient actions” shows even the most climate aware among us do not do these things. How can we even begin a dialog about changing human behavior in response to climate change if the ones wailing their arms the loudest about climate science also happen to be “do as I say, not as I do” types of people.
The necessity for systemic change doesn’t preclude personal action, but a sack cloth and ashes approach to personal responsibility is doomed to fail. I recently bought a class II electric mountain bike with a 28mph top speed. Best thing ever. Absolute blast to ride, on road or off. My commute is 7 miles each way, so I can do that in twenty minutes, literally, no sweat.
But I often have business related travel during the day that time constraints wouldn’t permit even at 25mph. So I also recently bought a used Fiat 500e. Absolute blast to drive. These two electric vehicles combined were $11k. That’s a lot of money for me personally, but not so much when compared to norms.
I buy green power at a $0.02/kWh premium. It’s more, but it’s affordable. The next step will be installing my own solar PV. The notion of driving my car powered by photons harvested from my own roof seems like the most amazing thing ever. I’m excited for that day.
I already converted my house to radiant hydronic heat, and that helped considerably with efficiency, and comfort, oh boy.
I added EPS insulation to the outside of my house, and BIBS insulation to the inside. I’ve caulked. There’s lots still to do. I don’t use much A.C.
I’m still burning natural gas, and that’s going to be a difficult hurdle to get over, but eventually, I will.
So far, all of this has improved my quality of life not diminished it. We’ll see how things go in the long run, but so far I’d rather ride the electric bike than drive the electric car; it’s more fun. And there’s no question that I’d rather drive the electric car than a combustion one; it’s also way more fun. No sack cloth and ashes. Would I rather live a car free life in a car free place? Yes, but that isn’t feasible, for now.
The hurdle that seems impossible is completely eliminating disposable plastic from my life.
Do I think I’m saving the world, or even having an impact? No. But I’m more comfortable, and my quality of life is increased.
Get an air-to-water heat pump to power your hydronic radiant heat instead of using natural gas. Expensive but it’s worth it. (If your house is really big go for geothermal instead.)
The world can get hotter, it can get colder, all is consistent with CO2-caused global warming. Now, if the glaciations were caused by CO2, as illustrated by your diagram, how do you explain that for the last million years they have been coming along at 100,000 years apart, up from 40,000 years apart for the 2 million years before that? I am interested in your answer because I intend to write up this particular loony line of thinking on WUWT. It is this sort of stuff that caused the climate wailing to be put in a non-petroleum thread.
“I am interested in your answer because I intend to write up this particular loony line of thinking”
embarrassment to your country, you are
If you are interested in a scientific viewpoint on this- try this
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost
It’s not my line of thinking it’s what I think the Potsdam institute is saying. Unlike you I don’t pretend to have the nswers but I’m trying to figure them out. Or to put it another way go fuck yourself you dumbass, self serving piece of shit.
George, try to think hard about the glaciations. Were they caused by CO2 or not? If they were, why did they come along every 40,000 years then every 100,000 years? Think hard George, very hard.
David,
Nobody, except perhaps you, thinks the glaciations were caused by anthropogenic emissions of carbon, the current thinking is Milankovitch cycles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
I imagine that you realize that it takes a while to warm the ocean (approximately 500 years to reach an equilibrium with constant radiative forcing), so with the current Global experiment we will need to wait 500 years to see the result of 405 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide on temperature (or 450 ppm, or 500 ppm), the level declines at very slow rates as evidenced by ice core data. Chart below uses a Bern model modified to fit the fossil fuel emissions record from 1800 to 2010 and extended with a fossil fuel emissions scenario of 1135 Gt of Carbon from all sources from (1700 to 2110), zero anthropogenic carbon emissions are assumed after 2110. Atmospheric CO2 falls from about 510 ppm in 2060 to 460 ppm in 2550 and remains above 450 ppm in 3500.
Here is the same Bern model over a shorter period (ends in 2150) with different emissions scenarios 800 Pg C and 1100 PgC, the 1100 Pg C is probably pessimistic (with very little urgency in reducing carbon emissions), the 800 Pg C scenario assumes very rapid transition to non-fossil fuel energy and is likely too optimistic. Reality will likely fall between these two scenarios with possibly 900 to 1000 Pg C total carbon emissions (includes fossil fuel use, cement, natural gas flaring, and land use change). Obviously we should shoot for 800 Pg C, I doubt we will accomplish that goal.
I’ve thought hard and decided “go fuck yourself” is the best answer. You really haven’t got the slightest idea what you are talking about and somehow you manage to convince yourself every day, but I’d guess no-one else, that you do. It’s comical. Dumb as a bag of spanners was invented for you. And if I’m a disgrace to my country, which I’d assume you think is made up of a bunch of self aggrandising fuckwits like you, then I’d say I’m doing something right. Hundreds of millions are going to die or be displaced and all you can complain about is that this blog has to have two threads, I’d say that puts you firmly in the self-centred scumbag category, but I’d guess you know that already and might be quite pleased with yourself.
Good answer. Archibald got all huffy and somehow was able to post at WattsUpWithThat blog, where all the swamp deniers could make him feel wanted.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/09/global-warming-how-we-will-know-when-it-is-over/
Archibald is the worst kind of political idealogue, stringing together nonsensical arguments to forward his personal agenda.
“Archibald is the worst kind of political idealogue, stringing together nonsensical arguments to forward his personal agenda.”
you could interchange the word trump where it says archibald. both are easy to despise.
His output is rather predictable once you grasp his apparent ideology
They must be pretty desperate if all they can find to spout their bullshit on is an idle thought I knocked off in about 20 minutes.
I just twigged why you got the vapours like some hormonal schoolgirl over this. It’s not the technical issue because you aren’t capable of understanding it and don’t have the imagination for scientific speculation. It’s because I suggested deniers should be held accountable for delaying solutions. I can see that being a concern for you and your like going forward as things deteriorate in response to rising GHGs, exactly as you said they wouldn’t, especially in Australia which looks likely to be one of the earliest and hardest hit.
There is that typical over-the-top trait among the Aussie blog commenters. I think they believe that they are geographically isolated and so feel left out unless they spout outlandish stuff.
Is it Australian? Their climate scientists seem excellent. I think it’s more that Archibald is a complete twat, irrespective of nationality or place of residence.
George,
I looked for the Schellnhuber paper, he has published quite a bit, can you narrow down how “recent” you mean, or give a title, year or link?
The Earth trajectories in the Anthropocene one, Dennis. It was amply circulated.
Steffen et al., 2018
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/33/8252.full.pdf
We are history, Dennis. Nothing can be done. 2°C is a given in a few decades. 3-4°C in a century or two. Even Stephen Hawkins said a Venus scenario cannot be ruled out.
That figure is physically implausible. The greenhouse effect states that if you decrease the amount of GHGs, the height of outward longwave radiation decreases, OLR increases, and the planet cools. Perhaps after thinking hard you have discovered a new undiscovered physical phenomenon or feedback that allows the planet to warm while decreasing its GHG atmospheric content. That would be interesting.
Think of an interglacial as a jump from a glacial state towards a warmer state, allowed during certain Milankovitch windows, and pushed by orbitally induced changes in solar irradiation, and GHGs. The jump always falls short and the planet is dragged back to the glacial age despite relatively high CO2 levels (280 ppm) due to the orbital changes turning from a push to a pull.
What Steffen et al., 2018 propose is that CO2 can push us to a point when the planet takes an irreversible path towards a Eocene-like hothouse. A warmer and more humid planet was very productive and characterized by large and abundant mammals and birds. The problem is that a rapid transition, accelerated many thousands of times will spell the end of our civilization and be extremely detrimental to the environment that will not have time to adapt. A mass extinction is unavoidable if the rapid transition continues.
What I don’t like is this idea that we can define boundaries at +1.5 or +2.0°C. Such boundaries are mind constructs only. We have embarked on a process that it is extremely detrimental. Continuing along thinking that there are safe stops is insane.
I didn’t think hard I can tell you that. The intermediate state (decreasing CO2 gives increasing temperature is probably unstable unless there is continuous outside control- i.e. human intervention to maintain CO2 and maybe temperature through geo-engineering, I think this is partly what the Potsdam paper was suggesting). There’s a youtube presentation by the daughter of the chap who had a lot to do with chaos theory (Lorenz? probably not) that goes over this in relation to climate change but I don’t have the link.
Fred —
CLIMATE WEEKLY: SAUDIS PUSH BACK AS IPCC TALKS HEAD INTO OVERTIME
“On Sunday, the first round of Brazil’s presidential election is one for the whole world to watch. Will the country that houses the world’s biggest rainforest elect a climate denier as leader? Jair Bolsonaro, who wants to pull out of the Paris climate deal, has surged in the polls.”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/05/climate-weekly-saudis-push-back-ipcc-talks-head-overtime/
Yeah, I know! He’s the Brazilian Trump. Stupider than a bag of fuckin rocks…
Fred – I presume you’ve seen this?
BRAZIL ELECTION: JAIR BOLSONARO LEADS IN PARTIAL RESULTS
With 93% of the votes counted, Mr. Bolsonaro has 47% and Mr Haddad 28%. The votes are still being counted but it looks like Brazilians are going to have to wait for another three weeks before they know who their next leader will be. These elections have shown just how divided Brazil has become. Those on the right are determined not to let the Workers’ Party, once led by former President Lula, rule once again. Those on the left are desperate not to vote in a man who they feel is a threat to the country’s young democracy. But Mr. Bolsonaro – a politician who wants to get tough on crime with looser gun laws and has talked fondly of military rule – has lots of support.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45780176
CLIMATE REPORT: SCIENTISTS POLITELY URGE ‘ACT NOW, IDIOTS’
“It’s the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures. Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C states that the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C. Staying below 1.5C will require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. It will be hugely expensive, the report says, but the window of opportunity is not yet closed.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309
Idiots? Because insulting people is always the ticket to getting them to do what you want… ?
Don’t need to call anyone an idiot! Nature will just quietly start handing out her Darwin Awards. Some will quickly learn from the misfortune of others. Those who are unable to learn or adapt will just be called DEAD!
It’s not an insult. It’s an observation- as in ‘I wasn’t insulting you, I was describing you’. In terms of getting you to do what I want, I’m afraid you’re far too stupid for that, so I know you’re hopeless. I’ll just have to settle for laughing at you while you starve. It’s kinda like the ant and the grasshopper story, a fable that sums up moral lessons about the virtues of planning for the future; something that I, as my moniker may indicate, take rather seriously.
I just read some of the comments following the Times article on this report: we are truly and monumentally fucked given the level of bullshit people can come out with satisfy their cognitive dissonance.
The comments often make me feel ill.
Made page 13 of the Times and is probably never going to be mentioned again, we don’t have a fucking hope.
George – “….we don’t have a fucking hope.”
According to the new report, among other changes, global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. Does anyone believe this is possible?
Putting this in perspective, as I recall, 80% of the world’s energy currently comes from fossil fuels (and roughly 15-16% from hydro).
I’m skeptical of the timing of this report, to be honest. Considering that there’s a very important midterm election now less than a month away. In the month of October leading up to important elections, we need to be hyper vigilant of both parties saying anything they can in order to energize their bases to vote.
As an outside observer, I hardly see how this report is going to change anything in the highly polarized US electorate. Both camps are firmly entrenched in their world views. Deniers are going to view the report as another attempt to restrict individual freedoms, while imposing unnecessary burdensome costs on the economy. People who believe in global warming are going to see it as a call for increased urgency to take measures to mitigate the warming.
Not a single persons is going to change their mind about who they’re gonna vote for because of this report. Neither is it going to make it more or less likely that anybody comes out on election day. Why do you think it is going to make one iota of a difference?
I guess you’re right. Both sides have a rationale to motivate their voters with climate change warnings and reports. So the end result might be a draw in the overall impact on the election. Then again, commonly the left looks for motivators in midterm elections because their voters aren’t as reliable from one election to the next.
I do not US voters are going to make a decision as to whether or not to actually get out and vote based on an IPCC report. Recent events have provided much more impetus. For example, those who are proud of Trumps performance at the UNGA will be motivated to vote as an expression of that pride, while those that were embarrassed by it will be motivated to try and reduce the power of the man they see as an embarrassment to the US.
Then there’s the whole “me too” movement and the supreme court nomination debacle. The IPCC report is a mere footnote compared to other issues.
Planet Earth to Bradley Lento: “We don’t give a rat’s ass about your stupid elections!” We are dealing with a global emergency!
1.5 C????? Too late Nathan, too late!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ug_S2dpBk
That is a great film, not as good as The Searchers though. Did Wayne actually understand what he was playing in some of his parts? I somehow doubt it.
Wayne was the typical clueless repug.
He could deliver a good line.
$580 billion is a vast amount of money. Enough for a nuclear powered Germany to be zero emission and 100% electric cars
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power/#45d766a6e0d4
Another climate report and the trolls come out to play.
NAOM
Can you explain what a troll is?
Where these articles rude? Where they threatening or insulting to anyone.
or did they just have a point of view that you don’t agree with?
If climate change will cause droughts, famine, increased disease, and hundreds of millions of deaths. Surely anything is better than that including nuclear power which can deliver all our needs including transportation. Wind and Solar do struggle with that.
The German Federal Audit Office has condemned the costs in view of the failure to meet targets.
http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-249/#more-22608
The numbers are off by a huge amount. Costs in the US to build nuclear power is about 13.5 billion per GW. Article states 100 billion when they would need about 500 billion dollars to provide California electric power.
Hugo, I agree with Gone Fishing regarding those Calif #’s. It looks like they are trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it a beauty queen. Very biased analysis in my opinion.
Nonetheless I think that discussion about nucs should be a serious ongoing one, because of CO2.
But serious discussion means not having preconceived notions that severely distort your perspective. I believe the group that published this article is not to be taken seriously because of their bias, and would not give them a seat at the table. Not even close.
Levelized costs put Nuclear is a fair bit lower then that and better than many renewable sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:Projected_LCOE_in_the_U.S._by_2020_(as_of_2015).png
For wind power and solar what additional costs do you calculate in when it is night time and wind speeds are low? Do you add in the construction costs of gas or coal power stations? Unfortunately many people pretend they do not need to be built?
Check the Vogtle Nuclear project then tell me how much nuclear power actually costs.
Well, on the internet and don’t know what troll means – shame on you.
Re nuclear
Some reasons to be skeptical, at the very least.
Windscale
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Fukashima
Let me see, Chernobyl 1000 sq km closed for millenia, sorry I don’t have a figure for Fukashima. Windscale nearly closed a huge are of the UK for human use and killed 33-120 through increased cancer.
As to the future
“EDF has negotiated a guaranteed fixed price – a “strike price”– for electricity from Hinkley Point C of £92.50/MWh (in 2012 prices)”
“The construction cost was given by EDF as £16 billion in 2012”
“updated to £18 billion in 2015”
“between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion in July 2017”
“The European Commission has previously estimated £24.5 billion, including financing costs during construction”
– I don’t see that as cheap and costs will rise.
“EDF and Areva have been facing ‘lengthy delays and steep cost overruns on EPRs being built at Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant in France and at Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland”
Oops
Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant
“As of July 2016, the project was three times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor”
Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant
Opening 2010 – no – 20115 – uh – 2018-2020 (not heard of it opening this year!)
“The first problems that surfaced were irregularities in the foundation concrete, and caused a delay of months. Later, it was found that subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up to project standards and which had to be re-cast. ”
That’s reassuring isn’t it?
“The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion”
“in December 2012, Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion”
Hinkley C is about 8 times their starting price.
“The first two EPR units, at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France, are both facing costly construction delays (to at least 2019)”
Good luck Hinkley C.
And I haven’t even started on there not being enough fuel in the ground for an total nuclear build out. Then there is the problem of waste disposal. Oh, nearly forgot, what happens when those plants are flooded by rising waters or they shut down because the ‘cooling’ water is too hot.
HAND
NAOM
Yet in China they are building them by the dozen, quickly and efficiently.
In China they do not have thousands of useless pen-pushers creating mountains of costly paperwork and needless delays.
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-nuclear-idUSL3N0ND1GS20140421
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#ECSArticleLink0
“they are building them by the dozen, quickly”
Are you sure that is a good thing, really, really sure?
China is not noted for construction quality control, it is noted for corruption. Not a good mix with nukes. Besides, that still leaves the fuel and waste issues untouched.
NAOM
Nuclear supplies about 2 percent of global energy. That means there would have to be 22,000 nuclear plants to power the planet, compared to the 450 now present. Of course there is not enough fuel or enough time to build all those facilities, the fuel would run out long before completion.
Dangerous, expensive and non-scalable. Great properties for our future power system.
Even with just 15000 reactors we would have a major incident (partial or total core meltdown) every month. Nice.
Don’t forget that there aren’t enough “safe” locations to locate 15,000 reactors that have adequate water for cooling.
Two points: Nuclear is uneconomic.
The earth is not flat, those that think it is, need to be laughed off the edge…
Some things are not up for discussion and it doesn’t matter whether or not someone agrees or not.
It is a complete waste ot time to argue with such people.
Cheers!
P.S.
I’ve just driven through three countries replete with wind turbines and solar farms. At the truck stops six or seven languages are spoken.
Both right wing ultra nationalists and liberal socialists agree that climate change is hitting home
…
This is interesting, partly because of the content of its message- which should be explored and dissected, but also because of the ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’ nature of the organization sponsoring the report.
“Environmental Progress” http://environmentalprogress.org/mission-1/
looks to me like a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry, covered in the cloak of a paisley nehru jacket.
Here is their report-
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments
Sigh! Why do things so often turn out ‘worse than feared’?
CARBON EMISSIONS FROM AMAZONIAN FOREST FIRES UP TO FOUR TIMES WORSE THAN FEARED
“Carbon losses caused by El Niño forest fires of 2015 and 2016 could be up to four times greater than thought, according to a study of 6.5 million hectares of forest in Brazilian Amazonia. New research, published in a special issue of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, has revealed that the aftermath of 2015 and 2016 forest fires in the Amazon resulted in CO2 emissions three to four times greater than comparable estimates from existing global fire emissions databases.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-carbon-emissions-amazonian-forest-worse.html#jCp
I dunno Doug. I get in enough trouble just trying to include a few feedbacks. Maybe it’s just bad science. Hang on while I measure my big toe to check my elbow.
I know what you mean Fish.
UN REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING CARRIES LIFE-OR-DEATH WARNING
“I just don’t see the possibility of doing the one and a half” and even two degrees looks unlikely, said Appalachian State University environmental scientist Gregg Marland, who isn’t part of the U.N. panel but has tracked global emissions for decades for the U.S. Energy Department. He likened the report to an academic exercise wondering what would happen if a frog had wings.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-global-life-or-death_1.html#jCp
“Make no mistake, the world is NOT going to save itself from global climate change, period. Your grandchildren will actually live in hell on earth.”
Gone fishing,
Where I disagree with you is that you believe that climate scientists do not include natural feedbacks in their models, that is not the case, I agree the earth system is very complex and difficult to model. One major area that is left out of some of the Global climate models is permafrost, though some of the Earth System models include this (an area where more research is needed) and some studies link models so that a Global climate model where a permafrost model is not integrated links existing models on permafrost. And uncertainty in any model is a given. Typical uncertainty for a 25 to 75% probability range is +/- 1C for temperature estimates through 2100 at minimum for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the 0 to 1750 CE average of roughly 279 ppm for Charney (fast feedback) sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels.
Found the following on methane, which is probably old news.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2668/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle/
From link above:
Combining isotopic evidence from ground surface measurements with the newly calculated fire emissions, the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year. The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year — the same as the observed increase.
“Where I disagree with you is that you believe that climate scientists do not include natural feedbacks in their models,”
You can believe what you want concerning me, your beliefs are wrong. Thanks for the derogatory use of word belief for the results of my calculations. I use data, research and principles to achieve my results.
What makes you an expert? You probably do not even know how to construct a simple atmospheric/surface albedo model and partition it. Look it up and have some fun with it.
See ya, keep believing. Observation is better.
BTW, that methane report is old news. Not very relevant either.
Bit of trivia for the boys.
70% OF SAUDI ARABIA’S ELECTRICITY IS USED FOR AIR CONDITIONING
“Saudi Arabia uses more than 70% of its electricity on air conditioning and cooling, according to a paper (paywall) published in 2017 by researchers at King Abdulaziz University in the city of Jeddah. Another 20% of Saudi Arabia’s electricity is used to desalinate sea water for drinking. The problem is literally all of Saudi Arabia’s electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. The country is reportedly plotting a shift towards renewables, particularly solar, since it gets direct sunlight in abundance. But that’s still in the future. As of 2017, 100% of its energy came from fossil fuels; 59% from oil and 41% from natural gas.”
https://qz.com/1284239/70-of-saudi-arabias-electricity-is-used-for-air-conditioning/
A/C + solar = twins.
NAOM
Most of the problem could be solved by building up instead of out. In a climate like that, if your house isn’t built is the shadow of your neighbor’s house, you are doing it wrong.
The Trump Administration trade policy is nowhere so clear as in the energy area. For years it was thought that the younger Bush Administration was one of the most energy industry friendly in history. But the Trump Administration has gone far beyond that.
Hiring Ray Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, as U.S. Secretary of State, sent a strong signal to the entire industry, even though his tenure proved to be temporary.
Prior to that, the Administration withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, a long-held priority of Exxon and the entire oil industry. Following hard upon that, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reduced or eliminated regulations limiting carbon and other pollutants.
Exxon has for more than a decade underwritten the now discredited, right wing attack on climate change as a hoax. Although the energy industry has now publicly acknowledged climate change as a global threat, in practice the subject is still largely ignored.
Going further, the Trump Administration has removed and reduced regulations that hampered the industry expansion, including allowing drilling on both ocean coast, while easing safety regulations that were brought into effect after BP’s Gulf of Mexico disastrous spill, the worst in U.S. history.
Government protected nature preserves are being opened to exploration and drilling for the first time in generations. Added to that was the dropping of regulations that for many years prohibited export of U.S. crude. Since then, the U.S. has become a major player in the global energy industry.
The Administration currently plans to rescind and lower fuel efficiency standards for autos and trucks. That is likely to encourage increased purchase of larger SUVs, increased oil consumption, and rising gasoline prices.
The Administration corporate tax cut, one of the largest in U.S. history, also strongly benefitted the energy industry, as it did other industries.
From the moment he chose to run for President, Trump has embraced the new shale revolution in the U.S. as a …….
https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Is-The-US-Using-Force-To-Sell-Its-LNG-To-The-World.html
Make no mistake, the world is NOT going to save itself from global climate change, period. Your grandchildren will actually live in hell on earth.
Shale Gas: The Technological Gamble That Should Not Have Been Taken by Anthony Ingraffea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfIjCG-zB4
I have a feeling the upcoming elections will be very good to Harold Hamm, as all the candidates he personally encouraged to run and is personally funding have high chances of winning. Hamm’s obsession of the Bakken probably is poised to pop the most since North Dakota’s new senator and congressman will both be Hamm proteges. The congressman, Kelly Armstrong, furthermore comes from an O&G family d/b/a Armstrong Operating, Inc. In short, I’d keep an eye on the price of CLR over the next year.
Nigeria can feed 600m people with right technology
Danish Consul-General
https://punchng.com/nigeria-can-feed-600m-people-with-right-technology-danish-consul-general/
The Consul-General of Denmark in Lagos, Mr. Per Christensen, on Monday said that Nigeria could produce food for some 600 million people through the application of the right technology.
Christensen said at a one-day Danish Food Tech Exhibition and Seminar in Lagos that Nigeria has arable land and population for bumper food production.
He said that Nigeria, with her arable land, population and weather, has the possibility of producing more food than Brazil, if the farmers engage in technology-driven farming.
“Let me say that the agricultural development potential in Nigeria is bigger than that of Brazil when Nigerian farmers engage in technology farming.
“Nigeria can produce food for 600million people through the application of the right technology,” he said.
The consul-general said it was imperative for Nigeria to rededicate herself to increasing food production for Nigerians, as well as regaining her position as a net food exporter.
He said that agriculture was an area of common interest to Denmark and Nigeria, and Danish companies were prepared to introduce farming technology to Nigerian farmers.
Does anyone else see a whole set of nested traps from attempting to follow this Danish plan?
Someone (Danish Consul) is trying to sell something.
SAP co-developed targeting AI tech tractors with a Brazilian tractor company invested in this evolving technological agricultural niche.
Problem is this kind of technology is just another green revolution bubble that will just keep pushing the African continent’s population into overshoot.
Humans are way dumber than yeast…
“Humans are way dumber than yeast”
If survivability, adaptability and the test of time are indications of intelligence, yeast does win by a long shot. It will probably be here long after humans.
Why, when, and how did yeast evolve alcoholic fermentation?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262006/
Timely post about fermentation. I have been helping my brother in law with fermenting batches of apples and pears to make schnaps.
Yeast is a vicious little animal that employs chemical warfare to wipe out its threats from other micro-organisms.
NAOM
Steeped in alcohol and murderous too. Sounds human to me.
Fred,
Seriously? You’re not suggesting that the best way to reduce population growth in Africa is starvation, are you? Wouldn’t it be more effective and humane to, you know, open some schools for girls??
I’m past the point of suggesting anything. Schools for girls just teach continued growth. We need schools that teach reality. And it is way too late for that. You can kiss goodbye to most African ecosystems….
Cheers!
Besides, schools in Africa are run by churches. When have churches ever been interested in birth control?
And for our scripture lesson today the topic will be “And this to shall pass” Please open your IPCC SR1.5 SPM3 and repeat after me… “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5
above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to
reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high
confidence) {1.2, Figure SPM.1}
Now join me in song A2.1.:”Anthropogenic emissions (including greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors) up to
the present are unlikely to cause further warming of more than 0.5°C over the next two to three
decades (high confidence) or on a century time scale (medium confidence).”
Praise the IPCC, now join me in prayer. Oh great Modeler in the Sky we thank you for not proceeding past 2C….
And now we will sing “Everything is beautiful…”
If that doesn’t make you not want to breed you will have to take chemistry courses.
May the Great Modeler in the Sky be with you!
Amen!
The Brutal Logic of Climate Change.
At +4.0C the hottest days will be this much hotter:
China +6C to +8C
Central Europe +8C to +10C
New York +10C to +12C
Lecture at the University of Sheffield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IbyiOoVgnQ&t=694s
Gone fishing,
Those geophysicists just don’t know anything, does that sum it up? 🙂
Note that there are some scientists with other opinions, that warming will be much more or much less than the mainstream estimate. There is little doubt that there is a great deal of uncertainty and the safest approach is to reduce anthropogenic emissions of all greenhouse gases (including land use changes that emit GHG) as quickly as is feasible.
I’m past the point of suggesting anything.
When you compare humans to yeast, you suggest that the thing under discussion is dumb. That means you think there are smarter strategies. IOW, you are implicitly making a recommendation that people do something different…
What I was trying to allude to was the fact that the ‘Green Revolution’ only solved the problem temporaily because it allowed the population to go into overshoot.
More technology to allow more food production will only make the problem worse at the expense of the ecosystems that are already stressed.
Humans seem incapable of seeing the big picture and keep doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting diferent results.
I say that’s a pretty dumb strategy!
Some would call it the definition of insanity!
Cheers!
Oh, and what Survivalist said…
Well, as it turns out, famine is a really dumb strategy.
When infant and child mortality is high, people have as many kids as they can in order to assure that some survive to adulthood. If you reduce infant and child mortality, people reduce fertility.
And, yes, if you give women education and freedom to work outside the home, fertility drops dramatically.
On the other hand, if people don’t support the existence of wildlife, they will destroy it. You can double the population or reduce it by 90%, but it only changes the timeline slightly. Look at Europe: how many large non-domesticated mammals do you see? How many did you see 250 years ago when population was 20% of what it is today?? And if famine were to strike, how quickly would all remaining wildlife be consumed???
No, famine is both an unintelligent strategy and an extraordinarily painful one.
My money is on famine being more effective than schools for girls at lowering African population. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining it; a distinction that is often lost on techno-cornucopianists who trade reality for a front row seat at the Elon Musk bukake Party. Perhaps you live in a Mary Poppins movie or something- schools for girls lol, Oprah much?
California electricity production.
http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
Solar power is breaking records in California and could easily produce all the electricity California needs between 9am and 5Pm. Obviously after 6pm solar power declines to nothing and wind power varies from hour to hour.
Renewable power produced 2,000Mw while total demand at 8pm was 30,000Mw.
It is difficult to see anything other than gas and coal making up the difference for a very long time.
Battery technology looks promising. The type of battery used in the Nissan leaf could also be used to power the grid. California would need 30 million of them though the night.
The question is, is it doable to reduce carbon emissions by half before 2050?
Lithium battery systems should not be the main choice in stationary storage systems.
“The question is, is it doable to reduce carbon emissions by half before 2050?”
California could be 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The global village will be forced into it eventually. The IPCC government advisement is recommending half for the world by 2030. I interpret that to mean we should have been at half now.
The continued myth of using FF reduction as a global thermostat is useful since there are many excellent reasons to stop using fossil fuels. Especially for those nations dependent upon imports.
Can it be done
Lithium battery systems should not be the main choice in stationary storage systems.
Hmm. They seem adequate for daily balancing, though not for seasonal (for which I would suggest “wind-gas”). What do you have in mind?
Planned to run on 100 percent renewable energy. With over 10,000 square miles the total solar energy hitting the city will be about 156 billion kWh per day.
Saudi Arabia is building a $500 billion mega-city that’s 33 times the size of New York City
https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-mega-city-jordan-egypt-oil-2017-10
Meanwhile,
SAUDI ARABIA TO SPLASH $20B ON OIL CAPACITY BOOST
Saudi Arabia will spend US$20 billion on boosting its oil production capacity in the coming years, Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said, as quoted by Reuters. Earlier this week, the Kingdom’s top oil man said, during the Russia Energy Forum in Moscow, that the country was pumping 10.7 million bpd, with current production capacity standing at 12 million bpd, as per the Reuters report.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-To-Splash-20B-On-Oil-Capacity-Boost.html
Getting the money while the getting is good!
When the history of American collapse is written, I think it will be seen as a series of great leaps, which punctuated slow, steady erosions, corrosions, and crumblings. In norms and values, among institutions and expectations, of rules and responsibilities — until at last democracy itself was a smoking, belching wreck, and in its place arose every kind of backwardness, from authoritarianism and kleptocracy to theocracy and fascism.
Well, things could change?
I need someone to explain to me how we’re going to reduce CO2 emissions 50%, or so, within the next decade when everywhere I look (Alaska, Canada, Australia, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.) I see reports on activity to maintain, or increase, fossil fuel production. Besides that, population increase (83,000,000 per year) is rarely mentioned. So, by 2030 we’ll have another billion people to look after. BTW — Global demand for Jet Fuel is expected to jump 27% by 2040.
https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/10/09/global-demand-for-jet-fuel-to-jump-27-by-2040/
This is a predicament, not a problem.
Problems can usually have a solution.
Predicaments don’t.
Yeah, a predicament is sort of like a crisis or a catch-22 isn’t it?
yep, from my viewpoint
Problems have solutions. Predicaments don’t, you just have to learn how to live with it- as in cope.
A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules
Well, there are solutions which are technically feasible and economically affordable. So it’s not a physical predicament.
But, our social systems don’t seem to be structured to allow sufficiently fast response to a problem like this. So, heck, maybe it’s a human predicament.
I’d say that the predicament involves taking on large unnecessary risks, rather than facing certain collapse. But, that’s me…
In a nutshell Doug, we are not the Little Engine that Could, we are the big nasty smoke belching diesel that loves to create confusion and delay. 🙂
Actually, if things were to follow the projections of one Tony Seba, that reduction might not be too far off. Already in many jurisdictions, solar PV is the least cost option when the sun is available. If one looks at the PV Magazine news web page, there is a fairly steady stream of positive, upbeat news about solar PV. It didn’t take me long to find an article I saw recently listing what I consider a record “low tariff of Rs 1.38 ($0.019) per unit for a rooftop PV project and a new 1.5 GW solar project”, in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. On the third page of the news feed as at the time of this post:
India’s Madhya Pradesh unveils historic low tariff, 1.5 GW project
Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (MPUVNL) says it has achieved a historic low tariff of Rs 1.38 per unit for PV rooftop systems to be installed on central government buildings, as part of its RESCO II rooftop solar tender, an official statement said.
Speaking to pv magazine, Shreekant Deshmukh, MPUVNL superintending engineer, said that the lowest rate of Rs 1.38 per unit is applicable for the first year, which is one-fourth of what consumers are presently paying. “The rates would increase by 3% annually and would roughly double at the end of 25 years,” he said.
Not sure quite what to make of the last paragraph of that excerpt but, even with that rising rate, $0.038 per kWh would still be pretty darn low by even the lowest standards today!
If solar PV adoption were to accelerate further rather than slow down, something that Seba does not rule out even though his projection are based on a continuation of historical cost reductions and growth trends, Seba’s projection that all new generation will be solar by 2030 might actually turn out to be a bit pessimistic. Of course the IEA is having none of it! From PV Magazine:
IEA low-balls solar growth (again)
In terms of 2018 installations and the change from 2017 to 2018, IEA is notably more pessimistic than major market analysts. In forecasts released after China’s “5-31” policy change, IHS Markit estimated that the global solar market will still grow this year to reach 103 GW-DC, with Solar Power Europe forecasting 102 GW. IHS further expects 143 GW of solar installations globally in 2022 – faster growth than IEA even it its accelerated forecast.*
Both IEA and these other organizations agree that the reduction in Chinese support has led to lower module prices, which will spur demand globally. However, all major market analysts see this happening this year, and IEA is the lone holdout in stating that “demand recovery is expected after 2020”.
Unfortunately, such pessimistic forecasts are in line with a bad track record that the agency has of assuming relatively flat growth in solar deployment, versus the actual circumstances of exponential growth.
The IEA’s incessant low balling of solar growth has sort of become a running joke at the the twitter feed of Dutch researcher Auke Hoekstra with the graphic below, that was included in the PV Magazine article linked to above, being part of a pinned post at the top of the feed. (He hasn.t updated it with the data released yesterday yet.)
It is also useful to remember that, in his more recent presentations, based on his 2014 book, “Clean Disruption”, Seba has upped the ante on his projections for the year when EVs will all but replace infernal combustion engine (ICE) powered vehicles in the market, from 2030 to 2025. This may seem crazy at first blush but, the ascension of the Tesla Model 3 to the fourth best selling passenger sedan in the US and the #13 Best Selling Vehicle In U.S. lends some support to his crazy projections. If one follows the website Inside EVs like I do, Seba’s projections seem less outlandish day by day.
So, in conclusion, if one were to accept the most optimistic projections of the likes of Tony Seba, who is beginning to get some support from others, that might go some distance to explaining, “how we’re going to reduce CO2 emissions 50%, or so, within the next decade”. I’d like to believe it myself but, you guys at this site tend to keep me somewhat grounded. Note that there is increasing resistance to Seba’s ideas at the government level, particularly in the English speaking countries of Australia, the UK and the US. This seems to be part of a well funded campaign by FF interests in these countries to stymie the growth of renewables and EVs. Existing legacy car and truck manufacturers aren’t too crazy about EVs either but Tesla is increasingly eating their lunch.
It is truly wonderful news that India is building a 1,500Mw solar project.
Unfortunately they have also built
17,961Mw of coal power in 2012.
18,388Mw of coal power in 2013.
20,643Mw of coal power in 2014.
21,130Mw of coal power in 2015.
18,965Mw of coal power in 2016.
8,868 Mw of coal power in 2017.
4,860Mw of coal to July 2018.
https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/summary-statistics/
Having a look at this website that monitors coal power construction. One is able just to look at power stations under construction or having received permits to be built.
https://endcoal.org/tracker/
India is continuing to built very many new coal fired power stations. Very depressing.
Nice site, thanks.
Crazy schizoid world we live in. But once the genie is out of the bottle the world seems unable to put it back in
India has 240 million people without any electricity. The government knows that providing cheap, reliable electricity which powers the economy 24 hours a day 365 days per year, is the key to getting people out of grinding poverty.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/080218-indian-cils-coal-production-in-jul-rises-11-on-year
India’s national coal company has a target of producing 1 billion tonnes of coal by 2020. Up from 600 million tonnes.
To Hugo, GF and everybody who thinks that my post was pure, unadulterated crazy talk, it’s not me. It took me a while to find the video presentation I was thinking of when composing my post above but, I’ve found something that captures the essence of the ideas I put forward. I’m just repeating basically what Seba has said for example in this video presentation starting at 49 min. 7 sec. in and continuing for the 14 minutes or so to the end, where he says this is not an energy transition but, a technology disruption.
Let’s start by accepting the fact that solar and batteries (and wind) have been following the cost curves of exponentially improving technologies, i.e. cost performance improving by a more or less set percentage per year. Seba points out that the LCOE of electricity from solar is falling below that of all other forms of generation where the solar resource is good. He then goes on to say that the cost reductions are not going to stop (why should they?), suggesting that by about 2020 electricity generated by solar will be cheaper than anything else in over 90% of electricity markets globally.
At 60 min. 17 sec. into the video linked to above Seba says:
“So essentially anything any new investment has to go solar because, any other investments are going to be stranded. Any nuclear, any coal, any natural gas is going to be stranded in a place where you have sunshine the way you have here, you know at least in in the desert.”
The inference that I draw from that is that almost ALL power plants currently under construction or planned are fool’s errands and will very likely end up as stranded assets. Here are a couple of somewhat rhetorical questions:
What are consumers going to do when the price of electricity from the grid is higher than the price they can get from investing in solar PV (plus storage)?
If solar generating capacity has been doubling every two years, is the doubling time going to get shorter or longer when solar plus storage is less expensive than electricity generated using FF?
Even though I said those questions were rhetorical, it would be interesting to hear what others think the answers to those questions are.
I don’t think it’s crazy talk, but pure exponentials rarely occur. Usually a logistical curve is followed where during the major growth period the growth is almost linear followed by a reduction in growth during the last phase until it saturates and levels.
In an exponential situation, say for PV, the last two years would need a production capability that is equal to all the previous installed PV panels (and appropriate hardware). But then after that only 1/15th of production is needed for replacement and growth (if any). No one is going to want to instantly close 93 percent of their production facilities. So exponential growth for the long term is completely impractical.
So in that Tony Seba is over the top. Add about ten years or so to the growth curve.
That’s the simple explanation, I have one involving degrowth during that period but you get the picture.
BTW, right now solar PV is on parity with electric distribution costs in many areas (below grid parity). So Tony is right about God Parity.
The only thing slowing things down is the time it takes to get storage down in price, then major centralized distribution goes away.
He’s not crazy, just a little over the top in some areas.
“What are consumers going to do when the price of electricity from the grid is higher than the price they can get from investing in solar PV (plus storage)?”
Rooftop PV kWh is already under a Nickel, .05 USD. eChem Storage currently multiplies that 5 to 20 fold. Systems with storage must integrate DSM and Cycle management to be viable. Installed storage is about $1000/kWh. Perhaps 25% of that in 5 years? The last kWh can be 10 times the cost of the 1st kWh with some chemistries. There is much knowhow to get Batteries to be viable. A single hot water tank is several Powerwalls in terms of Energy Storage. Elon understood the economics when he said that a small amount of storage is needed for energy transition.
That price is ridiculous when one can get a Leaf battery for about $5800 dollars and a refurbished one for about half that. That is $240 and $120 per kWh.
Tesla brags about soon getting below $100 per kWh new.
So why the huge markup?
System Markup’s and margins are not out of line compared to other things. Cell cost for us is closer to $500. China exports few cells. Cell costs is perhaps 65% (?) of Pak cost on a 10kW pak. These paks are full of electronics to convert 400VDC to whatever. These PAKS are NOT batteries anymore to American electrical codes. Remember Elon labeling his Flame thrower “Not a Flame Throw er”? True Energy Storage Batteries a waze yet to go for the scale required. The Giga Factory “prototype” is the Largest Building for a reason. EV batteries with 10% cobalt likely never scalable. A firm can not just source cobalt. Warren Buffets BYD Batteries have no Cobalt. Nissan is no longer selling replacement Leaf Paks below cost. It is exciting that Damlier will assemble Paks in Alabama, but it’s baby potatoes so far. Hard to invest when no one knows who will be winners and losers.
Model 3 sales expansion ONLY Possible due to the Giga Factory. Investors are not bitching about the GF anymore. There is only one RE Battery with reasonable lead time in NA. LG RESU10. Global LFP – Lithium Phosphate prisms production is doubling each year. Try to interchange power tool batteries. it’s all very messy. Standardization hopefully soon. Green Clean electrons go around batteries.
Also consider that there is an assumption that the decisions being made on energy capital spending are uniformly rational and without bias, corruption, distorted incentives, or misinformation. Consider the effect of political lobbying, kickbacks, constituent appeasement and the like.
Many big players, and countries, have a vested interest in nuclear engineering, uranium mining and processing, coal mining, drill rigs, pipelines, refineries, internal combustion engines, and all the machinery/industry that backs up all this activity.
Many big players covet the centralized system of energy production and distribution, which gives them a measure of control, and the ability to collect rent (bills) from all the customers of their territory served.
Many places are very cold and dark much of the year, and these populations are very skeptical, even fearful, about relying on energy from so far away. Its seems very fragile to them, unlike the coal they have been burning for over 100 yrs.
So even if all of the assumptions (Seba) about solar growth are true, there are very strong headwinds that will slow things down below the potential for rapid deployment.
[no one from Kerr-Mcgee was ever brought to trial in the murder of Karen Silkwood]
Island boy
India is currently building over a hundred new coal power stations.
The Indian government has done a study which has concluded that besides a large investment in solar. There must be the backup of reliable coal power.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/coal-fired-power-plants-set-to-get-renewed-push/articleshow/64769464.cms
They have no intention of closing down new power stations and could not afford to compensate the companies to shut down decades early even if the wanted to.
India’s coal mining company has been instructed to increase production from 600 million tonnes to 1,000 million tonnes by 2022. That is the reality.
Islandboy, even if we made all transportation non-CO2 emitting and fully powered by PV and wind power it would only remove about 20 percent of the emissions from fossil fuels at most. The official number is 15% but I added another 5% for removal of upstream fossil fuel use. Basically it would remove less than the CO2 China produces( the largest national polluter) or more than the US produces (second polluter, about half of China).
We would still be on an accelerating path to high global temperatures and highly chaotic weather.
It’s great to do this and would solve lots of other problems (peak oil, pollution, noise etc.) but removing FF transport would just be one step and we would have four more steps to go.
I think we could have EV being 100 percent of new cars sold and some trucks by 2030.
Well, EVs are synergistic with wind/solar: as EVs start to provide grid services (demand response, frequency stabilization, etc) they will smooth the path for renewables.
‘they will’
Is that a prediction, or just optimism?
I’m not so optimistic as you. I don’t think ‘they will’ amount to a hill of beans.
They could, but they won’t.
It’s extremely likely. These systems are already being built.
Musk will save us I’m sure. He’ll dream up some horse shit, like space tourism and the imperative to decrease CO2- all while he has more children (5 and counting) and the world will be new again.
Sarc/
Where’d they get the 500 billion from, camel burgers?
First Photons from ICESat-2
After the successful launch of NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) on September 15, 2018, “first light” was not a natural-color image of Earth like those that come from satellites such as Terra, Aqua, or Landsat. Rather, the satellite’s sole instrument—the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS)—acquired measurements of surface elevation. The laser fired for the first time on September 30, and returned its first height measurements from across the Antarctic ice sheet on October 3.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2018/10/05/first-photons-from-icesat-2/
Forgive me if this has been discussed already. I don’t usually read the non-petroleum threads.
This week we have had the dire climate change warnings. We know Trump supporters won’t pay attention.
But Florida is in the path of another hurricane. At what point does the cumulative effect of multiple hurricanes, flooding and sinking land, declining clean water, and toxic algae convince Florida residents there is a problem?
I have read that some property owners are selling now while there are still buyers because they anticipate the property market will crash and those who still have property won’t get much, if anything, for it.
This goes along with it. The climate migration in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/americas-era-of-climate-mass-migration-is-here
That US climate migration article is very good. First one I’ve seen delving into this long creeping trend.
A savvy young person would study this hard.
The poor choices this country makes about property insurance and disaster bailouts/rebuilding, land use planning, and infrastructure placement will
result in financial repercussions similar to losing a very big war.
The sooner we back ourselves uphill and inland, the better.
The future of Florida property values.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/Report-40-percent-of-Florida-property-will-be-highly-exposed-to-flooding-_169254238
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/10/09/older-oil-wells-permian-basin-may-drying-faster-expected
Here is a good article to read about decline rates
Thanks for the link.
You might want to put it into the petroleum thread to get the attention of those who only read there. I’m one of those. I hardly ever read the non-petroleum discussions.
Decline rates are my primary interest.
AUSTRALIA DEFIES CLIMATE WARNING TO BACK COAL
Australia’s deputy prime minister has said the country should “absolutely” continue to use and exploit its coal. But China remains the world’s biggest coal consumer. In addition, China has restarted work at hundreds of coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery. The Guardian reports that Michael McCormack, Australia’s Deputy PM, said his government would not change policy “just because somebody might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow and everything that we should do”. He added that coal provided 60% of Australia’s electricity, 50,000 jobs and was the country’s biggest export.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45798643
Synapsid —
A RARE STAR OPENS A WINDOW ON THE BEGINNING OF TIME
EPFL astrophysicists actively participated in the discovery of a very rare star, which is particularly old and metal-poor. As a messenger from the distant past, it will allow the scientists to learn more about the young universe, right after the Big Bang.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-rare-star-window.html#jCp
EDougL,
Thank’ee for this. I’d read a while back about the previous such find. Such a pure Universe it was back then, a Golden Age without the gold. Or much of anything else except the First Three.
I still hand the Warm Fuzziness award to the white dwarf/brown dwarf collision, though. It seems so right, in some way.
My sagacious sidekick. I’m sure you’ve seen this but….
HOW WE SOLVED A CENTURIES-OLD MYSTERY BY DISCOVERING A RARE FORM OF STAR COLLISION
“Astronomy is an adventure: a beautiful mix of physics and discovery. We are still learning.”
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-centuries-old-mystery-rare-star-collision.html
Thanks Doug.
This is the collision I was referring to. I posted on it up above a couple of days ago, addressed to…oh, who was that? Honestly, my memory these days…Ah! I have it! EDougL!
Time for a small Kopke 10-year Tawny.
Warning! Actual data and real events included.
CSE Climate Change Analysis : India’s climate is warming up at a very fast rate
A new analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment has indicated that India is warming at a much faster rate than thought previously. The analysis looks at temperature trends in the country – both annual and seasonal – from 1901 till recent years. And it finds that the country has been getting warmer continuously, consistently and rapidly. CSE researchers have plotted this rise in temperature on an animated spiral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fyT3-9kxU4
Where will Indians (1,354 M), and Pakistanis (201 M) migrate to when the hot drought/failed monsoon years come?
Many of them will just die of thirst and famine.
Climate change works well with ecological overshoot to cull the population…
I’ve been out of the country and haven’t been exposed to Trump’s tweets, has be said anything about this latest climate change report?!
When will he and the GOP be tried for crimes against humanity?
I get the impression that a lot of people around the world will be more than a bit peeved with the US and its current administration when the shit begins to hit the fan.
US coal production has fallen this year.
India’s consumption has increased
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/india/coal-consumption
China has resumed building coal plants and I do believe China’s coal consumption increased over the last 2 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45640706
Surely it should be the Indian and Chinese governments who should be put on trail.
China is the biggest source of pollution and CO2 by about a factor of two over the US. Yet people focus on the US as a source of all the problems.
The trouble is that other countries follow USA’s example especially in looking for lifestyle. If USA builds fossil fuels, they will build fossil fuels. If USA builds solar/wind, they will build solar/wind. Solving USA will motivate the rest.
NAOM
True Hugo. On the other hand, CO2 production/capita is much higher in other places. For example, India is at 1/10th the level of Canada.
https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/CO2-emissions-per-capita
After the report came out, I wondered if another country would try to descimate the US to reduce our impact on global warming. If we are perceived as a threat to the globe, would that be justification enough take us out?
Maybe not by dropping bombs but by launching attacks on our energy, financial, and communications systems. If people launch wars in the name of religion, would they launch them in the name of environmental protection?
Most methods of attack against USA are just variations of suicide, as USA still punches back. A biological attack on the Ag sector would be likely more affordable, and deniable. A hardy pathogenic organisms dispersed in several concentrated feedlot ops, a new bit of stem rust worked out in the lab…. could be dispersed with UAVs. A competent int agency could probably get a domestic cut-out to do it for beer money. Dispersing said pathogens at night with UAV/RC devices would make it shit simple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_refugee_crisis
Unregulated mass migration. I believe Rome suffered a bit of it once.
Hope this episode doesn’t show the things to come- [Indian subcontinent 1940’s]
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple
Well, he does say
“But seriously, I’ve deliberately put these arguments forcefully to prompt debate and we want to hear what you think. ”
so, what do you think?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45786690
NAOM
So Shell, like everyone else, wants to have their cake and eat it too…
They are not planning on going soft on oil and gas! However they want to replant an area the size of the Amazon rain forest. I’m guessing somewhere in the Antartic perhaps?!
amp.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/shell-ben-van-beurden-mass-reforestation-un-climate-change-target
Fred and others —
JAIR BOLSONARO’S BRAZIL WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR THE AMAZON AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
It is perhaps a cruel irony that, on the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a landmark call for urgent action, Jair Bolsonaro surged to victory in the first round of Brazil’s presidential elections. Although the leader of the far-right Partido Social Liberal did not achieve the 50% of the popular vote required to win outright, and will now have a run-off against Fernando Haddad of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party), his rise has posed some painful and divisive questions both within Brazil and beyond.
Bolsonaro has called for the closure of both Brazil’s environment agency (IBAMA), which monitors deforestation and environmental degradation, and its Chico Mendes Institute which issues fines to negligent parties. This would eliminate any form of oversight of actions that lead to deforestation.
In the run up to this election, figures were released which showed the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is continuing to climb. In August 2018, 545km² of forest were cleared – three times more than the area deforested the previous August. The world’s largest rain-forest is integral to climate change mitigation, so cutting back on deforestation is an urgent global issue. Brazil, however, is heading in the opposite direction.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-jair-bolsonaro-brazil-disaster-amazon.html#jCp
Meanwhile,
RAPID, WIDESPREAD CHANGES MAY BE COMING TO ANTARCTICA’S DRY VALLEYS, STUDY FINDS
Antarctica’s sandy polar desert, the McMurdo Dry Valleys, has undergone changes over the past decade and the recent discovery of thawing permafrost, thinning glaciers and melting ground ice by a Portland State University-led research team are signs that rapid and widespread change could be on the horizon.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-rapid-widespread-antarctica-valleys.html#jCp
And,
HUGE ICEBERG POISED TO BREAK OFF ANTARCTICA’S PINE ISLAND GLACIER
“If the iceberg breaks off in one piece, it will be a whopping 115 square miles (300 square kilometers), which is even larger than the one that broke off last year. (The 2017 iceberg was 103 square miles, or 267 square km.)”
BTW, since 1992 Antarctica has lost 2,720 billion tonnes of ice, raising global sea levels by 7.6mm. What is most concerning is that almost half of this ice loss has occurred in the past five years.
https://www.space.com/42075-pine-island-glacier-rift.html
To Fred
I read one report that Bolsonaro would do well in the first round then fall back in the second as supporters of the defeated parties swing to the other candidate. How do you see this?
NAOM
To be totally honest, I really don’t know. I didn’t think Trump had a chance either. There are a lot of factors at play in the Brazilian political scene writ large.
In any case I’m beginning to learn that actually being on the ground and talking to people can give some very different insights from what the MSM sometimes portrays. As an example I now have a very different view of the Hungarian vs EU issues after talking to Hungarians from varied backgrounds and social classes.
I mention that because I haven’t been in Brazil for over two years and things are changing fast…
Cheers!
Yikes!
HURRICANE MICHAEL: ‘TOO LATE TO FLEE’ STORM SET TO HIT FLORIDA
“The storm is forecast to make landfall on Florida’s Gulf Coast, and is expected to be the largest storm to hit the region in 100 years. Florida Governor Rick Scott warned citizens of “unimaginable devastation”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45806599
Just the new normal… nothing to see here, move along folks!
There is talk of creating a Category 6 for hurricanes. I would rather see a A B C scale added to each category to reflect factors such as total energy and precipitation. For example, Michael is a Cat 4 and huge, maybe it should be classed as a 4C to indicate this. On the other hand a wimpy Cat 4 would have a 4A rating.
NAOM
LOL! Once its done with Florida and the US East coast it looks like it is headed across the Atlantic to the UK. Maybe even to France and Germany. They could sure use the rain over here after the summer droughts!
I hate to say this but, maybe the US needs to get hit hard and hit often in order to bring about a realisation that, global warming is real and that the “unnecessary burdensome costs to the US economy in addition to the attack on individual freedoms” that the deniers (typically right and ultra right wing) like to bring up, would be a small price to pay in comparison to the costs of dealing with the consequences of global warming. I fear it is far too late to stop future climate related disasters since, if the scientists are to be believed, significant further global warming is already baked into the cake, as it were.
The sad thing is that climate related disasters will not selectively target large CO2 emitters and those that are doing their best to reduced emissions are likely to get hit just as hard as those who are barrelling ahead with increased emissions.
Nahh, the Repugs don’t really care about the destruction or about the people. They do see lots of profit in clean up and rebuilding though. They also see cheap real estate prices.
With the new IPCC report out, I am waiting for a carbon tax bill to rear it’s ugly head.
There’s 0% chance of a carbon tax passing with Trump in charge and the Senate likely controlled by Republicans until 2020 at least (possibly for longer, just look at the 2020 and 2022 Senate maps, how many red states do you think Demos will pick up Senate seats in?).
Nevertheless, what you fail to point out is that the USA has impressively managed to reduce our carbon emissions WITHOUT a carbon tax. This is thanks simply to having business friendly politicians in charge who are not afraid to turn to free market solutions in solving problems. We are actually just one of two countries to reduce emissions; and we did so while not taking part in the nonsense of the Paris agreement.
Well now you may be thinking backwards on this. The Repugs like taxes especially if they can shift money up toward the rich end instead of using it to help the citizens. Gotta fund all that huge military budget and the good ole boys construction projects.
Deals can be cut too, the Dumbocrats will give up all kinds of things to get a “green” tax in place. More subsidies for gas and oil and less environmental curbs for industry would be two.
Yep, I can see a notwork tax on carbon getting passed after the Repugs make a fuss and some back room deals.
The US has basically offshored much of its carbon emissions. Nothing much to crow about. Many Americans still seem to have their heads firmly inserted up their uber exceptional asses!
Hurricane Michael
OMG, Link for the Original? Natural art for the 4K Screens round here.
Found
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/GIFS/GOES16-GM-GEOCOLOR-1000×1000.gif
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-13-ocean-based-solutions-for-tackling-climate-change
I have been talking about much of this for the last decade or so.
It is now do or die time… The time to hold denialists fully accountable and launch full scale attacks on the agendas and denialist political platforms is now!
It is a nasty business that needs to be done. While it may already be too late to save much of the ocean ecosystems not trying and letting the denialists have their way is no longer an option. It is time to declare all out war on these people!
It’s time to bet on self-sustaining energy