A Guest Post by Islandboy
The EIA released the latest edition of their Electric Power Monthly on August 24th, with data for June 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. With the data for June now available some half year data can be produced. Below is a table showing the various changes in the amount of electricity generated for a few selected sources, All Renewables and Non-Hydro Renewables, between the first half of 2017 and the first half of 2018.
Below are the percentage contributions from various sources for the first half of 2018 and 2017 for comparison.
For the first half of 2018, 4.67% more electricity was generated compared to the first half of 2017. PV Magazine has an article with more interesting information about the first half of 2017, particularly as it relates to solar energy.
According to the EIA’s Electricity Monthly Update page “Warm temperatures lead to higher electricity demand levels, but no records, on many electricity systems” during June 2018. From the same page, “Net electricity generation in the United States increased by 3.9% compared to June 2017, mainly because the country experienced extremely warm temperatures during the month compared to the previous year.” This takes June 2018 close to the upper limit of the five year range for net generation in June.
In the previous edition of this report the figure for the net generation attributed to solar was mistakenly taken from the column headed “Estimated Total Solar Photovoltaic” and did not include the output from Solar Thermal plants. This month the data is taken from the correct column headed “Estimated Total Solar” which contains Solar Thermal and estimated distributed solar PV output. The absolute contribution from Solar continued to climb from it’s low in December rising from 10,090 GWh in May to 10,880 GWh, with the corresponding percentage contribution declining slightly to 2.93% as opposed to 2.98% in May. It remains unlikely that the monthly percentage contribution from solar will actually hit 3% this year since the peak contribution from solar is usually in May and 2018 appears to be following that trend.
Coal and Natural Gas continue to fuel just over 60% of US electricity generation and while Coal has increased it’s contribution from less than 25% in April and 25.19% in May to 27.36% in June, Natural Gas also increased it’s contribution, reaching 35.02% up from 34.11 in May. Nuclear power generated 69,688 GWh, 3.52% more than it did in May but due to the increase in total generation, the percentage contribution to the total actually declined to 18.77% from 19.86% in May. In June, the contribution from All Renewables at 17.87% fell back below that from Nuclear at 18.77%, similar to June 2017 when the ramp up of total generation resulted in the percentage contribution from All Renewables falling back below that from Nuclear. The amount of electricity generated by Wind increased by 4.3%, (1006 GWh) but due to the increased total generation, the percentage contribution declined from 6.9% to 6.58%. The contribution from Hydro decreased 2,876 Gwh (10.41%) resulting in the percentage contribution decreasing to 7.39% from 8.93% in May. The combined contribution from Wind and Solar decreased to 9.51% from 9.88% in May. The contribution from Non-Hydro Renewables also decreased to 10.48% from 10.98%. The contribution of zero emission and carbon neutral sources, that is, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas and other biomass decreased to 36.64% from 39.77% in April.
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 June 2018 the output from solar at 10,880 GWh, was 3.81 times what it was four years ago in June 2014. Previously, I projected that, if the summer output continues to follow recent trends, close to 12,000 GWh should be generated in a single month from solar energy some time this coming summer but, with solar energy peaking in the month of the summer solstice, June or possibly in July, 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 either in July or August.
The chart below shows the monthly capacity additions for 2018. In June Natural Gas contributed 81.18 percent and Solar added 6.85 percent of new capacity for a joint contribution of roughly 88 percent. With 7.45 percent of new capacity coming from Wind, Natural Gas, Solar and Wind made up almost 95.5 percent of new capacity in June. 40 MW of new capacity came from Batteries (2%) with another 50.4 MW (2.52%) coming from Petroleum Liquids. In June 2018 the total added capacity reported was 1999 MW, compared to the 2,713 MW added in May 2017.
The chart below shows the monthly capacity retirements so far for 2018. June was another month which saw relatively large amounts of coal capacity retired, as was the case in January and April, months in which almost all the retired capacity was coal fired, the balance of the retirements were fueled by Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids. Of the 4291.1 MW of capacity that was retired, 74.5 percent (3196 MW) was a result of the retirement of three coal powered facilities, one 385 MW plant in Maryland, one 480 MW plant in Indiana and one 2331 MW facility in Ohio.
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 June.
The Moxie Freedom plant and the Lackawanna Energy Center – both in Pennsylvania – are in the commissioning phase and should be fully operational in a couple of months time.
At 1,000 Mw and 1,500 Mw capacity, these 2 massive CCGT plants are the forerunners of several dozen plants due to be online in the next couple of years.
Florida, Texas, Ohio, Michigan are joining Pennsylvania and other states in embracing this approach to economical, reliable, dispatchable electricity generation.
Even that hotbed of anti fossil sentiment, Massachusetts, just opened a 700 Mw CCGT plant – Footprint in Salem Harbor. Natgas has been fueling 60% of New England’s electricity for several months. It continues to play a role in their exceptionally low cost – for 9 months of the year – electricity generation.
The nuke boys are hurting big time and will continue to do so under present operating conditions.
Are these CCGT plants envisioned to be baseload generators (constant on)? I wonder what kind of capacity factor they can achieve.
The efficiency factor, as distinct from capacity, of the newest plants exceeds 60%, with some supposedly approaching 65%.
I read awhile back what the actual utilization factor was, but can’t recall it at the moment.
While the ‘hot air’ generation can ramp from a cold start within minutes, the secondary steam capture turns a steam generator to produce juice from the downstream heat.
(I just modified this post to more accurately describe the steam generation. Early models went through a boiler type configuration).
They are generally baseload, but are exceptionally flexible as that ISO site shows the ramp every afternoon as demand picks up.
Just checked some recent status of several plants and could be half dozen new ones by years end.
In the oil industry we use large gas turbines to generate power, drive compressors, and power pumps. I’m used to seeing unit uptime in excess of 90%. We usually install spare capacity to make sure we can deal with problems, so its common to see 3 each 50% units at one site.
The electrification of much of the upstream operations continues with one frac outfit, Evolution, using a GE turbine fueled by local field gas. Big cost savings, logistics ease, and low maintenance electric equipment.
That makes so much more sense than flaring the associated gas. One wonders why this was not the conventional way of doing things?
I recommended using natural gas engines in 1979, was told the rigs could be drilling where gas wasnt readily available, and thats it.
It’s surprising how often people choose higher cost methods simply because they’re more convenient.
That’s a very large part of Apple’s success.
Its more suitable for pad and platform drilling and completion operations. Offshore, on a 20 slot platform already hooked up to a gas line, its fairly easy to set up a small gas fuel line, and it saves a lot in diesel logistics
The cost of diesel logistics is often enormous, and yet often taken for granted: “That’s how we’ve always done it…”.
The Permian may well usher in a slew of innovation and adaption as the size of the resource is so vast and the near term constraints so inhibiting.
One approach will be the implementation of numerous LNGo systems from Siemens.
I’ve followed that hardware when it was still a concept from the Tarreytown, NY inventors.
Micro processing natgas will open up huge areas for natgas production and consumption worldwide … as it is doing down your way in Jamaica, IB.
What will they do with these new plants in a decade when the gas starts running low and prices skyrocket, if they can get it at all?
Great question that ties back to how much gas is both there and economically recoverable.
That recent report (from IHS?) that called for sub $4 HH at least out to 2040 – as far as they were willing to project – was one of the more startling factoids that I’ve encountered in this arena.
Anyone suspecting a shortage of natgas in the coming decades, as a few on this site have speculated, simply have not been following what has, and is, going on in the unconventional world.
Possibly a century of abundant supply.
“there’s a lot of ruin… in mesopotamia” – B-52s
The Utica and Marcellus are huge, and I bet the gas from them will last the local plants for (?) decades, if they don’t export too much to the rest of the world and country.
Possibly a century of abundant supply.
Really? At current rates of use, perhaps. And that assumes we can continue to burn fossil fuels, we can’t! Unfortunately that doesn’t mean we won’t! Humans apparently are not smarter than yeast!
https://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
With a very high degree of confidence, I predict that a huge additional slug of fossil fuel will get burnt. With 7.6 B people its a done deal, I believe. Heavy warming is baked in the cake, no matter what we wish.
Sadly, that is probable. However, it’s also probable the current system will crash long before we can burn it all. What happens then is anybody’s guess.
Maybe, like failing Rome, we will have six emperors in two years. Very dangerous job.
How is Italy doing now anyway?
Sounds way too optimistic to me, certainly not economically recoverable. At current prices and up to $4 it’s a giant Ponzi scheme. Reality has to set in eventually and not decades from now. Maybe they will become welfare clients of the state rather than welfare clients of the investors. Or the price will go up as they fade away. Bringing us back to the original question.
The price of gas will probably rise towards 6-7$ once oil depletion becomes obvious, and we begin electrification of transport in earnest. Those CCGT plants will be providing electricity for all the trucks, cars, buses and trains that move around the NE. They will likely be economic, I believe. We are so far behind the curve on installation of the 70 billion PV panels that would be needed.
Without pulling this thread into the oil/gas topic, a quick look at one company, Range, may provide some idea of the scale (gas resource-wise) that is at play here … (all figures close approxomations)
Range has 1,100 producers on 300 pads in Washington county.
Ultimate well number per pad expected to run from 8 to 12 targeting Marcellus ONLY. New wells produce over 5 Bcf first year with EUR projected from 15 to 30 Bcf (lateral lentgh plays role).
Utica essentially untouched by Range, but ‘cracking the code’ is underway by other companies.
Washington county Utica could approach Marcellus.
Seldom mentioned Upper Devonian formations are VERY productive in this area with Genesee and Burket wells approaching 3 to 4 Bcf first year.
Geneseo, Middlesex and Rhinestreet are hydrocarbon rich to varying degrees but only about 200 UD producers are online, mostly from EQT in adjacent Greene county.
New wells are routinely brought online in groups of 3 to 5 simultaneously with early month output at astronomical rates of 20 to 40 MM cfd rates that continue for months.
These newer wells are WAY more productive than earlier vintage as Enno’ site clearly shows.
The pads, access roads, gathering lines, related infrastructure are essentially all in place. (Stepping out areas in Central and North Central PA in early days. Will be many years before that region is moderately developed),
Operators can come in, spend 8 million per to D&C 5 wells, and have about 20 something Bcf to show for it in a year’s time.
Incredible degree of efficiency and productivity.
The graphs I see show cumulative recovery after four years on the order of 2 BCF and decline rate of 70 percent in the first year.
Do these faster wells have a higher cumulative recovery than the older slower wells? Do they decline faster?
That is way low, gf, WAY low.
Going to Enno’s site, picking, say, Cabot, Chesspeake, Rice and EQT for 2017/2018 should show much higher results.
Several dozens (plural) of wells exceed 2 Bcf within first 3 to 6 months online.
At least 3 have or will pass the 10 Bcf mark first year online.
These are simply astonishing numbers.
The site Marcellusgasdotorg costs 20 bucks per year and offers extensive data on each of the 8,000 plus PA producers, including complete production histories.
The ultimate EUR is a frequent source of contentious debate.
Common for operators to project EUR in (x) per 1,000 feet lateral length.
2.2 Bcf up to 4.4 (Cabot) is routine.
This, obviously, means a typical 8,000 foot Cabot lateral will ultimately produce about 35 Bcf. Again, a perposterously high figure … but they are on their way.
Declines are especially shallow, more for the shallower UD wells.
Utica a different story altogether.
Graphs from Penn State
Outstanding site, that Marcellus Outreach Center.
That graph accurately depicts PA unconventional profiles from 2004 through the end of 2013, totalling 4,900 wells … ancient yet accurate – history.
As of June, 2018, there are about 8,400 producers with completely different, FAR higher production profiles.
Again, Enno’s site is very instructive as one can pinpoint Susquehanna, Bradford, Washington counties, for example, for the last 2 years and see what’s up.
For contrast, Tioga, Westmorland counties show dramatically different production, but the circumstances and economics are very different.
It’s not magic, just longer laterals and better fracturing. All of which costs more but should increase the URR. Instead of 3.5 BCF over 25 years it might go to 5 on average. There have always been exceptional producers but they are not the norm.
Coffeeguyzz,
For the average Marcellus well from 2010-2012 the EUR is about 5.5 BCF. The EUR has increased for the average 2017 Marcellus well to perhaps 7.5 BCF.
There are always sweet spots that may have higher EUR, perhaps a couple of wells with EURs as high as 30 BCF.
The average is much more important than a couple 0f cherry picked star performers.
Just as every basketball player is not Lebron James or Michael Jordon or Steff Curry, not every Marcellus well will produce 30 Bcf over its life.
As far as longer laterals, this just reduces the total number of wells that can be drilled. So if all new wells have a lateral length that is 2 times longer, then only half as many total wells can be drilled. This might reduce cost and make the wells more profitable but does little to change technically recoverable resources.
Often the projected EUR is about 2 times larger than what will actually be produced, it is called investor hype where the “typical” well which is presented is a little like Lebron being called a “typical” basketball player. 🙂
Dennis
The following numbers do not directly address your comment about a 7.5 Bcf EUR for 2017 Marcellus wells, but it might give you pause when you put forth those types of projections …
As per Enno’s site, of the 8,200 plus total PA Marcellus wells, 630 already passed the 7 Bcf mark, about 13 %.
Considering your pre 2012 wells were virtually all Land Grab affairs, whereby a gazillion operators were frantically drilling all over the state to try to HBP their leases, those early wells should be viewed with a jaundiced eye when making use of their production histories.
I continue to shy away from this whole EUR discussion as 30 years out you won’t buy me a beer when you have been shown to be wrong.
Suffice to say there is a Kardashian-sized asston (KSA) of natgas in the Appalachian Basin and 30 years from now – according to the Department of Energy (using EIA data, I believe) – we will see annual production just short of 50 Billion cubic feet a dsy.
Unbelievably high figure, but likely on track to be accurate.
Coffeeguyzz,
7.5 is my rough estimate for the average 2017 well, though its a bit early for an accurate estimate of EUR. Note again that picking out the best wells tells us very little, one has to look at all the wells, keeping in mind that the best areas is where most of the wells are completed.
EIA projections are not very good. Their estimates oc past production are ok, future estimates are not good.
Gonefishing,
Good point on longer laterals. Range resources increased lateral length by about a factor of 2 from 2013 to 2017. So it is possible the longer lateral wells might have an EUR of 11 BCF (if it is the case that the average lateral length in the Marcellus has doubled from 2012 to 2017, the average 2012 Marcellus well had an EUR of roughly 5.5 BCF).
Of course wells that are two times longer may result in half as many total wells drilled with little change in the play’s URR.
If the longer lateral wells are less costly per unit volume of natural gas produced, then URR might be bit higher for any given natural gas price scenario because profit per well would be a bit higher due to lower costs.
What size production tubing are they using? It seems like a big waste of money to run large diameter tubing for a well with a high decline rate.
Fernando
Toolpush asked me years ago about some of the hardware specs on these wells and I had a hard time tracking them down.
Short answer, I do not know.
I do know that the pressure differentials play a big role in the planning of both constructing the wells and turning them online.
Marcellus wells generally run above 3,000 psi FCP to start and recent wells flatline on restricted choke up to 4 to 6 months.
Utica wells have FCP exceeding 8,000 psi, with a few bumping the 10,000 psi level.
XTO, CNX and Shell (SWEPI) are currently producing Utica wells on restricted choke at rates from 13 MMcfd up to 24 MMcfd and plan on 18 months of production at that rate.
I got my answer. If you report “flowing casing pressure” they must be flowing up the tubing/casing annulus. I assume they use the tubing when the well drops to a lower rate. If that’s true, it’s not a safe way to operate. Are you sure its FCP and not FTP?
I cannot recall any descriptions using flowing tubing pressures, only flowing casing and, rarely, shut in pressure (Scott’s Run and Gaut were near 11,000 psi shut in).
Just checked Range’s site as they have for years included a graphic of 4 Deep Utica wells (Scotts Run, Gaut, Bigfoot and their lone successful Utica, the DMC).
The graphic shows the 4 wells’ flowing pressures and production history.
The pressure axis is simply labelled Flowing Well Head Pressure.
Somewhat off topic … Ohio just released 2nd quarter production results.
Almost 200 wells show over 1 Bcf produced during this period, up from about 60 a year ago.
Several exceeding 2 Bcf and 1 breaking the 3 Bcf mark.
Productive footprint is expanding both northerly and westerly.
“We are so far behind the curve on installation of the 70 billion PV panels that would be needed.”
Needed for light vehicle transport? Think 2 billion panels if we do it poorly.
Right now we spend about 390 billion dollars per year in the US to move light vehicles around. So for about two years of fuel costs we get to run around for decades. Leverage is better than 10 to 1 for EV’s using solar power.
Apparently the economics slips right past the government and the public.
Hi GoneFishing. I just pulled the 70B number out of thin air, just trying to demonstrate the magnitude of solar we would need to deploy to offset current fossil fuel use- For electrification of transportation, heating and cooling, and the other uses currently supplied under the “ponzi” scheme.
We are very late to the game.
Perhaps, it is much less, more like tens of millions of panels. It does get cold and dark in Ohio in the winter.
2 billion panels if the cars or panels don’t get any better.
That’s about 1600 square miles including spacing. Less if roofs are used.
For comparison about 10800 square miles was used for oil and natural gas development in the US as of 2015.
Unsure about that comparison… Are you comparing the installation of solar panels (and none of its development) to the development of oil and natural gas and with the time/eras of development, etc., and what has changed since?
We are so far behind the curve on installation of the 70 billion PV panels that would be needed.
Needed for what, exactly?! And,where did you get that information?! Please provide some explanation as to how you figured that, or at least a link to the source of your information.
I used 4 sun-hours per day 300 watt panels and 0.3 kWh/mile (some cars are down to 0.2 now) to get the 2 billion panel figure.
BTW Florida gets and average 5.67 sun hours per day for a fixed panel, be higher for tracking systems.
US light vehicles travel about 2.9 trillion vehicle miles per year. Divide by 4 miles per kWh and you get about 700 billion kWhs per year. Divide by 365 days per year and 4 kWhs per day and you get 500GW of capacity needed. Divide 500GW by 300 watts per panel and get about 1.5 billion panels.
About $1,000 per car, for a lifetime power supply!
Nick somewhere your numbers are off I think, I don’t know where.
Using real world numbers with a very well priced system in 2018 (including fed subsidy), positioned in Calif at a site sunnier than atleast 2/3rds of the country, the numbers come out to just over $6000 for 10,000 miles worth of driving/yr.
Still a great deal when you consider that this figure is a flat number that can last perhaps 30 yrs. If you calculate it over 20 yrs you get $300/yr for 10,000 miles. That will look golden once oil depletion starts to show up in pricing at the pump.
Back to the original point, we are nonetheless still talking about billions of panels, and that is just for light vehicle travel, let alone heating and cooling, and industrial processes, cargo transport, etc.
Well, you’d need about 2kW per car (2.9T VMT divided by 230M light vehicles = 12.6k miles per year per vehicle. 12.6k miles divided by 4 miles per kWh = 3,150 kWh per year. 3,150kWh divided by 365 days and 4 kWs per day = 2,160W. That’s about 7 panels at 300W each.
Now, the key factor is the price per panel, with installation and the other Balance Of System costs. That varies widely by geographic location and type of installation: it can be below $.50 per watt for do-it-yourself installation, just for the panels. That’s what I presented above. Large utility installations, I believe might be $1 per watt, with prices rising to as much as $3.50 for residential installations. Plus, of course, the number of hours of sun per day will change the number of panels needed, but I’m leaving that out of the calculations for simplicity’s sake.
So, the cost can vary from $1,000 to $7k.
As to the original point: 1.5 billion panels sounds like a lot, but it’s really not. First, they’ll be installed over at least 20 years. Second, one 300W panel isn’t a lot: a single Walmart can easily put in a 10,000W system, and a utility installation can put in one billion watts at once.
One hears arguments like this in energy, simply because we use a lot of energy: “That’s a really big number -wow! How can we do that?”. And…we do large quantities all the time in energy. Not a big deal.
for what its worth, I agree that your utility scale pricing is appropriate for this kind of calculation, rather than retail pricing which is what I had used.
“Possibly a century of abundant supply.”
Maybe unless we decide to power our transportation with it also.
The new buses they are changing to down here are CNG powered.
NAOM
Anything tied to fossil fuel will end up getting more expensive and/or stranded.
Anything tied to renewable energy will be cheaper to start and get less expensive with time and never be stranded.
China is building lots of electric buses. Smart people.
China is building lots of electric buses. Smart people.
Yep!
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/17/17239368/china-investment-solar-electric-buses-cost
China made solar panels cheap. Now it’s doing the same for electric buses.
Thanks, China.
It is very frustrating to see the world pass us by here in the US! People who still push fossil fuels as a an energy source for the long term should be publicly ostracized and ridiculed! If they are politicians they need to be voted out of office! Fossil fuels are dirty, inefficient and the costs to society are way too high at this point.
On the other hand the author does say this towards the end of the article.
Whatever the full solution is, it’s pretty obvious solar PV and electric buses are going to be a big part of it. The sooner those technologies can be made cheap, the more time human beings as a species will have to enjoy their benefits.
So China set out to make them cheap as fast as possible by dumping a bunch of money on them.
Twenty years from now, 50 years, 100, do you think anyone will care about the elegance or cost-effectiveness of the transition from coal to solar power, or from diesel to electric buses? Will anyone look back in regret that it was done too quickly and crudely?
I doubt it. Amortized over the next 50 to 100 years, the next several generations of humanity, the cost of transition are a screaming deal at almost any price. It’s just a matter of learning (or perhaps relearning) to take a long-term view of human interests — to be a “good ancestor,” as they say.
Though the US seems to have lost the ability for long-term planning, it is still vastly richer than China on a per-capita basis; it could certainly afford to brute-force the clean-energy transition forward at a faster pace.
The politics are much trickier here, obviously, but the American people have proven capable of great things when called to purpose. There’s no reason we couldn’t turn our fabulous wealth and endless ingenuity toward, I dunno, microgrids or hydrogen fuels or small modular nuclear or floating wind turbines and make them a thing.
We can engineer beneficial technology transitions on purpose. It’s been done.
Unfortunately time is running out fast!
While China is manufacturing a few thousand buses, it will sell 28,500,000 petrol and diesel vehicles this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233743/vehicle-sales-in-china/
While China sold 500,000 electric vehicles, it sold 10,000,000 more petrol and diesel vehicles than sold in 2010.
If that is going green you can keep it.
Peter, Peter, Peter,
You still don’t get it, do you?!
This isn’t about going ‘GREEN’ whatever that even means… Unless by green you mean making money. But I don’t think Chinese currency is green!
It’s simple, China has made a long term decision and a plan to electrify it’s fleets of city buses. It is doing exactly that.
It plans on exporting that technology to the entire world. This is where the money part comes in.
Given what it has done with making solar panels. I wouldn’t bet against their plan.
Does this mean that they will single handedly eliminate the need for diesel and gasoline everywhere in the world overnight?! One would obviously have to be a complete idiot to think that!
Will any of this save the Planet? Highly doubtful!
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/electric-buses-are-avoiding-hundreds-of-thousands-of-barrels-of-oil-per-day/
Electric buses are avoiding hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day
China is buying electric buses in bulk, and major cities are doing their part, too.
SF has grasped the idea:
https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/munis-electric-trolley-buses
“San Francisco Muni has the largest trolley bus fleet of any transit agency in the United States and Canada. Muni’s trolley coaches (as well as its streetcars and cable cars) are almost entirely pollution-free, since their electric power comes from the city’s hydroelectric Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System.
Muni currently has two generations of trolley bus fleets in service as one phases out the other.
The two fleets were manufactured by:
Electric Transit, Inc. (in service in 2001)
New Flyer Industries (in service since 2015)”
Fred
So why mention a few thousand electric buses. It is utterly irrelevant when looking at the bigger picture.
Praising China which is run by a vicious mafia government is suspect in itself. But when you see it consuming more and more of the remaining resources is quite frankly dumb beyond words.
Just a few articles that should make most people realise that the Chinese government does nothing unless it keeps them in power.
https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/extreme-torture-inside-chinas-correctional-facilities/news-story/7e4a796bc1401d593f5cc58d7fd32ecb
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Growing-Oil-Demand-Has-Created-A-Geopolitical-Dilemma.html
https://freetibet.org/torture-tibet
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/02/19/china-expected-to-lead-growing-demand-for-fish/
https://www.risiinfo.com/press-release/chinas-timber-and-forest-products-imports-expected-to-increase-by-60-million-cubic-meters-by-2025/
The Chinese ruling mafia is grabbing everything it can regardless of sustainability. Anyone who opposes it is ridiculed or destroyed.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-10-03/china-raises-interest-in-australian-farmland-to-record-level/9012262
https://www.thelocal.fr/20180222/macron-eyes-action-against-chinese-buyers-of-french-farmland
Soon we will have to go to war with it in order to keep some fish and food for ourselves.
The buses are these (in Spanish)
http://www.dina.com.mx/autobuses.html#urbanos
http://www.dina.com.mx/fichas/linnerg.pdf
NAOM
Coffeeguyzz,
USGS estimates about 1026 TCF of shale gas resources (mean estimate), in 2017 US output was 33 TCF of natural gas, 1026/33=31 years. Of course natural gas output will increase, peak and decline, it will not remain flat at 33 TCF/year for 31 years.
No worries, by then the few remaining survivors will be back to living in caves and burning cow patties! Occasionally they will perform ritual human sacrifices to see if they can convince the Fire Gods to restart the power plants.
The givernment will cut LNG exports before they allow prices to rise to European levels
Gas is still a fossil fuel! It is not clean as it still releases CO2 into the atmosphere. It is both dirty and finite. Therefore it can not be the forerunner of anything. We no longer have any remaining CO2 budget left!
Have you read this report?
http://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/What-Lies-Beneath-V3-LR-Blank5b15d.pdf
What Lies Beneath: The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Albert Einstein
Your bait to get people to argue climate change so you can show off how much you know is so stale at this point. That report you cite is typical of most in this arena: huge amounts of bluster about doomsday and where society has gone wrong but little attention to how to solve the defined problems while keeping our economy intact. The paper specifically calls for “economic disruption” without defining what that is or how much hardship people and businesses would face.
The paper specifically calls for “economic disruption” without defining what that is or how much hardship people and businesses would face.
No it doesn’t! Either you didn’t read the paper or you don’t understand what risk assessment is. It calls for nothing of the sort. What it does, is explain why we are failing as a society when it comes to risk assessment. Tells us which risks are being understated and what the implications of ignoring those risk might be.
The problem with your argument regarding how much hardship people and businesses would face due to economic disruption caused by mitigating the effects of climate change is that, if you ignore risks and expect to continue on the current business as usual path, by staying on that path you create an environment where no businesses, let alone any people can even survive. I’d say that’s a much greater hardship, but you seem to be ok with that!
BTW, for the record, Climate Change isn’t a topic that can be argued about. It is a fact! The only thing that might be argued is how we plan for its consequences.
The newer gas plants will probably become peaker and backup plants until all the storage is in place, then shut down. The problem with fossil fuels (beyond the pollution and GW effects) is that it needs a highly expensive/invasive system of distributed drilling and gathering to then be used by power plants. With renewables, the energy comes to the power plants, eliminating a huge cost as well as pollution and climate change.
I doubt if they will become peakers as solar seems suited to that role.
NAOM
Dont forget the earth is round.
It seems that the USA is convinced it is flat and only exists in one timezone.
NAOM
The US has 4% GDP growth and 4% unemployment.
I’m not sure what the information relates to, but real GDP growth in the US is certainly not 4%. The 2nd quarter GDP number (BEA 2nd estimate) was indeed 4.2%, but that’s a statistical outlier, and will fall back to the 1.5-3% norm:
2012 2.2%
2013 1.7%
2014 2.6%
2015 2.9%
2016 1.5%
2017 2.3%
Thanks Island boy for the update.
At the end of the last thread you posted info regarding PV damage by hurricane winds. I think that is very important- hopefully the developers will be spending enough to harden their sites. Very embarrassing to lose all that invested money, and have blackouts due to wind damage.
I don’t think big tornado’s can be withstood by any of the various generating facilities, including nuclear plants. We’ve been lucky on that score so far.
I don’t know about withstanding tornados but to withstand hurricane force winds between 150 and 180 mph is achievable with very small additional investment. I’m confident that much has already been learned from the last batch of hurricanes.
California Lawmakers Pass Historic Bill Mandating Only Carbon-Free Power By 2045
The state is expected to become the biggest economy on Earth to commit to 100 percent carbon-free electricity
As firefighters made final efforts to contain the largest wildfire in the state’s history, California took a historic step toward passing a bill moving the state toward 100 percent clean energy by 2045.
On Tuesday, the state Assembly voted 45-32 to approve the legislation, known as Senate Bill 100. The state Senate is expected to greenlight the bill in the next two days, after which Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will have 30 days to sign it.
“This is a response to the threat of climate change and to the inaction in Washington, D.C.,” Dan Jacobson, state director of Environment California, said by phone after the vote. “While we’re not the first state in the country to go to 100 percent, we will lead many, many other states around the country to go to 100 percent.”
Yet the movement toward 100 percent renewable energy gained steam over the past year as President Donald Trump, who denies climate science, rolled back the few federal rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number of cities pledging to go 100 percent renewable has doubled since last year to 70.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-100-percent-clean-energy_us_5b219200e4b09d7a3d79fbba
Well, California certainly has the incentive and don’t forget the state has probably (single-handedly) done more than anywhere in the world to mandate effective auto fuel efficiency standards — owing to their famous car pollution. We, and a lot of others, have always copied these standards. So, hats off to them.
WILDER WILDFIRES AHEAD?
“At roughly 415,000 acres, Northern California’s Mendocino Complex Fire is now the state’s largest recorded wildfire, surpassing the record held by Santa Barbara and Ventura counties’ Thomas Fire, which occurred less than a year before. Roughly 10 other large-scale conflagrations are threatening the state. And California is not yet even at the height of its wildfire season.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180828133931.htm
BTW, something that never occurred to me before, the heating effect of the fires themselves. Stands to reason of course.
STANFORD STUDY SHOWS EFFECTS OF BIOMASS BURNING ON CLIMATE, HEALTH
“The direct heat generated by burning biomass is significant, and contributes to cloud evaporation by decreasing relative humidity,” Jacobson said. “We’ve determined that 7 percent of the total net warming caused by biomass burning – that is, 7 percent of the 0.4 degree Celsius net warming gain – can be attributed to the direct heat caused by the fires.”
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/july/biomass-burning-climate-073114.html
The California law says they have to generate 60% with renewables by 2030. In 2017 it was about 44%.
That sounds more realistic.
The law also says 100% by 2045, i think. Thats going to be expensive. But i assume by then the state will be broke.
Actually, it’s likely to be cheaper than the status quo. 80% will be sharply cheaper, and diminishing returns will make the last 20% somewhat more expensive, but not enough to make costs rise to the higher level of the status quo.
California has the 5th largest GNP on the planet.
By 2045 Califormia should have the 5th lowest GDP of the planet.
Now, that’s the kind of joke that can misunderstood: if people were to think you’re serious, they’d see you as willing to say any old stupid idea that you might get from dishonest, right wing pro fossil fuel sources, and that would reduce your credibility.
CA is going to continue to kick your stupid ass!
If California continues to be goberned by the left, it will gradually see high earners and industry move away. The usual reaction by the left would be to raise taxes which in turn drives more high earners away etc. California will be like Cuba after two decades of this downward spiral.
“By 2045 Califormia should have the 5th lowest GDP of the planet.”
That would mean the US minus California would drop to 4th lowest GDP.
If California continues to be goberned by the left, it will gradually see high earners and industry move away
Actually, it’s under-paid government and underinvestment in infrastructure that drives away high earners and business. For instance, compare the success of California to the failure of Kansas.
The right’s long-term project of crippling government is highly destructive.
Hey Nick, it’s also the weather or use to be
Well, Kansas is failing compared to it’s cold neighbors, due to it’s right wing tax cuts…
“Thats going to be expensive”
That’s if you believe that renewable energy prices, especially solar and battery prices are not falling exponentially. If you believe that, I’ve got a Caribbean island I’d like to sell you! 🙂
The chinese cant dump solar panels forever.
They don’t have to. There are cost reductions coming down the pike that promise a to reduce cell costs, see:
Nexwafe announces 250 MW “disruptive” kerfless wafer factory in Bitterfeld, Germany
and
1366 Technologies
There is as very sad story about 1366 Technologies but, I will compose a separate post about that and post it further down.
In addition, recent the lowest offer price for a ppa for solar in the US has fallen below the best price coal can offer. Parts of California happen to be in the sweet spot for solar generation in the US.
More digging around the California ISO’s web site, brought up the Renewables and emissions reports page that contains daily reports under the heading “Daily renewables watch”. Eyeballing the report for last Thursday (Aug 30, 2018) it appears pretty obvious to me that if California doubles it’s wind and solar capacities, Renewables should be able to shoulder 100% of the peak mid day load. Looking at data on Solar power in California, California has been adding between 4 to 6.1 GW of utility scale solar capacity per year since the end of 2013. If they continue adding the lower end of that range over the next six years, they will double their utility scale solar capacity by the end of 2023. There will be significant amounts of behind the meter, rooftop solar added at the same time. When electricity production from renewables exceeds the demand, the excess can go into batteries, which are already less costly than using NG peaker plants according to Tony Seba.
Burried in this article from Greentech Media website is the suggestion that Tesla alone will be producing 2 GW of solar panels a year at it’s joint venture with Panasonic in Buffalo, NY. The 4 GW a year that California will need to install to dounle it’s PV capacity a by 2023, represents about 4% of 2018 Global PV production.
Renewables wont handle peak on a day when its cloudy and theres little wind
With an average of 279 sunny days per year in the Mojave, I don’t think California is too concerned about a lack of sunshine. I’m sure they’ll figure some contingencies by the time they need them.
Makes me wonder how much longer until the folks in California start questioning their religious beliefs of a hands off approach to land management. I continue to read of land managers in the west making significant improvements including soil water infiltration and retention, carbon sequestration, which supports greater biological biomass and diversity compared to the federal lands with a hands off approach. They would readily agree that the ecosystem was better before civilization took over but trying to go back to that would be impossible. Just imagining a couple thousand buffalo crossing highways and cabbage fields. For starters I would suggest allowing the harvesting of timber on federal lands to lessen the fire load by taking out more of the older trees, in a pattern to allow grasses to grow which in essence would recreate a savanna type ecosystem and managing those grasses with domesticated cattle sheep camels etc.
Just imagining a couple thousand buffalo crossing highways and cabbage fields.
You need to set aside a sufficiently large park for grasslands:
https://www.americanprairie.org/
No, fire is a terrible idea because it kills off termites and other agents that naturally reduce the amount of flammable material.
The real cause of fires is sprawl. People start fires, so their presence in the woods should be discouraged.
The way to sequester carbon in a semi-arid environment is to sequester it in the soil, which means that rain catching and erosion prevention are the paramount concerns. This is cheap and easy to do by digging ditches on contour and building check dams in the seasonal riverbeds. It also has the short term advantage of saving lives otherwise lost in flash floods.
And with whatever respect may be due, the idea that there is too much forest in the Central Valley isn’t terribly well founded. A lot of CA loks like this:
https://www.google.de/maps/@34.8198525,-119.5891339,3a,75y,174.9h,83.02t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipM5MecFgW_fEMj_u9Dz7dGHQt9XlQEBEcqTT_nf!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipM5MecFgW_fEMj_u9Dz7dGHQt9XlQEBEcqTT_nf%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-2.9338646-ya323.5-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
Notice the carbon poverty of the red and yellow soil. That is where sequestration needs to happen. Whether that is grass of forests is secondary.
Just do a google search for Holistic Management. Under images you will see many examples of what Holisticly Managed Grazing can accomplish on desertifying land, and just skiming over the wikipedia section reveals even more.
“At roughly 415,000 acres, Northern California’s Mendocino Complex Fire is now the state’s largest recorded wildfire,”
As of yesterday, it’s 460,000 acres; 410K for the Ranch Fire, and 49K for the River Fire. The Thomas fire was 281K acres, so the Ranch Fire, by itself, is 50% larger.
https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/6073/
Driving past the latest northern California fire – the Hirz – shortly.
Currently 40,000 acres and growing with less than 50% containment.
Couple of thousand fire fighting personnel involved.
The amount of smoke in the air in northern CA these past few weeks is unreal with ashes from the Carr fire coming down like light snow at its peak.
Highways full of fire fighting personnel numbering several thousands from all over the west (even New Zealand) battling that one couple of weeks ago.
Fred —
WILD DOLPHINS LEARN TRICKS FROM EACH OTHER
“A single dolphin, known as Billie, was rescued from a polluted creek in January 1988 and spent several weeks in a dolphinarium before being released back in to the wild. It seems she learned tail walking by observing the performing dolphins and, when released, began performing doing this in the wild. This might have been nothing more than an interesting example of individual social learning – but soon other wild dolphins in the area began tail walking.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-wild-dolphins.html#jCp
The real question is why wouldn’t they? I continue to be somewhat baffled by the hubris of our species in assuming that we are the most intelligent creatures on earth. For all I know, dolphins and/or maybe even elephants are more intelligent than us. I have a hunch that dolphins are significantly more intelligent than homo sapiens. Heck, every now and then I am amazed by the smarts of common canines! I have seen dogs and goats using pedestrian crossings. How’d they figure that out?
“For all I know, dolphins and/or maybe even elephants are more intelligent than us.”
Having witnessed examples of very high intelligence in dolphins I’d agree. Problem is, using the same yardstick to measure intelligence. Dolphins have no problem getting food and they don’t need to build a house to live in, so what do they use their large brains for? Of course, this argument is known to dolphin researchers.
WRT dogs, my old mutt is definitely smarter than I. He just lives in a universe dominated by smells whereas I never know dinner is ready until I hear the smoke alarm screaming in my ear.
I continue to be somewhat baffled by the hubris of our species in assuming that we are the most intelligent creatures on earth.
Oh good gravy! You cannot be serious. Intelligence evolved in human beings because it enabled us to survive and dominate all other animals. We take their food and resources at will and drive them into extinction simply because we need their resources for ourselves.
We are the only animal that uses extrasomatic energy. (Energy outside our body.) It is the intelligence of Homo sapiens, (wise man), that sets up apart from the animal kingdom.
Our intelligence is what is enabling us to destroy the earth. We are smart but not quite smart enough.
We take their food and resources at will and drive them into extinction simply because we need their resources for ourselves.
Well, not really. We kill other animals mostly because we don’t value them very much. Europeans didn’t need to kill all the buffalo and Passenger pigeons in the New World. The English didn’t need to kill all the wolves in England, and the Russians didn’t need to do the same in Russia. They just feared and disliked wolves.
Wildlife are happy to establish themselves in urban areas. Small rodents can flourish, but we call them “rats”, blame them for everything from rabies to the plague, and go all out to exterminate them.
If we wanted to preserve habitat, we could do something not so difficult – it’s called creating parks, and in urban areas it’s called zoning!
It’s really not that hard, but humans as a group just don’t value wild animals enough, at least not yet.
There are various forms of intelligence.
Animals that live in groups can have a very high level of social/emotional intelligence, such as orcas and elephants.
I believe that dogs are at least as intelligent as humans in this regard.
Humans, on average, arn’t the smartest in this area, so I think.
Well, there was a discussion on this site some time back about how dolphins communicate. The take away was that the way dolphins communicate is extremely complex and if I read it right there was also an implication that the dolphin’s language is far more dense. The implication was along the lines that a dolphin could conceivably transmit information that humans would take much longer to communicate in a split second.
There is a human bias that if an individual cannot understand you language they are less intelligent than you are. Let’s suppose dolphins can communicate at a faster rate than some of mankind’s electronic data links but, we are just light years away from ever deciphering their language, would that make us more or less intelligent than dolphins?
Dolphins are more inteligent because they are not trying to destroy the world!
NAOM
Well, one thing is for sure, no truly intelligent species would ever allow something like this to happen, having both the knowledge and the technology to avoid it.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/08/world/great-barrier-reef/
Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’
The ‘Godfather of Coral’ predicts a ‘planetary catastrophe
Townsville, Australia — In a dusty, secluded corner of the Australian state of Queensland, a septuagenarian scientist is on an urgent mission to raise the alarm about the future of the planet.
John “Charlie” Veron — widely known as “The Godfather of Coral” — is a renowned reef expert who has personally discovered nearly a quarter of the world’s coral species and has spent the past 45 years diving Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
But after a lifetime trying to make sense of the vast ecosystems that lie beneath the ocean’s surface, the 73-year-old is now becoming a prophet of their extinction.
“It’s the beginning of a planetary catastrophe,” he tells CNN. “I was too slow to become vocal about it.”
People have no idea how important coral reefs are to fishing. In winter our water is about 2-3m visibility with algae. As that disappears (fish food) the water becomes clear but visibility stays at 2-3m, why? Billions, trillions of fish eggs and pin head size fish (fish food). As these grow they eat each other and turn into the big fish we can catch and eat while the survivors make new eggs laid on the reef. These fish need the reef for this. If the reef dies off then this cycle stops…
…no fish.
NAOM
A lot of human behaviors don’t make much sense and aren’t imitated by other species. This post is a great example. I should be working. Strictly speaking, it is a complete waste of time. But humans love running off their mouths, even if there is no material gain to be expected from it.
Peacocks like showing off their tails off to each other, but dogs don’t. That’s just the way different species developed. Human speech is mostly useless blather, even though we enjoy it. There is no reason to expect other species to share our tastes.
Dumb tricks like tail standing aren’t any different. It’s fine if dolphins like it, but there’s no real reason to assume they might, or to congratulate them for it if they do. And it is doubtful evidence of intelligence.
“Strictly speaking, it is a complete waste of time.”
The part of your brain that actually controls your actions thinks it is a good thing. You are probably boring it to death with your other activities.
🙂
If dolphins were smarter than us they would have homo sapiens doing circus tricks for them.
What a coincidence that your (Fernando’s) comment appears just above Fred’s comment that suggests why dolphins are not “the ones displaying us in floating cages, doing tricks to amuse the little dolphins”!
I don’t think Fernando is capable of putting himself in a dolphin’s shoes… 😉
They have us providing cosy habitats and feeding them fish – a win for the dolphins.
NAOM
Canaries do better. They dont even have to sing for their meals.
Lucky for us they don’t have opposable thumbs and live in an environment where they can’t make fire! Otherwise I’m sure they would be the ones displaying us in floating cages, doing tricks to amuse the little dolphins… 😉
I watched some dolphins perform in an open sea aquarium, just a corral in the sea. They were easily leaping higher and further than needed to get out, I guess they liked it there. I have heard tales of dolphins jumping out of those aquariums then jumping back in to perform.
NAOM
Maybe those penned dolphins thought it was rocks forever outside their pen?
For you folks who follow US electricity generation, familiarity with the various ISO/RTO sites around the country can be very educational, especially with real time data.
At the moment, 1:00 PM local time in New England, 4% of their electrical generation is being provided by coal and oil.
Wind and solar are providing 27% of the overall 5% from renewables, so slightly over 1% of the total.
Natgas is providing 66%.
When the cold of winter redirects much of that natgas for heating purposes, those folks will be in a world of hurt.
This is the last winter that the Pilgrim nuke will provide its routine 700 Megawatts 24/7 (barring an increasingly high rate of breakdowns).
It’s worth mentioning that the NE ISO doesn’t seem to routinely include rooftop (aka distributed) solar PV in it’s reporting, so solar’s overall contribution is understated.
If you look at the NE demand curve, you’ll see the characteristic “duck” curve that comes from solar lopping off peak demand.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-efficiency-drive-declining-peak-load-in-iso-new-england/523209/
That is both true and an excellent point, Nick.
One real world corollary to the rooftop solar is the negative economic effects that spring up to both traditional power providers and grid operators.
Specifically the “lost” business to the traditional providers accelerates their demise.
When the sun don’t glow, (and the wind don’t blow), someone still needs to be there to provide the juice.
This played a big role in Australia’s situation as rooftop solar is fairly widespread Down Under.
Gail Tverberg wrote an excellent analysis on this several months back.
the negative economic effects that spring up to both traditional power providers and grid operators.
This is partly a myth created by traditional providers, and partly an artifact of regulatory structures: if you only pay for kWhs, and not for kW capacity, then you may under-incentivize capacity.
When the sun don’t glow, (and the wind don’t blow), someone still needs to be there to provide the juice.
There are many solutions to that which don’t require fossils.
Gail is not a reliable source, I’m afraid. She makes a lot of “handwaving” arguments against renewables – but in the end her analysis is empty and will mislead you.
One real world corollary to the rooftop solar is the negative economic effects that spring up to both traditional power providers and grid operators.
Specifically the “lost” business to the traditional providers accelerates their demise.
The sooner they all go out of the business the better, they are just dead dinosaurs walking. There are plenty of little mammals scurrying around beneath their feet and a few of them will provide the basis for completely new energy providing paradigms.
Here’s a short panel discussion about how some of the new ways of doing things might evolve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLE2SrDNPZc
Vehicle-To-Grid | Fully Charged Live 2018 Talk 12
Nissan with Chademo can do bidirectional energy flows. The US Standard CCS L3 currently can not. The SAE CCS Standard leaves it open for bi-directional energy using power line communications.. but not currently implemented. TeslaPickup will have 240V 40A output if it comes to market. This car is also a power plant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETvNiHCoilE
Such feature will sell a lot of vehicles, it could be main reason to own an EV.
New England needs better insulation, not more options to waste energy. Obviously anyone in the energy business is going to claim something else, but the solution to doing something stupid like living in a poorly insulated building in a cold climate is not to do more stupid stuff like importing fuel — the solution is to improve insulation.
Australia made regulations for solar installations that made sure they would never work very well on a small or large scale.
Examples or link to explanation please.
TIA
NAOM
I read a few years ago that the residential limit was 5 kW. That means they would not generally produce an excess of electricity beyond the use of the residence.
Therefor the implementation was limited by regulation and power providers.
In 2016-17 coal provided 76% of electric power and solar 3%.
Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest places on earth, yet still tied to coal.
Most Utility PV interconnection standards are patterned off IEEE 1547. Strong Grid Heartbeat, Useless w/o fantasy stable Grid. Would you buy a car that shut down for 300 seconds every bump in the road? Upcoming Systems form enphase and Huawei will be true microgrids as a standard feature.
Could a second, low power, off grid inverter, running off the same panels, be used to provide the heartbeat with a change over switch that disconnected the household from the grid and connected it to the off grid inverter?
NAOM
That is exactly how SMA’s Sunny Island inverter series are designed to work when combined with their Sunny Island series. The Sunny Island are battery based inverter/chargers though. With the SMA setup, DC charge controllers are not required since the inverter/charger can charge the batteries using the power coming from the grid tied inverter. SMA calls it AC coupling and it works but, it is significantly more complex and can be more than twice as costly as a simple grid tied set up. I am not aware if the SMA products will inter-operate with products from other manufacturers.
Thanks, I am aware of these but I was thinking if a cheap inverter could supply the heartbeat that the main on-grid inverter needs so as to supply emergency power without the need to duplicate the on-grid with a redundant off-grid.
NAOM
“It’s worth mentioning that the NE ISO doesn’t seem to routinely include rooftop (aka distributed) solar PV in it’s reporting, so solar’s overall contribution is understated.”
Yep, invisible since it’s behind the meter, so we have Net Metering, Paperwork mess, Utility FAULT for their role in screwing up utility de-regulation. Since when has gov de-regulation ever occurred?
At this moment, the largest state is getting 41.6% electricity from renewables, 24.7% from Nat Gas, 19.9% from import, 7.5% Nuclear, and 6.3% from large Hydro.
The renewable portion is 78.9% PV, and the import sources are not specified.
Cal ISO- http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx
Come back and report the 7 PM December 15th figures
Did a little digging around the CAISO web site and found the chart below. California is at a latitude where they can still get a ton of energy from solar in the middle of the northern winter, unlike most of Europe.
But i want to see it at 7 PM 😐
California is way ahead of you buddy! See the link with the title “Energy storage gets a boost as California legislature extends SGIP ” in my link bomb post further downthread.
There are effective ways to handle evening peaks. The cheap, but somewhat complex approach is Demand Side Management with Time of Day power pricing. The simple but slightly more expensive approach is batteries.
EVs are likely to comprise roughly 25% of electrical consumption. Passenger vehicles are only utilized about 5% of the time, and are likely to carry at least roughly a week’s worth of capacity so most of their charging should pretty easy to schedule during periods of low grid output. They’ll likely also be an enormous resource for sending power to the grid.
There are two EV-based strategies:
The primary strategy is to automatically time charging based on either direct signals from the utility, or TOU pricing. EVs charge at the lowest price point during the day, consistent with their owner’s programmed needs and priorities. The standard battery size is now about 100 miles, or 3 days of driving for the average light vehicle. That gives quite a bit of leeway for choosing when to charge to minimize costs. That leeway will only grow as batteries grow to 300 miles capacity.
The secondary strategy is V2G: vehicles sending power to the grid. As that depletes the battery, and uses up battery life, that would probably require the utility to pay a premium for the power, perhaps 25-50 cents per kWh. That, of course, would be very cheap if used only occasionally, or if it were used for the relatively small amounts of power needed for occasional frequency maintenance.
A vehicle fleet that was fully electric would have an enormous capacity. 230M vehicles at 100kWh each would have capacity of 23 terawatt hours, which could provide 50% of the grid’s power for about 5 days.
If a society were to decide to, it could plan to have it’s citizens rely on Extended Range EVs, like the Volt, which have a backup generator. That would make the full EV battery capacity available to the grid, and even allow those generators to power the grid. For very occasional seasonal use (that one 2-week period in January that’s a big planning problem) that would be very cheap.
—
“…Google’s latest Works With Nest partnership with San Francisco-based startup OhmConnect is a little bit different, according to Jeff Hamel, director of energy partnerships at Nest/Google. That’s because it’s giving Nest a partner to break into a demand response market opportunity that’s not based on participating in a utility program. Instead, it will go through OhmConnect.
Nest will be tapping into OhmConnect’s growing roster of customers getting paid to turn down household energy use to help reduce grid peaks. In April, the startup revealed that it had more than 300,000 customers, the vast majority in California, representing a combined 100 megawatts of load reduction capacity.
For its first few years, OhmConnect didn’t have a direct way to turn that aggregated load reduction into revenue. But more recently, it’s been able to tap into the Demand Response Auction Mechanism (DRAM) program to help cover its costs and support its payments.
This pilot project has allowed OhmConnect and other competitors to aggregate 700 megawatts of behind-the-meter peak reduction capacity to date, and get paid both for providing the capacity to utilities and bidding into the energy markets of state grid operator CAISO.”
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nest-and-ohmconnect-partner-to-bring-grid-responsive-smart-thermostats#gs.FkxKqYw
—
Here’s a short panel discussion about how some of the new ways of doing things might evolve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLE2SrDNPZc
Vehicle-To-Grid | Fully Charged Live 2018 Talk 12
The problem I see with V2G is that peak solar is likely to be when vehicles are at work or rather in the multi-story near work while peak usage is when they are parked in the home. i.e. they may not be able to connect to the grid when needing to charge unless a huge amount of chargers are installed and when they can connect to charge, at home, they get vampired. I think it would be a hard sell when people want their car fully charged, ready for the morning.
NAOM
Well, as noted, V2G is likely to be a secondary strategy. It would likely be used where the need for backup was more urgent, which would cause power prices to rise high enough to incentivize EV owners to proved the needed power.
Please note that there’s really no reason that sufficient chargers can’t be installed to serve all the EVs in service, wherever they are. If you live far enough north you’ll be familiar with ubiquitous vehicle plugs for engine block warmers.
It is not that there is no reason but how it can be done and how fast. For V2G to be efficient there will need to be a lot of them, quickly with more chargers than cars since cars will always be parking in different places. If a multi story installs chargers will it be able to install one in every space or will it need to be a roll out – say 20% of spaces per year? How will they ration them? If only 10% need chargers will they keep the other 10% empty, just in case, or will they fill them with IfCE cars? What regulation would be needed to ensure a mass roll out would be safe, we wouldn’t want overloaded, large systems to catch fire, for example? I think there is more to this than meets the eye. I have no doubt it can be done but how do we get there?
As for the heater points, I don’t think I will be seeing many, around here, at this latitude – fans may be more useful over the bicycle racks 🙂 However I believe chargers would need substantially more effort and heftier installation.
NAOM
Well, again, V2G is secondary. It doesn’t need to be done quickly. It’s something that will be needed when wind and solar hit much higher percentages of grid penetration. Until then, DSM (Demand Side Management) will be very effective: managing the timing of EV charging to reduce demand when wind & solar are low and increase demand when wind and solar are high.
This morning (August, 29) I noticed the following article over at reneweconomy.com.au:
US renewables outshine nuclear, close gap on coal
Data published last week by the US Energy Information Administration reveals that renewable electricity generation accounted for nearly a fifth of all domestic electrical generation in the United States through the first half of the year, and narrowly beat out nuclear power.
US renewable energy sources accounted for 19.867% of the country’s electrical generation during the first half of 2018, compared to nuclear power which accounted for 19.863%.
The Sun Day Campaign, an advocacy group, added up all the data available from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, wind, and solar – both utility-scale and distributed.
Their figures, based on the data are somewhat different than mine. I added the Estimated Solar Photovoltaic output to the “Total Generation at Utility Scale Facilities” as a basis for calculating the contribution of Nuclear and got their 19.863% but that smame method would make the contribution from All Renewables smaller as well so. I don’t know how they All Renwables edging out Nuclear.
Their comparisons of year to date figures are also different than mine and resulted in me discovering that the data for 2017 appears to have been adjusted. I have built my spreadsheet by just adding a new line for the data for each month as it comes in, using a method that automatically updates most of the charts. Since I don’t download the whole spreadsheet I will not immediately detect when adjustments have been made to any older data. I will have to insert the adjusted 2017 data.
Ratepayer revolt on Vogtle. now up to 27.5 Billion. The most expensive gadget on planet earth. SO Shareholders can sell stock at any time. Leaving the tab on Ratepayers or government, crushing local economies. This mess, Like Fukusumia is down played in the MSM.
Note: SO is selling Gulf Power and will have no presence in the Sunshine State. Word is that FERC is going to Punish SO over resistance to setting up Regional ISO’s. get popcorn.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4200893-will-jea-force-shutdown-plant-vogtle-nuclear-construction?app=1
This article will time out soon, so download or print to pdf.
The Future of Energy is Distributed.
‘ARCHIVED’ HEAT HAS REACHED DEEP INTO THE ARCTIC INTERIOR
Arctic sea ice isn’t just threatened by the melting of ice around its edges, a new study has found: Warmer water that originated hundreds of miles away has penetrated deep into the interior of the Arctic.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-archived-deep-arctic-interior.html#jCp
Fred —
WHAT DID THE DOLPHIN SAY TO THE PORPOISE?
“A dolphin in Scotland’s Firth of Clyde may be exchanging messages with porpoises.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45348036
Yeah, I think I read something about a dolphin porpoise hybrid in the wild recently so apparently they seem to get along pretty well… 😉
He’s doing that on porpoise.
slowly creeps away…
Maybe the time has come wildfire emissions are included when setting greenhouse gas targets. After all, increasingly, in many areas, wildfires are pumping as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in just a few weeks, as cars do in an entire year? Sadly, it seems big fires have become the “new normal”. As for B.C.:
2018 WILDFIRE SEASON NOW THE WORST ON RECORD FOR HECTARES BURNED
It’s official: this year’s wildfire season is the worst on record in terms of hectares burned. According to the B.C. Wildfire Service, 1,250,383 hectares have burned across the province since April 1, surpassing last year’s record total of 1,216,053 hectares. Before the last two summers, the province’s worst wildfire season occurred in 1958 when 855,968 hectares burned.
https://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html
FOREST FIRES MAY PRODUCE AS MUCH CO2 AS HALF OF ALL FOSSIL FUELS BURNED
“Globally, fires have been overlooked as a key player in the global CO2 cycle. Tom Quirk has dug up some studies showing that CO2 emissions from fires can be as high as half of the total emissions from human fossil fuel use.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/forest-fires-may-produce-as-much-co2-as-half-of-all-fossil-fuels-burned/
Well, humans or fire need to be eliminated.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Nature is racing to catch up to the devastation caused by man each year. Sounds like a no win situation for the planet.
We are destroying rainforests so quickly they may be gone in 100 years
If you want to see the world’s climate changing, fly over a tropical country. Thirty years ago, a wide belt of rainforest circled the earth, covering much of Latin America, south-east Asia and Africa. Today, it is being rapidly replaced by great swathes of palm oil trees and rubber plantations, land cleared for cattle grazing, soya farming, expanding cities, dams and logging.
Every year about 18m hectares of forest – an area the size of England and Wales – is felled. In just 40 years, possibly 1bn hectares, the equivalent of Europe, has gone. Half the world’s rainforests have been razed in a century, and the latest satellite analysis shows that in the last 15 years new hotspots have emerged from Cambodia to Liberia. At current rates, they will vanish altogether in 100 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/23/destroying-rainforests-quickly-gone-100-years-deforestation
Yeah, and from my link: “Peat deposits can be an extraordinary 20 metres thick. In 1997, a fire consumed 8,000 square km of mostly peatland in Borneo. Researchers estimated 0.2 Gt of carbon were released in this one area that year, and that carbon emissions from fires across Indonesia in 1997 emitted between 0.8 and 2.5 Gt — or “13 to 40%” of the size of global human fossil fuel emissions.” But don’t sweat it Fish, a few electric buses and plug in cars will soon save the planet from all this destruction. I know, the peat will grow back, in how many thousand years?
Behind all the PV, wind towers, EV’s, better insulation, conservation and environmental awareness are people. The only reason we realize the scope and magnitude of what is going on is the extremely high tech combined with institutions and governments promoting the gathering and analysis about the physicality and life on this planet. Without the huge amount of communication and computing the burning would still have gone on, but the knowledge would be stifled. The need to change the course of human endeavor would not even be recognized.
“Behind all the PV, wind towers, EV’s, better insulation, conservation and environmental awareness are people.”
Yup, and 83 million more of them every year too. Let’s say, 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100. Lots of new business opportunities out there.
IMHO the best business to be in by 2030 will be the mortuary business, hopefully renewably powered!
Well solar powered funeral desiccations have been around for awhile. Not so popular recently but fashions come and go.
Solar ovens?! 😉
“solar powered funeral desiccations”
I hadn’t heard of that. Seems like a good idea, especially during the sunny months.
I’d prefer to be powdered before mixing with soil.
At least thats my preference while alive.
I don’t have one once I’m dead and gone.
And I do prefer to go voluntarily.
Speaking of such, how about a hospice barge in internationally waters? Maritime law?
I am surprised that an intelligent man such as yourself is spouting these population projections. Surely, you cannot believe them in light of all that is known.
Who are going to purchase all those pseudorenewable/pseudogreen crony-capitalist plutarchy gizmos and gadgets and with what jobs/money if the ecosystem can’t handle them and/or crashes are coming?
Have no clue what you are talking about, maybe you can get some help posing an understandable question. Maybe Doug can help you, I certainly do not want to try and translate your pseudospeak.
Maybe try this, then.
“I am surprised that an intelligent man such as yourself is spouting these population projections.”
A) I have spent a lot of time among some very brainy people and don’t consider myself as being even close to any of them in intelligence,
B) I don’t believe ANY predictions respecting the human condition beyond about one decade into the future.
I think it has very little to do with intelligence and is probably more closely related to what Daniel Kahneman describes as an inside-outside view of the planning fallacy.
there are two ways of looking at a problem; the inside view and the outside view. The inside view is looking at your problem and trying to estimate what will happen in your problem. The outside view involves making that an instance of something else—of a class. When you then look at the statistics of the class, it is a very different way of thinking about problems. And what’s interesting is that it is a very unnatural way to think about problems, because you have to forget things that you know—and you know everything about what you’re trying to do, your plan and so on—and to look at yourself as a point in the distribution is a very un-natural exercise; people actually hate doing this and resist it.
Cheers!
Sadly a wealthy and educated society is just as incapable of doing a better job of managing fire. Case in point being the state of California.
The reason you get all these fires is that for decades we have suppressed all natural fire activity leaving significant amounts of flammable fuel in the forest. The environmentalists responsible need to realize they can’t have it both ways.
There is certainly some truth yo what you say. But it is far from the complete story. And you come across as having some kind of agenda when you blame ‘environmentalists’ for the fires, that’s kind of a strawman.(pun intended).
There are plenty of people who are concerned about the environment who both understand the need for environmental management and are actively engaged in doing it. That includes things like controlled burns on public lands. However that does not address the underlying problems that are a direct consequence of Climate Change which are in turn due to increased anthopogenic CO2 emissions.
You will get increased CO2 no matter what, so would you rather have small doses every year from small fires or a huge amount every decade from massive fires because of bad management? The human CO2 contribution isn’t big enough to factor in to a discussion of natural sources.
The human CO2 contribution isn’t big enough to factor in to a discussion of natural sources.
Any chance you could provide us with the source, from where you are getting that bit of information?!
The South West including California is a great example of showing us that what works ok in year round humid areas on this planet do not work well in areas with only seasonal rainfall. Rest and a hands off approach is not the most productive in wetter climates but catastrophic in area with longer periods of no rain. For those interested in outside the box perspectives from an environmentalist in the South West I would suggest googling Dan Daggett.
Here is a little historical perspective on western fires. The biggest was 3 million acres in 1910- The Big Burn
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/08/northwest-wildfires-are-we-seeing-new.html
For friend Fred, our in-house electric bus aficionado. 😉
WATERS OFF MAINE IN MIDST OF RECORD YEAR FOR WARMTH
“The waters off of New England are already warming faster than most of the world’s oceans, and they are nearing the end of one of the hottest summers in their history. That is the takeaway from an analysis of summer sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Maine by a marine scientist with the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland. The average sea surface temperature in the gulf was nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit above the long-term average during one ten-day stretch in August.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-maine-midst-year-warmth.html#jCp
Yikes! Humans suck at risk assessment and don’t really grasp complex non linear dynamics.
The Gulf of Maine is a body of water that resembles a dent in the coastal Northeast, and it touches Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Atlantic Canada. It’s the nerve center of the U.S. lobster fishing industry, an important feeding ground for rare North Atlantic right whales and a piece of ocean that has attracted much attention in recent years because of its rapid warming…
…”Warming in the GOM has been pushing out native species like cod, kelp and lobster, and fostering populations of species typically found in the Carolinas,” Bruno said. “Although it’s an extreme example, it mirrors what we’re seeing across most of the world.”
What could possibly go wrong, eh?!
I looked up the temperature anomaly timeseries using two different reanalysis products, for the sector 290 to 310 deg Longitude and 40 to 50 degrees latitude north. The sources were the CFSR and ERA Interim. The temperature change has been an increase of 0.125 degrees C/decade over the last 40 years.
Both products show a flattening curve through the end of 2017.
Maybe some of the extra oceanic heat is winding up in the Arctic.
‘ARCHIVED’ HEAT HAS REACHED DEEP INTO THE ARCTIC INTERIOR
“Arctic sea ice isn’t just threatened by the melting of ice around its edges, a new study has found: Warmer water that originated hundreds of miles away has penetrated deep into the interior of the Arctic.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-archived-deep-arctic-interior.html#jCp
The article is talking about average sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Maine during a specific time period in the month of August 2018. It is what the thermometers measured there.
You can check daily sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Maine and adjacent water at this link here:
https://coastwatch.chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/region_gm.php#temp
I’m sure its possible to pick spots with anomalous temperature increases, and others with anomalous temperature decreases. Thats why its better to use a regional data set and look it over a long period of time.
A quotation from Doug’s article:
The gulf warmed at a rate of about 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, which is more than three times the global average, Pershing said. That rate has jumped to more than seven times the global average in the past 15 years, he said.
Also: I use the Climate Reanalyzer, which oddly enough is out of Maine (my home state).
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#sstanom
An Ecosocialist Reply to a Defender of ‘Green Capitalism’
Any of this sound familiar coming from some of the ‘narrators’ hereon? It sure does…
The initial version of the post I’m replying to referred to myself and NickG, challenging him to state his real name and how he earns a living. It also spoke to some recollection that I had said I was in entertainment but I fail to see the relevance of the livelihood of myself or NickG to the debate that we carry on here. We are both of the view that mitigating against the effects of Peak Oil and Global warming could use some help from renewable energy, energy efficiency and EVs. Do we have to have a vested interest in any of those fields to hold that view? Could it not also be that we have identified the challenges faced by our civilisation and see these technologies as parts of a possible global response that might prevent things from getting as bad as they otherwise might? Why do certain people (CM that’s you) feel it necessary to denigrate technology and dismiss it out of hand? What is to be gained by not adopting some of this technology? Would they be happier if the US was not getting almost ten percent of it’s electricity from wind and solar and coal was still generating 40 or 50% of US electricity? Would they be happier if Elon Musk had not been interested in saving the world and had just become another internet billionaire like Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg? What’s their suggestion? Permaculture? Since I posted this comment I discovered the original text of CM’s comment had been cached by my browser, to wit:
‘…if only we could take down the fossil-fuel companies, the pipeline builders… the way would then be clear for the good side of the business world, the Jekylls, to lead us into a green future…’
Hey, Nick G, back up your narrative with your full name, and maybe even tell us what your work involves. Likewise with islandboy, (although I seem to recall him mentioning that he was in entertainment).
Since I spent some time composing the post below in response to the challenge above, I’ll just go ahead and include it:
Yeah I’m in entertainment and on this last Saturday, I took some equipment out to an event at a black sand beach in an area known as Wickie Wackie part of area called Bull Bay, a few minutes east of the eastern edge of Kingston. Between 1969 and 1974, when my father was a headmaster at a high school near the eastern tip of the island we used to drive through Bull Bay on our way to and from Kingston and in 69 the area was largely undeveloped. By 1974, when my family relocated to a town north of Kingston so my parents could take up teaching jobs there, development of the area around Wickie Wackie had begun with the land being subdivided and roads cut on the area south of the main road adjoining the beach as well as the area north of the main road, heading up the hillsides. I only passed through Bull Bay on the odd occasion when I had to but, each time I went the “progress” around Wickie Wackie was more noticeable, more houses more shops etc.
So on Saturday night we got to the venue at about midnight, a house on the beach with a stage facing the house and the hills, with the ocean as a backdrop. I went outside the venue and walked along the streets around the venue. You know what I was thinking? All these houses so close to the beach are so close to sea level are so at risk of sea level rise. It is very common for folks in Jamaica to build their houses bit by bit, section by section as finances allow. They start with the foundations and complete a couple of rooms with a kitchen and a bathroom so they can move in while they continue to add rooms and second floor if thats what they planned. If sea levels do rise appreciably, some of these houses may have to be abandoned before they are even complete and some of those that are the pride and joy of their owners will have to be abandoned.
Another thing I thought about as I drove through Bull Bay is how heavily populated that area has become. I thought about the thousands of lower income fellow citizens of my island home, many of them with large families, struggling to make ends meet. My mind wandered, as it often does during these moments, to how these people would fare without affordable tined sardines, mackerel and corned beef, without affordable flour, cornmeal, rice and oats, without the affordable chicken meat made possible with industrially farmed grain. I thought to myself, anybody who harbours romantic notions about sustaining the lives of these folks, myself included using ideas like perma-culture, without some semblance of BAU, needs to take a good look at what life is like for lots of people out here in the real world. Of course there was not a word of any of this to the young man who was riding with me.
The next day I was returning a drum set to the house of the same young man who I had taken to Wickie Wackie the night before. He lives across a river called the Hope river that passes by the north eastern tip of Kingston where the University of the West Indies 600 acre Mona campus is located. I had to drive a few minutes up the road along side the river, heading out of the city, turn off that road, go across a narrow bridge and up a twisty, single lane, unpaved road to get to his house, near what appeared to be the end of the road. I couldn’t help notice the crowded little houses perched on the steep hillsides above the river below, some finished, others in various states of complication but, still occupied just like those I see everywhere I go. The houses on the banks above the Hope River were smaller than those at Wickie Wackie since the development there seemed to be more haphazard. Maybe it was a squatter settlement as opposed to being a formal development but, my thoughts wandered back to the same ones I had on Saturday night, so many people depending on the status quo. This forum is the only place where I feel I can be a part of conversations about these things. Nobody else I know gives a damn!
This forum is the only place where I feel I can be a part of conversations about these things. Nobody else I know gives a damn!
Hey Islandboy, Yeah, I know the feeling! The main reason I’ve placed CM back on my ignore list is because he is not interested in any kind of a conversation. There is something seriously off about the way he approaches any interaction on this forum.
To be honest I strongly disagree with many on this forum especially on the petroleum side of the blog, Fernando is one example but at least I kinda understand where he is coming from and and there is some substance and value to listening to his point of view, I may think he is wrong but at least he is rational.
I also disagree with say, Nick’s view on the benefits of large populations. However I agree with him that Solar, wind and EVs are way better than than BAU and fossil fuels.
Then there are a few drive by Trolls of various shades but they usually don’t stick around long enough to really make much of an impression!
Heck, I even often disagree with Ron and Dennis and strong words are occasionally exchanged. But I’ve never found any of these people to be petty or vindictive or to engage in backstabbing. Usually when a discussion peters out, that’s it and we all move on to the next topic and no grudges are held.
CM is the only person that I have encountered here who will go out of his way to take a comment twist it completely out of context and then go and post it on someone else’s blog just to garner brownie points like some kindergarten kid telling on his classmates to his teacher. Like he did recently when I said that I considered Euan Mearns to be a climate change denialist.
To be clear, I would have no problem telling Euan personally but in the context of my comment here it was only to support my point. I wasn’t interested in antagonizing him, if I had wanted to argue with him I could easily have gone and posted something on his blog.
Anyways, I didn’t read CM’s comment to which you are replying here, and I won’t bother doing so but I’ve read enough of his comments to have a pretty good idea. Whatever he said is probably not worth reading.
To be clear, I think we as a civilization are probably toast. But like a terminally ill patient, that doesn’t mean it is necessary to commit suicide. Maybe we can keep going for a while with treatment like chemotherapy and who knows someone might even come up with a cure.
Personally, I think we have zero chance with fossil fuels and we might have a very small chance if we transition to renewables but the last thing I want to do if our time is running out is waste it on people who have nothing positive to add.
Cheers!
Thanks for the support! I just find his comments here a little suspicious. If he has any criticisms of fossil fuels and the status quo, he certainly has not commented about his criticisms that is in any way that is even remotely memorable. He does take every opportunity to dump on the technologies that FF interests like the Koch brothers have issues with, a propensity which you have noticed and commented on IIRC. He doesn’t strike me as having a great deal of concern for Global Warming either which might put him in the denier camp. He sure is one strange cookie!
I get the impression that he is promoting permaculture but, that may just be a ruse to form an impression in the minds of casual visitors to this blog that, we are nothing but a bunch of hippies and there is nothing worthy of note to be achieved by reading anything here and debasing the value of the discussion. I need to stop trying to make sense of him!
edit: Then there is this business of throwing a challenge at people at the end of his post and then editing it out. What the hell is up with that?
When Big Oil Is Big Government Is Big pseudoRenewable Is Big Dupe
If one is lulled into thinking that their online forum, and therefore their ‘scurrilous’ (and assorted) bullshit, is somehow detached, somehow hermetically-sealed from the rest of the internet, their responses from someone pointing out the contrary can be understandable.
To talk about your ignoring me is parodical, along with the rest of your polished bullshit. The decontextualizations appear to come from your own head.
In your case, I think Euan, who is not your first and likely not your last, made a fair call.
In closing, here’re some classics for any newbs:
“Caelan, I tend to agree with a lot of your positions and I think I understand where you are coming from and also how frustrating it can be to be surrounded by people who are oblivious to what you perceive as self evident truths…
I do however have quite a bit of experience in dealing with people from all walks of life and multiple cultural, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds… In any case lashing out in anger at those who aren’t there yet, IMHO is counter productive.” ~ Fred Magyar
“Its only 300 years old. Obvious the climate was different 300 year ago. Nothing about nature is static, but humans like to think it is static or can be made static.” ~ TechGuy
“No asshole, you missed my point completely…
Fuck you and everybody who thinks like you!” ~ Fred Magyar
I have already raised the issue, such as with Javier, so it’s nothing new on my part. But I thought at the last minute, fuck it. This site’s dying, along with my time on it.
Anyone can ‘say’ anything they like, true or not, disembodied, detached and anonymized as they are, behind a screen and across vast distances in dying communities on a dying planet.
Case in point:
CM?And do you actually believe that? And do you believe that technology is supposed to degrade/denigrate humankind and the rest of the planet? Because that’s what it’s doing. I’ve already been over this. Which covers some of the rest of your points.
Still no full name…
You don’t task a murderer to solve their crime and that’s what is being done with so-called technology, which includes social technology, like State so-called government. It doesn’t work, and it cannot work as it’s currently configured.
So it is seriously questionable what is to be gained, and what point there might be, to what you might think of as ‘technology’, unless you’re detached…
And that’s what we are. And online.
Attaching your full real name, Alan (and Nick et al.), to your commentary would seem to attach you to more personal accountability/responsibility.
But at this point, what does it matter?
Mother Nature will reattach us when she smashes us into the ground from whence we came.
I guess ecosocialism is like stalinism but the concentration camp prisoners feed the squirrels instead of cutting down trees?.
Theory Versus Reality
Fernando, you have a robot like Sophia or like that one in the movie, Ex Machina (‘to erase the line between man and machine‘, writes the intro to its trailer), and then you have a real woman.
You have money and then you have what it attempts to claim.
You have a virtual ignore button, echo chamber, or State secret, and then you have Wikileaks, quantum entanglement and virtual trips to the comment sections of other forums.
You have Superman, the Hulk, the bionic man, Thor or Hercules, and then you have the real laws of physics.
You have human stories, myths, symbols, lies, fantasies, denials and deceptions and then you have the truth, whatever it is, and the effects of the former (the myths, symbols, etc.) on it and the effects of them on their effects (feedbacks).
Subsidies for new household solar panels to end next year
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction
Six guilty of £17m solar panel fraud
The Good news – Solar PV and batteries will not power much of BAU – Solar compatible gear is a requisite.
More Good news – it’s immoral to store Pure solar watts hours with toxic eChem when you can store it thermally. Ice, phase change or Hot Water. (Note that all eChem storage is Toxic).
More Good News – Efficiency improvements are reducing eChem storage requirements quickly.
ie. One can light a mansion at night with a few 18650’s with the correct LED’s. 90% of LED are not correct.
(Note that all eChem storage is Toxic).
True, but so are all paint pigments! Would you then agree that it is immoral to use chemical paints? Butterflies have colorful wings but do not contain any pigments whatsoever, they produce color by bending light in nanostructures. GOOD NEWS! We have both the knowledge and technology to do the same …
My point being, we obviously need radical paradigm change in all aspects of of how we have done things for most of the 20th century. However we also need to pick carefully the right battles at the right time. Let’s not throw all the babies out with the bath water. All LEDs may not be perfect, but any LED is still way better than an incandescent.
Efficiency wherever applicable should be applied in spades! That doesn’t mean we should suddenly completely stop using chemistry where necessary.
Cheers!
I meant to say not all eChem energy storage is toxic. LFP LiFePO4 eChem is non toxic downstream. It is also scalable since there is no rare earth’s/heavy metals.
One can also sleep when the sun sets.
I’ve already posted about LED light pollution. I recall a couple of nights ago some LED streetlights that were especially buzzing with flying insects. I wonder how their lifecycles are affected by them.
A Tesla Model S caught on fire on the highway after ‘hitting a component’ that fell off a truck
Hey Caelan, I didn’t want you to be afraid of Tesla car fires, so I found this on CNN for you.
“Tesla cars are 10 times less likely to catch fire than gasoline-fueled cars, the automaker said, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association and U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Lithium-ion batteries, like those in Tesla cars, also ignite more slowly and burn in a more controlled way than gasoline.”
Hey Songster, I wouldn’t necessarily patch that line into that particular statistical comparison jack unless we want to enter a rat’s nest.
Their history aside, EV’s are just trying to get going and there’s an infernal bank of buttons, knobs, wires and plugs, etc., before us to override the fading natural ambient choruses.
That out of the way, might you or anyone hereon know how to get a midi controller working with Ardour 5.12? I figure I might as well pick up an old hobby as a last hurrah before, or as, the SHTF.
Burden In My Hand
Scratch that, we have sound!
Rensselaer begins review of gondola service proposed to tie it to Albany
I did some survey work in Guyana about 25 years ago. One of the three worst places I’ve ever been. Unless things have changed, a lot, not more than three local people will benefit from this discovery. President David Granger best have his Swiss bank a/c up to date.
HOW WILL GUYANA DEAL WITH ITS OIL WINDFALL?
“ExxonMobil found oil off Guyana’s coast in 2015, and believes the reserves are big. Conservative estimates project to about 4 billion barrels. Some experts think there’s more to be found in the country’s 6.6 million-acre Starbroek Block. But how Guyana prepares for the windfall from a newly discovered fossil fuel repository will have big ramifications for its future. For a country with a population of fewer than 800,000 and a GDP of slightly more than $6 billion, the discovery is life changing.
“There’s a realistic chance of this transforming the economy,” said Pavel Molchanov, senior vice president and equity research associate at Raymond James. “It’s particularly impactful for a small country like Guyana.” When the first oil starts to flow, which ExxonMobil hopes will be in 2020, Guyana could reap billions almost immediately. By 2025, ExxonMobil wants to produce 750,000 barrels of oil per day.”
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/30/news/world/guyana-exxon-oil/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fedition_world+%28RSS%3A+CNNi+-+World%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results
“There’s a realistic chance of this transforming the economy,” said Pavel Molchanov, senior vice president and equity research associate at Raymond James. “It’s particularly impactful for a small country like Guyana.” When the first oil starts to flow, which ExxonMobil hopes will be in 2020, Guyana could reap billions almost immediately. By 2025, ExxonMobil wants to produce 750,000 barrels of oil per day.”
Oh yeah! And how long will this marvelous economic transformation last?! Sounds like a pocket full of promises to me! If this happens and Guyana does reap billions, I hope they are smart enough to invest most of it in a plan to quickly transition to renewables.
This is the 21st century we already know how this movie ends! Oil execs and corrupt politicians pocket the profits and both the Guyanese people and the planet end up fucked! One more in a long string of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Exxon Mobil!
Guyana has set up an investment fund to stash the money away for the future.
The discovery is offshore, this means it will be a little bit like say Trinidad and Tobago. The way it works, the government gets a cut of income from taxes, but there’s a lot of economic activvity from the money the industry spends.
The offshore operations will require a helicopter base and a helicopter fleet, warehouses and docks to stock supplies, office space for the operator as well as service companies. These in turn need housing, and will probably lead to hotel construction. This leads to upgrading local hospitals, which require quality staff, which in turn requires housing.
So the immediate impact is a construction boom driven by the industry opex and capex spend. The usual practice is to hire locals for the unskilled work as soon as possible and set up training programs to have them work in ever more sophisticated positions (it saves money and it helps public relations).
A standard practice is to immediately provide scholarships for the brightest students to go abroad. I assume many will go to Trinidad, others to the US.
So a significant poryion of the population does benefit. Where we see problems is in places such as Equatorial Guinea, where they have a communist dictator, or Angola, where the ruling communists turned out to be very corrupt. I think we can hope they will learn from Trinidad, which made large mistakes over the years, but there are no guarantees.
Thanks for this, Fernando.
Fossil fuel advocates claim that it’s density is an essential virtue, but in fact it’s an enormous problem.
Oil is concentrated and badly distributed, so that a very few people can control it and benefit from it’s wealth. This leads to enormous corruption and oppressive governments (whether they’re traditional monarchies, capitalists or communists). Our best local example is the Koch brothers and their court jester, the Current Occupant.
Solar power, on the other hand, is evenly distributed, which historically has been used by farms which at least have the possibility of being owned by a large number of smaller operators, and which currently can be used by small property owners.
There are 18 critical infrastructures in America
& 17 Depend on AC Electricity
New Video on “The Greatest Threat” EMP – Certain Meltdown of many Nukes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5skRF0qnn0
!Proof Positive Humans are not smarter than Yeast!
Here’s an interesting fact from the Economist’s recent article about the energy costs of air conditioning…”At current rates (of increase), Saudi Arabia will be using more energy to run air-conditioners in 2030 than it now exports in oil.” Maybe Jeffrey Brown was on to something!
Another interesting projection from the same article….. “At the moment, according to the IEA , it takes about 2,000 TWhs (terawatt hours) of electricity to run all the world’s cooling machines for a year. This produces about 4bn tones of CO2, 12% of the total. Without drastic improvements in air-conditioners’ efficiency, the IEA reckons, they will be burning up 6,000 TWhs by 2050”.
At 1.5 KWh per day per 300 Watt solar panel, it would take 3.7 billion panels just to run the world’s air conditioners today and three times as many thirty-one years from now. Add in the 6-7 billion panels needed to run 950 million cars in the world and those Chinese factories better get cranking on the PV production.
Actually, the world’s electrical consumption is 22,000 TWh per year (60 TWh per day) so just to cover that load would require 40 billion solar panels. At 1$ per watt of installed capacity and distribution, that’s only $12 trillion.
Joe
It is far worse than that.
Germany has 100GW of installed wind and solar capacity. Despite the fact that it’s peak consumption is around 70Gw it only produces a third of electricity consumption from wind and solar.
Every week there are times when wind and solar combined produce less than 10% of consumption.
Germany would have to triple wind and solar to 300Gw of installed capacity, then it would have to build enough batteries to store 80% of demand to meet low wind nights, of which there are over 150 occasions per year.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=35
Also Germany at the moment runs 99% of all it’s lorries, vans and cars on petrol and diesel.
As one peak oil professor said. It would take 40 years and an all out effort to be ahead of peak oil and climate change.
At 1$ per watt of installed capacity and distribution, that’s only $12 trillion.
First, those numbers are a big load of horse pucky, but even if they had any bearing on reality, to put your 12 trillion for solar panels into perspective:
As of September 2014, foreigners owned $6.06 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public of $12.8 trillion and 34% of the total debt of $17.8 trillion. As of 2018, the largest holders were China, Japan, Ireland, and Brazil.
In terms of the global economy 12 trillion is chump change.
To put that in perspective a paper in Nature back around 2013 had estimated the cost of climate change alone to the global economy to be on the order of 60 trillion.
I’m going to bet that with recent data that estimate has probably been revised upwards. You know, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking real money…
So the costs to society if we continue to burn fossil fuels makes the costs of solar panels and other forms of alternative energy pale in comparison.
Oh and BTW,
Also Germany at the moment runs 99% of all it’s lorries, vans and cars on petrol and diesel.
No shit, Sherlock, please tell us which countries in the world aren’t… Last I checked we were still living in the fossil fuel era.
However assuming we don’t crash our global civilization first, I’ll wager that neither Germany nor any other country will be able to continue to do so for much longer!
Solar and wind are failing.
Despite the massive increase in solar and wind installations globally the amount of fossil fuels used continues to increase.
Coal consumption went up, though still below the 2016 peak.
Gas consumption has increased considerably over the last few years.
in 2017 gas consumption increased by 131,000,000,000 cubic meters. To put that into perspective the average house uses around 250 cubic meters per year. The increase is equivalent to the consumption of 524 million homes.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf
Oil production and consumption increased again, China consumption of coal, oil and gas increased the most of the major economies.
So how much longer do you suppose fossil fuel use can continue to increase? Or do you think peak fossil fuels are are just some delusion? And what do you suppose happens if and when it happens?!
Peter. As of 2017 in the USA, new generating contracts spell a very different story than you are trying to tell. Is your info/perspective up to date?
The data shows that levelized cost of electricity for utility scale PV is about 2-3 times cheaper than current nuclear production. Wind a little better still.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/
And you don’t even want to start looking at tens of billions in losses and cost overruns at the nuclear plant fiascos currently under construction in SC/Georgia. Financial catastrophe.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle/how-two-cutting-edge-u-s-nuclear-projects-bankrupted-westinghouse-idUSKBN17Y0CQ
If over the last 20 years the world invested all the money from wind and solar into nuclear power, global coal consumption would be half what it is today.
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2018/01/BNEF-Clean-Energy-Investment-Investment-Trends-2017.pdf
$3,373 billion to produce 2% of global electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
The equivalent investment in nuclear power plants over the last 20 years would have built 755Gw of nuclear power, delivering power when we need it.
That is the equivalent of China closing down every single coal fired power station by 2022. and China burns half the world’s coal.
If over the last 20 years the world invested all the money from wind and solar into nuclear power, global coal consumption would be half what it is today.
Really? Do you get paid by both the nuclear and the fossil fuel industry lobbies to spread disinformation or do you honestly believe that?
I guess you must have missed our last discussion about the Vogtle nuclear power plant cost overruns on the last open thread.
Here’s Islandboy’s comment from that thread.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-august-20-2018/#comment-649738
You keep saying wind and solar have failed?! They are barely even out of the starting gate, fer crimminies sake. I think what has truly failed, is large scale nuclear!
I think what has truly failed, is large scale nuclear!
Bingo!
We have a winner—–
From previous postings he is a nuclear and no conservation shill.
NAOM
If one were to go by the comments by Joe Clarkson and Peter above, one would think that there is something wrong with the advance of renewable energy and EVs, that any advances up till now are having little effect if any and that it is unlikely that renewables and Evs will ever make a meaningful contribution to the global energy balance. I do not know if these two gentlemen in particular are aware but, their input in this forum is exactly the kind of information that the backers of FF such as Peabody Energy, Bob Murray of Murray Energy and the Koch brothers would like to see prominently presented in any discussion about energy and our future. Peter and Joe could not do a better job of peddling FF industry propaganda if they were being paid, which I will assume for now that they are not. It is beyond me why they feel it necessary to promote the interests of industries that, while they currently provide the lion’s share of global energy supply, face dwindling prospects going forward, mainly due to the current and projected cost declines of alternative technologies.
As a counterpoint to the comments by Joe Clarkson and Peter above here are a few articles that paint a slightly different picture:
California passes landmark 100% clean energy goal
California has made serious commitments to lower greenhouse gas emissions this year, whether it aims to electrify its transportation by coordinating vehicle charging infrastructure or moving electric generation away from natural gas.
Those efforts took a big step forward in the Assembly on Tuesday with the passage of the state’s first 100% clean energy target.
Energy storage gets a boost as California legislature extends SGIP
“We have all the [solar] power we need in the middle of the day,” Heavner said. S.B. 700 is an acknowledgement that the duck curve is starting to cause problems, he said, referring to the glut of solar power that falls off in the evening, causing a need for quick ramping generation, which is usually filled by gas-fired peakers.
Changes in California’s solar incentives should act in concert, encouraging the combination of solar power and energy storage. California is shifting to an updated net metering regime, “net metering 2.0,” which more widely employs time-of-use (TOU) rates for solar residential and commercial customers. Net metering credits have more value when combined with TOU rates, Heavner said.
“If we are going to get to 100% clean energy, we need to be using solar power every hour of the day, not just when the sun is shining,” Wiener said in a statement.
TVA to raise rates, will consider closing older coal plants
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Board of Directors approved a 1.5% rate hike on Wednesday, along with a $10.5 billion budget for the upcoming fiscal year, but most importantly announced they would review its generation fleet with an eye towards shutting down older coal plants.
According to S&P Global, the review will first focus on two older, low-efficiency coal plants: the 950 MW Bull Run unit and 1,150 MW Paradise Unit 3.
RMI: Declining cost of renewables could save Tri-State customers $600M
According to RMI’s case study, the estimated $600 million could be realized through avoiding the operating expenses and fixed costs of its fossil-fueled power plants, which are contributing to rate increases for electricity customers in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming.
In those states, says RMI, rates rose by more than five times the national average between 2007 and 2016.
“The rapid cost declines in renewable energy projects present utilities in the West with an unprecedented opportunity,” RMI principal and study coauthor Mark Dyson said in a statement.
Colorado approves Xcel plan to retire coal, shift to renewables and storage
Colorado’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) voted unanimously on Monday to give preliminary approval to Xcel Energy’s Clean Energy Plan, which would see the utility close 660 MW of coal-fired generation a decade earlier than scheduled and shift to renewable resources.
Under the plan, Xcel will close units 1 and 2 at the Comanche Generating Station in Pueblo and invest $2.5 billion in renewable energy and battery storage. The utility expects the plan to save ratepayers $213 million.
FirstEnergy to retire more than 4 GW of PJM coal plant capacity
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (FES) on Wednesday notified PJM Interconnection of its intention to shut down four fossil fuel plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2021 and 2022, including 4 GW of coal capacity.
The company, currently in bankruptcy, also requested an exemption from the grid operator’s must-offer rules for the four plants, as well as three other nuclear facilities it intends to close down. FES said it is seeking exemptions from capacity auctions covering the 2022-23 delivery year and beyond.
OG&E declines to renew coal PPA, potentially forcing Oklahoma plant to close
Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) will not extend a five-year power purchase agreement with a coal plant in the state, potentially causing the facility to close down as soon as this year, the utility confirmed to Utility Dive.
AES Shady Point has been operating since the early 1990s but OG&E officials informed the plant last year of a possible shutdown, before reaching an agreement to continue operations through the end of this year.
Distributed solar saved ISO-NE consumers $20M during July heatwave, report says
Renewable energy advocates have long touted the system-wide benefits of distributed solar, and Synapse’s research adds a new data point to the argument.
SunCommon officials said they knew solar contributes “in a big way” to the system during heatwaves, but “wanted to put numbers to it,” co-founder James Moore said in a statement.
The report says the amount of solar produced during the week-long July heatwave was the equivalent of removing 1.37 million homes from the grid.
US: Ohio business community backs 2.2 GW of Ohio solar
Five prominent firms with operations in Ohio are endorsing a report advocating 2.2 gigawatts (GW) of solar for Ohio by 2030, lending their corporate logos in support.
“The U.S. energy industry is undergoing a transition toward clean energy,” said JPMorgan Chase executive Matthew Arnold in the report’s foreword. He noted that his company “has seen firsthand an increase in investments in sustainability. Individual states have a unique opportunity to encourage, and benefit from, this evolution.” His firm is developing 20 MW of solar at its corporate center in Columbus, Ohio, he said.
Other “logo-level” backers are Owens Corning, Walmart, Eaton, Whirlpool, and Ohio-based GEM Energy. Advisory council members include these firms plus Procter & Gamble, EDP Renewables, and the Ohio Manufacturers Association.
Reaching 2.2 GW of solar in Ohio would involve $3.6 billion in investment, and “sustain 800 direct jobs and over 1,700 indirect and induced jobs each year,” said the report, and would boost the state GDP by $1 billion per year.
As of July 2018, Ohio had 176 MW of installed solar, and four solar projects under development totaling 550 MW.
Germany reaches 270 MW of PV installations in July
Despite this, Germany is still on track to reach its target of adding 2,500 MW this year, the data suggests. In the first seven months, a cumulative capacity of 1,600 MW have been registered. Thus, the total PV capacity that has been installed since Germany’s introduction of a FIT-scheme (EEG) rose to 44,593 MW by the end of July.
The level of solar subsidies for rooftop systems, as well as the cap on proceeds from direct retail sales will be lowered by another percent for September. Thus, the fixed feed-in tariff for between 40 kW and 100 kW will be 10.39 euro cents per kWh.
Global EV sales hit 4 million, soaring market sees next million in May 2019
According to a new report published by BloombergNEF, cumulative global EV sales will reach four million this week. If e-bus sales are counted, however, the milestone was already surpassed at the beginning of July.
Providing context to the achievement, BloombergNEF analysts calculated that while it took over 60 months to reach the first million EV sales, it took the fourth million just six months. Taking this line of growth, the analysts expect EV sales to reach five million by May 2019.
Not only has the pace at which EV cars are rolled out changed, but the global distribution has also shifted. For the first million sales, reached in the fourth quarter of 2015, North America was the most significant contributor, comprising 39%. This was followed by Europe, with 33%, while China registered just 15%.
However, China now comprises 37% of all passenger EV sales in the world since 2011, and around 99% of e-buses. This trend is likely to continue, with the analysts expecting 42% of the next million EVs until the five million milestone, to be sold in China, while Europe is projected to account for around 26%, and North America, 25%.
Peter and Joe could not do a better job of peddling FF industry propaganda if they were being paid, which I will assume for now that they are not. It is beyond me why they feel it necessary to promote the interests of industries that, while they currently provide the lion’s share of global energy supply, face dwindling prospects going forward, mainly due to the current and projected cost declines of alternative technologies.
Perhaps they just don’t grasp the true urgency of our current predicament!
I doubt this will change their minds but hey, you never know…
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left/
Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?
Posted on August 24, 2018 | 52 Comments
It’s already bad. But when will things get so bad that it is obviously — obviously — the worst problem in the world? How long until we go over the cliff? That depends on how much we’ve heated up already, and how fast we’re getting hotter.
BTW, even if you happen to buy the Koch brothers’ spiel hook line and sinker, the Koch brothers are going right over the cliff with rest of us…
Cheers!
Islandboy
I have no interest nor investment in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar or any other form of energy generation.
I simply look at all the data in a dispassionate way.
I look at France with all it’s nuclear power stations and see a country with the lowest CO2 emissions of any country that has modest hydro power. Germany also has modest hydro power, it has invested hundreds of billions in wind and solar, yet burns vast amounts of coal and gas.
If Germany had spent that money on nuclear power plants, it would be in the process of shutting down all it’s coal and gas power stations.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/
It is unfortunate that no matter how many facts you present certain people they will simply not take in what is staring them in the face.
Like these poor individuals going to Lourdes, never seeing a miracle but going back year after year.
The limitations of solar and wind are obvious and it is also obvious that nuclear power such as in France can eliminate the toxic burning of coal globally.
100 Gw of installed wind and solar power in Germany has caused grid instability, crazy price fluctuations where prices are often negative. Quote from article below. “over the last few years Germany’s Co2 emissions have barely changed.”
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets
Uranium like any element has resources dependent on price. Uranium is a tiny fraction of the costs of nuclear power. It is only $26 a pound. At $300 the world would have enough for centuries.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
It is a pity practically all research in Thorium was cancelled 50 years ago by governments who went for cheap coal and gas.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/
Its a religious thing.
I look at France with all it’s nuclear power stations and see a country with the lowest CO2 emissions of any country that has modest hydro power.
Yet not everything is quite as rosy as you seem to suggest!
https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants
France could close ‘up to 17’ nuclear reactors by 2025
http://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/low-carbon-energy/nuclear/2018/frances-nuclear-plans-under-pressure
France’s nuclear plans under pressure
Flaws found at a flagship reactor could curb EDF’s technology export ambitions
Piping weld issues reported at Électricité de France’s Flamanville nuclear reactor project last week threaten to delay similar reactor builds across Finland and the UK, eroding confidence in the technology’s future role in western Europe’s energy mix.
It seems that nothing in the nuclear energy business ever goes according to plan or comes in under budget and that is on the development side. When it comes to decomissioning older plants the costs tend to be even greater!
In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost €480 million (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years.
So how does any of that make economic sense when compared to renewables?! When France built out its fleet of nuclear power plants renewables were simply not an option either in terms of the technology or the economics. That is no longer true today! The pendulum has swung to the other side.
And, least we forget, the daily demand for crude oil – including biofuels – worldwide in 2010, was 86.4 million barrels per day. In 2018, it is expected to increase to roughly 99 million barrels per day. Also, in 2018 we’ll add about 83 million people to planet Earth. Isn’t it great, growth everywhere we look? Hell, even wildfires are on the march.
Did you notice refinery runs barely go up?
.
Well, the Bible, which ranks as the world’s most-read book, has sold 3.9 billion copies. However, many more copies have been given away for free, meaning the actual number of Bibles in circulation is unknown. In any case, it seems a major editorial effort is now needed to exchange MULTIPLY with SUBTRACT. Presumably God is up to the task?
So, we won’t run out of toilet paper?
I worked most of my adult life in renewable energy and have great fondness for it.
I developed a 2 MW hydro plant in the early ’80s that is still going strong, did solar projects for low income housing in the late ’80s, worked on a functional OTEC plant in the early ’90s, and did hybrid village power and solar home lighting projects in Fiji in the late 90s and early 2000s. I have lived off-grid all but 6 years since 1975. I have no love for fossil fuels or nuclear power and would be delighted if the world were running on wind, solar and hydro.
That said, converting the world’s energy system to renewables is now a task so great that it can’t be done in time to save the climate. We would need to build the new energy system with the energy resources of the old fossil fueled energy system, which would inject far too much carbon into the atmosphere for climate safety. Just think of all the embodied energy in replacing 100 million vehicles with electric versions, and that’s just the beginning.
Some would say that even so, it is a risk worth taking and far better than just continuing to rely on fossil fuels to power industrial civilization. I would agree if there were any evidence that a serious attempt at energy system conversion were happening, but there isn’t. Investment in wind and solar has leveled off and just the incremental growth in fossil fuels is greater than the total of wind and solar. It’s just too damn late.
What needs to happen is for industrial civilization to go away, pronto. There are numerous things that could happen to make the global industrial market economy collapse, some more disruptive than others, but since a big human die-off is now inevitable, it needs to start happening as soon as possible.
If we had started seriously converting to renewables about 40 or 50 years ago and started decreasing world population at about the same time so as to level off at a few hundred million, humanity might have had a chance to live on the earth without destroying its ecosystems. We didn’t do what was needed then and we aren’t capable of doing what is needed now, when the task is more enormous than ever.
The only thing that will save the world as a livable place for future generations is for billions of the current generation to die very soon. That’s not a pretty prospect, but it’s now the best we’ve got. Those of us who are optimists are preparing accordingly.
Hi Joe —
“That said, converting the world’s energy system to renewables is now a task so great that it can’t be done in time to save the climate.”
Sadly, I agree. How much can be accomplished over the next 15 years, the time scale we’re talking about, when every day the Earth’s population increases — as does our ff use?
Meanwhile, wildfire frequency grows offsetting many renewable energy benefits, one of several positive climate feedbacks kicking in, not to mention the immediate negative health effects of being bathed in smoke for a greater part of the summer(s).
I too agree, by and large, Joe.
What did you mean by this-
“Those of us who are optimists are preparing accordingly.”
As you can tell from my comment, I am hoping for some form of doom for modern civilization. I hope it won’t involve a nuclear winter but, whatever it is caused by, I am optimistic that the odds of survival can be raised at least some percentage points by adequate preparation.
Some forms of doom will do their work very quickly. Pandemic, war and financial collapse would cause mass starvation to begin within weeks (at least in rich countries). Peak oil and climate change would act more slowly, but just as definitively.
Doomer-preppers are by nature optimistic, otherwise they wouldn’t bother to prepare. I’m you’re typical small farm kind of prepper, trying to get ready to live without money in an out-of-harm’s-way location. Being able to live without money for many years is the gold standard in individual family preparation. Getting one’s community on the same wavelength is the next step, but it’s even harder than family preparation, which is difficult enough to be daunting.
I rarely comment on this site but I read all the posts to keep track of the latest on the energy depletion aspect of doom. I switched to Peak Oil Barrel when The Oil Drum shut down. By the way, I don’t see any comments by oldfarmermac. Is he taking a break or permanently gone?
Joe Clarkson,
Old Farmer Mac is still posting here but he says he no longer has the time available to make long posts.
As you can tell from my comment, I am hoping for some form of doom for modern civilization. I hope it won’t involve a nuclear winter but, whatever it is caused by, I am optimistic that the odds of survival can be raised at least some percentage points by adequate preparation.
Interesting perspective to say the least. I can understand you hoping for a quick demise to our current civilization. I have thought long and hard about that, probably being the only hope, for saving at least some remnants of a viable biosphere here and there. Though things may already be too far gone.
Plus none of us can know for sure until we are well into the throes of collapse and we are trying to eek out a living.
Whatever preparation any of us engages in might be too little too late or by luck of the draw we may find ourselves in the wrong geographic location at the wrong time surrounded by the wrong group of people. Or we might get lucky and be able to to do quite well for a while yet.
By the way, I don’t see any comments by oldfarmermac. Is he taking a break or permanently gone?
He’s still around mostly lurking these days though he does occasionally chime in.
For what it’s worth, I think this quote sums up our current dilemma quite succintly!
The environment will be fine, we can leave a little bit, but you can’t destroy businesses
Donald Trump
My sincerest hope is that he and his followers may find themselves holed up on one of his golf courses, just out of reach of any of those remaining little bits of functioning environment, while they slowly and inexorably run out of supplies…
Thanks for the reply Joe.
I too think the risks of big fast painful events is very high, unprecedented.
But I see the problems one could face as unpredictable.
It could be chaos- from food riots to ethnic cleansing to local warlords.
Or famine, energy shortage, or cargo shipment interruption., or profound depression, for example.
This makes having a plan a crap shoot. In some scenarios the best thing would be to have a self-sufficient farm in survival mode. In another, the best thing is would be mobility, getting to a whole other zone or country.
In yet another it would be best to have a resilient tight knit community around you.
Maybe you’d be better off with a gun than PV, or visa versa.
Or maybe just a guitar and good dog.
You’re right about there being very little certainty in the planning process, but one has to have some sort of plan for when BAU fails. I think that being able to provide oneself with food, water, shelter and energy for help with all those things is a good start.
Some young men and women may decide to just rely on banditry and just take what they need from others. That’s a plan, but it would be a dangerous and precarious existence. Whether it would be more precarious than being a subsistence farmer I don’t know. I’m the kind of person who would prefer to be a producer rather than being a bandit. Also, farmers can have guns too.
What I do know is that the only people who will survive will be those who are in proximity to where food is available, either their own or someone else’s. That rules out being in a city, which depends on the smooth functioning of global supply chains to get the resources needed for its inhabitants. People who wait until the supermarket shelves are bare to start their planning process are going to be too late.
Prepare? Prepare for what?
My friends it’s getting, late, fall is approaching. You think the cold will be your due, but the earth has other plans for you and you and all of you.
I’ll tell you where we are heading and it’s not called collapse, for that already happened. It’s called the Hell Bound Train. All of us, men, women, black, white, red, brown, all chained to the seats headed through the darkness, the lamps are lit with brimstone giving off a sulfurous smell and the locomotive runs on bones!!!
It’s a one way ticket we earned in the name of progress driven by greed and with many plans, honed.
And out of the distance there arose a yell,
‘Ha, ha,’ said the devil, ‘we’re nearing hell!’
Then oh, how the passengers all shrieked with pain
And begged the devil to stop the train.
But he capered about and danced for glee,
And laughed and joked at their misery.
‘My faithful friends, you have done the work
And the devil never can a payday shirk.
‘You’ve bullied the weak, you’ve robbed the poor,
The starving brother you’ve turned from the door;
You’ve laid up gold where the canker rust,
And have given free vent to your beastly lust.
‘You’ve justice scorned, and corruption sown,
And trampled the laws of nature down.
You have drunk, rioted, cheated, plundered, and lied,
And mocked at God in your hell-born pride.
‘You have paid full fair, so I’ll carry you through,
For it’s only right you should have your due.
Yes, that is where we are headed, sent there by the wounded, punctured earth.
That was the plan all along and you swallowed it whole. No escaping the Hell Bound Train so enjoy your hot time up above and down below.
Yeah, the car of mankind is heading straight for a rock face and we have had our foot on the accelerator instead of the brake. The closer we get, the harder we need to brake. Once we get within our stopping distance it is only a case of managing the degree of the wreck.
NAOM
Joe, I must first apologise for mentioning you in the same breath as Peter. You are obviously not cut from the same cloth and I was a little bit puzzled by the tone of your comment, seeing as how I don’t usually find your comments to be critical of renewables. I guess I interpreted your comment to mean there is no hope (the glass is all but empty) instead of indicating that there is an immense challenge ahead and we need to get on with it in earnest (glass is not empty yet). IMHO the Koch brothers et al, are trying desperately to get the message out that
1) There is no need to be concerned about climate change since the science is not proven (this is according to a small fraction of scientist, most of whom are probably on their payroll) so there is no need to believe that human activity has anything to do with it and hence, no need to make any changes to the old energy system (to which they owe their wealth).
2) Renewables are costly and will never scale to the task, making pursuit of renewable energy goals a waste of taxpayer dollars in addition to being an exercise in futility.
I have said before in this forum and I will repeat it. I believe humanity is in a race against time. We have a warming planet with finite fossil fuel resources, the most useful of which, oil, may begin to decline at any time. We also have growing renewable energy and electric vehicle industries which have the promise of weaning us from the FF habit. The new technologies are approaching the hockey stick portion of their growth curves but, are not quite there yet. However the trends are clear and RE and EV could start to take a major bite out of the FF industries any time within the next decade or so.
I wouldn’t call 10% contribution to electricity generation from Wind & Solar, up from less than 1% in 2007 insignificant. The growth of solar is even more remarkable, growing from a contribution of 0.01% (on hundredth of one percent) to 1.92% in 2017 and 2.39% in 2018 YTD. That will represent a contribution that is more than 200 times larger in just over ten years! If we are lucky, the contribution from solar could grow by a factor of 30 over the next ten years and the impact of RE and EVs will make the decline after Peak Oil far less disruptive and violent than it would otherwise be and that is my hope. If we are not lucky, you know the story, as it appears you are preparing for the worst.
To be fair, I made the same mistake
Please accept my apologies as well.
Oops… But there’s a free sample for Joe.
What does “saving the climate” mean? Avoiding a slight temperature and sea level increase?
I wonder, with falling solar prices, California will start installing solar with a westward bias instead of southern to extend the feed time. Could also be a good export for more easterly states.
NAOM
Drinking Mercury
All from two industry links? If so, that’s hardly balanced.
But you’re an entertainer. Aren’t we all…
At any rate, we would seem to need to understand technology at a far deeper level than we do, and before we peddle and implement it, lest we smash into the results, as we constantly do.
Eva Adore
First of all utility dive is a site that deals in news related to electric utilities and has no mission to put any technology above any other. They just report the news. I would like to point out to readers of this blog that it appears the person who posted the comment above has never visited the site. One should visit a web site before casting aspersions of bias. Secondly, PV Magazine is a pubication devoted to news about …. you guessed it! Solar PV. It should be obvious to even the most dense individuals that they might favour renewables over FF. I like to cite sites that do not hide behind a veil of secrecy when it comes to any bias. Contrast that to folks who have come to this forum citing the likes of The Heartland Institute and The Institute for Energy Research. These two organisations have innocuous sounding names that hide their close ties to fossil fuel industry backers, namely the Koch brothers.
I will repeat that I find it odd that the person who posted the comment above finds that time to dig up stuff critical of renewables but, if they have ever posted anything critical of the entrenched energy industries, on which the current global, capitalist, plutocracy they claim to so despise is dependent on, it was such a rare occurrence that I can’t even recall it. I wonder why?
Islandboy, don’t let CM get under your skin, just don’t respond to him! That deprives him of what he wants!
Remember, one shouldn’t wrestle with a pig, you can’t do it without getting dirty and the pig likes it…” 😉
Cheers!
I would ignore him except that that would deprive me of opportunities to expose to new readers, lets call it, the inconsistency between his stated arguments and the targets he choses to criticize. There.s a word for it but, I can;t recall it right now. 😉
My preference is aiming responses to the 3rd party, those others who may read that comment.
NAOM
Thanks for that suggestion. Glad I saw it while I was still able to edit my comment. Fixed!
Helps with avoiding claims of ad hominem attack too.
NAOM
Of course it’s a conspiracy, Alan.
Seriously, I already have in the form of a linked title to one of my comments. Here it is again.
Apparently, some, if not much, of your ‘entrenched energy industries’ and your so-called renewables are the same gang.
At the same time, we don’t have to really be as critical with the entrenched energy industries precisely because they are entrenched and so their issues more understood and discussed.
The ignore button doesn’t really work in a sense, and the irony of my being ‘unignored-ignored’ by Fred appears lost on him and who knows who else. It’s pretty ridiculous and that’s in part how this site has devolved and has only a smattering of people on it that it used to have.
So what’s the point? I’ve written enough hereon over the years, it’s all searchable and I don’t care to repeat it.
I really doubt you and some others really want to discuss the truly difficult, complex and inconvenient issues surrounding some of the topical forms of technology, especially if you have invested in them, even if psychologically. So does it really matter what I or anyone else says.
Much technology will be railroaded through with reckless abandon, come hell or high water. Like with nuclear energy technology– up and running and the waste and other issues will be ignored or worried about later.
This is a neat, up to date, story describing the phenomenon of quantum entanglement which I recommend to anyone interested. If you want the gritty details, you’ll have to check out the Aug. 20 issue of Physical Review Letters, a formal account, which shows how their findings are consistent with quantum theory and push back to at least 7.8 billion years ago, the most recent time by which any causal influences from alternative, non-quantum mechanisms could have exploited the so-called freedom-of-choice loophole. BTW — PHYSICS IS NOT DEAD.
PHYSICISTS RACE TO DEMYSTIFY EINSTEIN’S ‘SPOOKY’ SCIENCE
“We pushed to the limit what could be done within the time constraints,” said Friedman. “The experiment would not have been possible without an amazing international collaboration. It was a roller coaster experience to see it actually work.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists-demystify-einstein-spooky-science.html#jCp
The installed wind and solar capacity in Germany is huge.
It has installed more wind and solar than it’s highest consumption. The wind and solar propagandists told us 10 years ago that when so much wind and solar would be installed Germany would be able to close all it’s nuclear and coal plants.
At 100Gw of installed power most people would imagine that this would achieve that aim, what has it achieved?
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Of the 358Twh of electricity produced this year 65Twh has come from wind and 33Twh has come from solar. 89Twh from brown coal and 50Twh from hard coal, and 25Twh from gas. By the end of the year brown coal, hard coal and gas will have produced just as much as in 2015. Stupidly German politicians want to close the only real low emission technology that can deliver power when needed.
Nuclear power being only 9.5Gw of installed capacity produced more electricity than solar at 44Gw of installed capacity.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
Having believed the propaganda of those in the renewable industry many people feel deceived and let down.
It is obvious to many now that wind and solar by their poor and irratic nature will keep us slaves to fossil fuel for many decades.
I have no interest nor investment in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar or any other form of energy generation.
Peter
For someone who has so little interest in all of this, you seem to spend a awful lot of time posting about it… And you sure come across as having a pro fossil fuel and nuclear bias at the same time as being rather negative about renewables! Though I’m sure it’s probably just my imagination, eh?!
Somehow I just can’t seem to remember the last time you voluntarily posted about topics such as the economic implications of bio diversity loss, how increased CO2 affects photosynthesis and the physiology of plants, ocean acidification, coral reef dieoff, etc… And I’ve heard not one peep out of you about the enormous cost overruns of decommissioning all those aging nuclear power plants at the end of their useful life cycles.
But regardless, for some strange reason the German public seems to strongly continue to support their Energiewende plans even though they acknowledge that the program isn’t perfect by any means.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende
“In all social groups, people have positive associations with the Energiewende, which they see as an established goal,” says Daniela Setton, researcher at the IASS. According to the IASS Barometer, “even 77 percent of climate sceptics support” the decarbonisation project. Another “surprising finding” was that support for coal phase-out now enjoyed similar support as a nuclear phase-out, with approval by 63 percent of the population. “There is even a majority in support in the lignite-mining states”, the IASS says. On the other hand, “nearly half of all Germans say the Energiewende is somewhat unfair” and costs were unevenly shared. “This is a clear signal. Energy policies should focus more on social acceptance and support for low-income households,” says Ortwin Renn, Scientific Director at the IASS.
BTW, since I have strong personal and family ties in Germany, when I read your comments about what is happening there, I tend to take them with a rather large dose of salt…
Looks to me like renewable energy output in Germany is nearly equal to coal and lignite energy production.
gonefishing
Do you know where they get the biomass from that they burn?
gonefishing
I will give you a clue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678
gonefishing
I will give you a clue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678
No account is made of the smoke and co2 when burnt, no account is made of the land degradation. No account is made of the diesel transporting millions of tonnes of wood half way round the world.
renewable my arse
Fred
I have posted many times about when I believe peak oil will happen, but you are so full of yourself that you cannot remember what other people say.
One only has to look at your verbose posts to know that the only view you care about is your own and those who agree with you.
Peter,
Germany has no good energy choices.
They import over 60% of their net energy use, despite trying to be efficient. They’ve got coal, but no one in the world likes to lives with coal in their lungs and in their eyes , and on their food if they can avoid it.
Yes, they could take the risk and go in huge with nuclear. That is very expensive, and they have reason to be worried considering the history of ‘little’ problems like Fukushima and Chernobyl. And terrorism.
It is not a sunny country. They are being fed with gas via pipelines that traverse many borders, at the geopolitical whim of others.
I am glad they did some pioneering work with solar. It has helped all countries who hope to diversify their production.
btw- when it comes to nuclear energy I have mixed feelings, as should anyone who looks at it with open eyes. I acknowledge that it is theoretically possible to pull it off with low risk. However, I just have zero faith it the ability of human beings to pull it off flawlessly. We could easily list a dozen ways in which it could be catastrophic.
On the other hand, I do sure like the baseload low CO2 power it provides. In Calif, like in the rest of the country we do get around 10% electricity from nuclear. But the cost of new nuclear is extremely high.
There could be whole thread discussing the ups and downs of nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is very dangerous, expensive and is not scalable on a global level.
Hickory
Nuclear power stations are checked independently in the UK and France.
Nuclear is expensive but like in France can power and country with very little Co2 emissions.
People complain about the cost of water and electricity, yet they pay £2 for a coffee which costs as much as my daily electricity consumption. I would be happy to pay double for both to ensure clean water and clean electricity.
I also think destroying trees to burn in power stations is a crime.
https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-forests-cut-down-feed-drax-power-plant-channel-4-dispatches-claims
“I would be happy to pay double for both to ensure clean water and clean electricity.”
Well Peter, in that regard you are just like the voters of Calif (among other locales) who have voted to move strongly towards clean electricity, even if the costs are higher in the short run. And overall the transition is working smoothly and effectively.
And I agree with you about the burning of trees for power. I’d add that the vast majority of biofuel production should fall into that environmental crime category, save perhaps on-farm production for on-farm use.
Another German energy graph.
Renewables cover about 100% of German power use for the first time and before sunrise!
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-about-100-german-power-use-first-time-ever
Fossil fuel power cut back to the bone as prices go negative.
That entire article encapsulates a big part of industrial civilization’s dilemma. Even with all the progress achieved by incorporating renewable technology it still won’t be enough to meet the CO2 emissions targets set by the German government for 2020.
And those goals still need to continue to be a top priority for any new ruling coalition in a post Merkel era. At least in Germany’s case, unlike in the US, all factions accept the reality and urgency of the consequences of climate change.
Yes, a lot of progress has been made as much burning of fossil fuels was prevented. Also, the government, business and people in general are quite aware of the facts and not denying them. That is leagues ahead of the US and has the potential for much continued progress. They at least have the correct goals and direction and the sense to know when it is not being met.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/germans-worried-climate-change-analysis-shows
Poland and Russia still not convinced.
Setbacks and holdups but not giving up:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/08/germany-set-abandon-2020-climate-target-reports/
Nothing goes smoothly, the battle with coal and oil is on.
Gone
https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/16/hardwood-forests-cut-down-feed-drax-power-plant-channel-4-dispatches-claims
https://www.dw.com/en/burning-wood-under-fire-are-forests-going-up-our-chimneys/a-41586050
Some people are fooled all the time
I don’t get why people are attacking Peter. He presented his opinion and a source showing Germany’s electricity production. Just because you advocate renewables, doesn’t mean his source is incorrect.
Regardless if you agree or not, he has the right to an opinion. You can obviously express why you disagree, but if you disagree with the source you should take it up with them.
It seems like a case of shooting the messenger.
He repetitively presents misleading, unrealistic information. He has been given better information and has not incorporated that new information into his presentations.
He appears to be an inflexible opponent of wind and solar.
“Nick,
Pot, kettle, black.
Whenever you are challanged to show some numbers on how we can get to your utopian world, you link references to peoples beliefs in the main, with some made up numbers thrown in (theirs), that happen to coincide with your belief.
You NEVER come up with the indepth numbers of how much energy will it really cost to get to the utopian future, simply because it shows that it is way beyond the budget of possible to get 7 billion of us there.” ~ Hide_away
Regardless if you agree or not, he has the right to an opinion. You can obviously express why you disagree, but if you disagree with the source you should take it up with them.
Yep, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, even me. And 9 times out of ten I do try to provide some sources to back mine up! As I did in the post above. If you and Peter either don’t like or don’t agree with the information it presents, you are both free, as you suggest, to take it up with the provider of said information!
What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander!
Cheers!
The pronlem with his post lies with the following statement:
The wind and solar propagandists told us 10 years ago that when so much wind and solar would be installed Germany would be able to close all it’s nuclear and coal plants.
As I have stated in my post below, this is a very questionable assertion and he did not cite the source for that allegation. I challenge him to do so.
The post I am replying to betrays a notable ignorance of how solar enegry’s contribution to grids is assessed. It also shows a lack of appreciation for the workings of electricity grids are planned. There is a rule of thumb in the business of electricity grids that, no single generator should be more than 10% of the peak demand. The reason for this is that when a generator fails or has to be taken off line for maintenance, there must be sufficient reserve capacity to cover the off line generator. An acknowledgement of the fallibility of man made machines means that all power grids have significantly more generating capacity than is needed just to cover peak demand. Since wind and solar energy have well known limitations why would the need for capacity in excess of peak demand be any different?
As far as it relates to solar, the capacity needed by a given jurisdiction to cover any portion of it’s electricity needs is defined by the solar resource available. I have done some calculations for my own tropical island nation and it would need to have just over 3 times the amount of solar energy capacity as the peak demand would suggest, about 2000 MW to cover the totality of current electicity needs.
The solar resource in Germany is about half that of where I am and using a figure I found for 2016, 594.6 billion kWh for the year, my rough calculations indicate that Germany would need over 540 GW of solar PV to cover all their electricity needs. Do you think the German technocrats do not know this? That figure is more than 12 times more than the current installed capacity in Germany and if I can figure this out, anyone saying that current levels of installed renewable energy in Germany would be sufficient for them to be “able to close all it’s nuclear and coal plants”, would have to be incredibly incompetent or incredibly dishonest. It would be interesting to see the source of that misinformation. Can you point us to it?
island
This is the type of crap I was referring to.
“The UK can power itself 6 times over”
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/what-we-do/climate/energy/about/wind-power/
If you believe that CO2 is altering the climate then you should also support a technology that is capable of eliminating that production.
France was producing 90% of it’s electricity from zero carbon emissions fuel.
Germany needs to retain 95% of it’s coal and gas generation. This is because wind and solar are not reliable.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=30
At 8pm on the 23rd July solar produced 0.03Gw, wind produced 1.52Gw. 100Gw of installed capacity producing 1.55Gw. The rest is produced by burning coal, gas or nuclear.
So your calculation of 540Gw is total rubbish, 540Gw of wind and solar would during that night produce 9Gw. Think about that!!!
The idea that we could built battery storage to power entire cities is so childish only the most self deceived believe that could be done.
Greenpeace morons vilified nuclear for so long. Now they support it. Go figure.
For some context, what Greenpeace actually say on their website is:
The first wind farm in the UK was built at Delabole in Cornwall in 1991. By 2007, wind energy overtook hydropower to become the largest renewable generation source in the UK.
The UK is currently going through a large scale expansion of offshore wind up to 2020 – enough to supply a quarter of the UK’s total electricity needs.
According to the Offshore Valuation group, if developed still further to tap their full practical potential, offshore renewables would allow the UK to power itself six times over at current levels of demand and become an energy exporting nation again by 2050.
I went over and had a look at the power balance for the UK on the dashboard over at http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ and as of the time of this post, the UK was getting 14% of it’s power from wind and 22.5% from solar. Granted, this is at 2:30 in the afternoon on a Sunday but notwithstanding that, 36% of power coming from wind and solar is nothing to sneeze at! Before you get your knickers in a knot and start panicking about what is going to happen in the middle of the night, in winter, if there is no wind, nobody is suggesting that the existing electricity infrastructure be shut down overnight or even over the next decade or so.
I’m pretty sure that the hope is that as the proportion of renewable energy increases, coal, gas and nuclear will be needed less and less. Maybe at some point in the future, renewable energy will generate 90% or more of the electricity needed. We have a few decades to figure out how to organise the other 10%.
As for the last part of your post, go back and read my post to which you were responding again. Apparently I did not make it clear enough that huge excess capacity in wind and solar would be required to even approach 100% renewables, to the tune of in excess of 12 times more than the currently installed solar capacity. In terms of wind, the excess capacity required would be in the order of 4 times the currently installed capacity. The point is that, looking at the Monthly electricity generation in Germany if Germany had 12 times more solar and 4 times more wind, there are many times they would be producing excess electricity from wind and solar alone.
Germany has a couple of decades to figure how to balance all of this if they maintain their commitment to the build out of solar and wind.
Islandboy
The world does not have a couple of decades of burning fossil fuel at the rate Germany does.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-energy-use-and-emissions-likely-rise-yet-again-2017
Germany CO2 emission went up, up how can you support what is obviously failing?
Anyway thankfully many countries are now building nuclear power plants. 50 under construction
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
At the rate they’re going they might not be needed by the time they’re complete.
Exhibit A: Vogtle, US
Exhiblt B: V.C. Summer, US
Exhibit C: Hinkley Point C, UK
Exhibit D: Olkiluoto 3, Finland
Exhibit E: Flamanville, France
I sincerely hope the other 45 are having a better go of it!
Plus UK is doing considerable work on tidal and ocean current generation.
NAOM
Speaking of electric power, range boosted and total solar powered EV’s are coming along. All those needless worries about cars that need power from external sources may just evaporate away as they become self-powered and even provide power to residences when they are not running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ilp_aysEzU
I had to take a long trip yesterday (for medical reasons), about 35 miles each way. Using my smartphone it told me I had a 38 mile per hour average speed, even though a lot of it was on highways that had up to 55 mph speed limits. Traffic lights and slower traffic on two lane roads.
EV’s have a huge advantage, doubling the range going between 65 mph to 35 mph. Stop and go traffic can really boost range due to regen. Having solar panels on top could easily provide all the power needs at slower speeds and eventually even at higher speeds as improvements are made. They need much less battery weight and batteries will probably at least double in energy density.
ICE’s lose a lot of range at slower speeds where they are much less efficient, except for pickup trucks which seem to peak out around 25 to 30 mph or so . I guess air drag on pickups and the different torque are major factors. Hint: pickups do best driving slow and local, not good for commuting. Also more useful for carrying stuff than small cars.
This one isn’t solar powered, it sure looks good too, and ready to roll.
https://www.arcimoto.com/
Yeah, The Dutch STELLA is really cool but I especially like that little ELF! I have long been of the opinion that vehicles like it are where the EV rubber will really hit the road in most of the world. Sure, TESLA’s are nice and all but that’s only ever been for a niche market of a small number of wealthy individuals. The masses in the developing world will be using electric buses and electric bicycles to get around. That’s the real future for EV transportation.
BTW, I had looked at the ELF a few years ago, maybe it’s time to take another more serious look, so thanks for putting it back on my radar. No license required, operator protected from the elements, 20 mph top speed on pedal power alone and up to 35 mph with battery assist and a capacity for 550 lbs! What’s not to like?!
Meanwhile it seems that Trump’s idiotic tariffs are just sending more US car manufacturing jobs to China, as both TESLA and BMW (yes, they actually build cars in the US) are now planning on building large manufacturing plants in China… go figure!
Side note: I just talked to a friend of mine who drives an old Chevy Volt and he accompanied his boss, a well known race car driver and racing team owner, to pick up a brand new dual motor Tesla model 3, yesterday. He got to drive the car and he said it totally blew him away! He’s used to driving Ferraris and he said this was the fastest car he’s ever driven. This Model 3 also has the new and improved battery pack. I’m still trying to get all the technical specs on that.
While I’ll never own a top of the line Model 3, I may still be able to get my feet on an ELF! 😉
Cheers!
E-bikes are illegal in my state.
Thats grounds for relocation!
More like grounds for overthrowing the State government!
Sorry Fred, I know some guys that are up for anything but nowhere near enough. I will let nature take it’s course. 🙂
By what logic?! Are ICE mopeds legal?
Haven’t seen a moped for over a decade. One problem is in the specific language of the law which states specs for ICE powered bicycle, there is no provision for other power types. Another problem is that motorized trikes of any sort have to be registered as motorcycles, which of course the ELF would not qualify for title or registration.
There have been many instances of people being harassed and ticketed on E-bikes. Numerous attempts were made to change the laws but none succeeded.
Wow! what a bummer!
With the advent of a new crop of relatively inexpensive E-motorcycles I think the pressure will be strong to revisit those laws in the near future.
But in any case the ELF is really a pedal powered trike with an electric assist and it is intended to fit into the niche of vehicles for which in most places you won’t need a license or registration. At least where I live, I see bikes with electric hub motors all the time and I have yet to see one with a license plate.
But hey, not that long ago there was an plan afoot to force kayakers to register their kayaks as regular boats, fortunately that idea got shot down pretty quickly.
Yeah, that is one thing that the state did right, no registration of canoes and kayaks. Other states have the law.
Sorry, I forget, which state is that?
NAOM
And, I’d guess you know what comes after the seismic surveys?
TRUMP OFFICIALS MAY ALLOW ‘SHAKER MACHINES’ TO SEARCH ARCTIC REFUGE FOR OIL
“The Trump administration has announced it is considering a proposal to conduct seismic testing for oil and gas in the Arctic national wildlife refuge, the largest such preserve in the US. If the plan moves forward, vehicles with “shakers” – diesel-powered equipment that sends tremors through the landscape – will be deployed along Alaska’s northern coastal plain in an effort to map underground hydrocarbon deposits. Biologists and environmentalists argue that the testing will cause irreparable harm to the pristine wilderness.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/24/alaska-national-wildlife-refuge-seismic-testing-trump-plan
Just when you think the oil and gas companies will sink into the melting permafrost, a company helps them to refreeze the ground under their installations.
Oil Companies in Alaska Refreeze Melting Permafrost to Keep Drilling
https://www.ecowatch.com/alaska-permafrost-melting-oil-drilling-2577458683.html
Yes, the oil companies will need help (to exploit reserves) and it seems the Alaska government is prepared to lend lend a hand — as it always has. Just refreeze the ground as necessary. From your link: A new industry is taking off in Alaska, as innovators help oil companies compensate for the irony that climate change is making oil exploration harder on the increasingly less frozen permafrost. Ed Yarmak, for example, heads a company called Arctic Foundations that makes metal tubes filled with a refrigerant called thermosyphons. These are then partly buried in permafrost, where they pull heat from the ground. “To be honest, climate change is pretty good business for our company,” Yarmak told NPR. “We’re in the business of making things colder.” Ain’t that amazing?
Ed Yarmak, for example, heads a company called Arctic Foundations that makes metal tubes filled with a refrigerant called thermosyphons. These are then partly buried in permafrost, where they pull heat from the ground. “To be honest, climate change is pretty good business for our company,” Yarmak told NPR. “We’re in the business of making things colder.” Ain’t that amazing?
How the hell does the Onion manage to stay in business?!
Thermosyphons are an old device. They are used to extract heat during winter to make sure the terrain stays frozen hard. Im not going to get into arctic construction technology here, but it should be evident that putting something heavy on top of soil which goes soft and mushy in summer time can be difficult.
Arctic drilling pads have to be designed to take into account the heat input from wells, which will melt permafrost all the way from say 900 meters to 1 meter below the surface.
‘The Trump Administration’
I think future linguistic scholars of early 21st century Ango Saxon Vernacular, will hold that particular juxtaposition of words to epitomize the meaning of oxymoron!
Assuming of course, that there are any future linguistic scholars…
For you folks who have high expectations for US offshore wind applications, things are getting very interesting down in the trenches.
2 proposed operations, one off the Hamptons in New York and one off Massachusetts, are sparking the anticipated opposition from numerous groups.
Specifically, the towns where the transmission cables are expected to land are starting to push back … East Hampton in New York and Yarmouth and Barnstable in MA.
The fact that not one but TWO of the Block Island cables have just become exposed on the beachfront due to shifting sands, is adding fuel to the opponents’ arguments.
The recent break in the transmission line off the Straits of Mackinac, spilling thousands of liters of toxic benzene into the pristine water is not helping the developers make their case.
Now that the renewable advocates – in this case, the offshore wind developers – are attempting to be the builders, to engage in extremely sophisticated, high risk, expensive projects, they will find themselves in the crosshairs of myriad detractors willing and potentially able to completely derail these operations.
The fishermen’s associations are just starting to ramp up their voices which will add a strong emotional charge to these affairs.
The recent break in the transmission line off the Straits of Mackinac, spilling thousands of liters of toxic benzene into the pristine water is not helping the developers make their case.
Oh for fuck’s sake! Let’s get a little perspective here, shall we?!
Why don’t we compare that, to say, the 7 million liters of toxic dispersants alone, that were used on the 3.19 million barrels of oil released into the PRISTINE WATERS of the Gulf of Mexico during the Macondo disaster!
http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/Chapter-2_Incident-Overview_508.pdf
And screw the corrupt rich motherfuckers who live in places like the Hamptons and oppose offshore wind projects while living in their multi million dollar homes and flying around in their private kerosene fueled jets.
BTW, this is the most ridiculous part of your post:
The fishermen’s associations are just starting to ramp up their voices which will add a strong emotional charge to these affairs.
Bullshit! The reality is this:
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20180608/fishing-report-wind-farms-prove-beneficial-for-fishermen
Fishing Report: Wind farms prove beneficial for fishermen
Patrick Paquette, recreational fishing community advocate working with Anglers for Offshore Wind, said, “Recreational anglers are interested in wind farms in New England. Nearly everyone we speak with has high praises for ocean wind farms if they are developed in a responsible way. They say the Block Island Wind Farm has had a positive impact on fishing.”
Second, not all commercial fishermen oppose wind farms when properly planned. At an offshore wind forum last December, Chris Brown, a commercial fisherman who is president of the Commercial Fisheries Center that represents nine fishing industry trade associations, said, “Fishermen were initially terrorized as to what was going to be built, but last week I made a living towing all around the Block Island Wind Farm.”
Third, we should take a close look at fishermen who say wind farms are bad because they will prevent them from harvesting fish.
The fish I catch as a charter captain are not my fish. The ocean and the fish belong to the people of the United States of America.
Don’t forget the oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker owned by Exxon, bound for Long Beach, California, struck Bligh Reef, 1.5 miles west of Tatitlek, Alaska and spilled 10.8 million US gallons of crude oil over the next few days. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.
No, I most certainly haven’t forgotten!
…by far the largest offshore marine oil spill in U.S. history.
The total volume of oil released is about 12 times more than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill; given the continuous release for nearly 3 months, ;the Deepwater Horizon spill was equivalent to the Exxon Valdez spill re-occurring in the same location every week for 12 weeks
Not to mention the ecological disaster caused to deep sea coral beds by the improper use of surface dispersants at great depth!
But the offshore wind facilities are being installed in areas which remain pristine and free of eyesores and chemical spills. Those folk will just have to call me to suggest they require the shore approach be made using a drilled and cased tunnel. This involves putting a drilling machine about 1000 feet from the beach and drilling a hole about 300 feet below the surface. The hole can pop out of the sea floor about 5000 feet offshore, then It is cased and cemented. The high voltage cables can be run inside a pipe which in turn run through the cased hole. This is old technology.
Hey, that sounds like a great idea! Why don’t you draw up some plans, get a cost estimate and submit a proposal. Maybe you could start a whole new career for yourself and a new business too. No, I’m not trying to be facetious, I’m serious!
Fred
The opposition from the fishermen is real and is just starting to ramp up.
From Virginia, Maryland, New Joisey, NY, RI to Massachusetts, the mostly Democrat governors are pushing for offshore wind development.
The early planning stages are morphing into regulatory guidelines and permitting applications/approvals prior to actual staging and construction.
This is where all this stuff starts to get interesting.
The commercial fisherman, especially the trawlers, want no part in weaving through a maze of whirleys in rough seas at night, in addition to losing some of the most productive scallop grounds in the US.
To keep the short Block Island cable protected over the rocky bottom portions, concrete mats have been placed as covering.
There have already been reports of nets becoming snagged on them, causing life threatening situations.
If the gas pipeline opposition history is any guide, these projects are facing a lengthy period of highly contentious challenges.
The actual building will be a monumental feat as all the staging will be done out of New Bedford using European sourced rigs. (The uber ballsy Atlantic crossing of the Brave Tern is just one example of the challenges these guys will face),
At the end of the day, the huge difference in US and European offshore wind projects – and there are several – is that the Appalachian Basin is a short distance away and able to provide cheap fuel for CCGT plants for decades to come.
Investing in exceptionally expensive, intermittent offshore electricity will simply not make sense.
The commercial fisherman, especially the trawlers, want no part in weaving through a maze of whirleys in rough seas at night, in addition to losing some of the most productive scallop grounds in the US.
First a disclaimer: I know the Block Island waters quite well and used to enjoy diving there when I lived in the NYC. So perhaps I’m just a wee bit biased. I have very little sympathy for bottom trawlers they are are an extremely unsustainable and ecologically destructive form of fishing. They’re the ones who are complaining the most!
However there is a huge amount of misinformation being propagated about this issue. Wind farms tend to serve as focal points for all kinds of sea life this becomes much more of a positive for both commercial and recreational fishing.
There are of course special considerations with the type of possible impacts to commercial fishing. All of which can be dealt with. For example:
http://dwwind.com/press/deepwater-wind-outlines-industry-leading-approach-prevent-damage-fishing-gear-offshore-wind-farms/
Deepwater Wind Outlines Industry-Leading Approach to Prevent Damage to Fishing Gear at its Offshore Wind Farms
Trust me on this, I can guarantee you that the warming waters of Long Island Sound and future ocean acidification will have much more negative impacts on commercial fishing than any wind farms will. Though that is a topic for another discussion.
And in a true cost benefit analysis most commercial fishing has plenty of negative impacts of its own and commercial fisherman extract resources from the commons so there is plenty to think about here.
Personally, and admittedly my biases will show through here, I have very sympathy for commercial fisherman and how they ply their trade in those waters. Commercial fishing in that region is already dying a slow death much like coal mining, because it is not practiced in a sustainable manner and it is becoming increasing uneconomic.
Knowing what I know about the fisheries and marine ecosystem of that region a much better alternative to harvesting seafood from those waters and a method that would be highly compatible with wind farms and sustainable recreational fishing is the large scale implementation of an idea developed by a commercial fisherman by the name of Bren Smith.
https://www.greenwave.org/greenwaveorg/
GreenWave is an ocean farmer and fisherman-run organization dedicated to building a new blue-green economy that creates jobs, mitigates climate change and grows healthy food for local communities.
Bren Smith, GreenWave executive director and owner of Thimble Island Ocean Farm, pioneered the development of restorative 3D Ocean Farming. A lifelong commercial fisherman, he was named one of Rolling Stone’s “25 People Shaping the Future” and featured in Time Magazine’s Best Inventions of 2017. He is the winner of the Buckminster Fuller Prize and has been profiled in over 50 publications including CNN, The New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, and National Geographic. He is an Ashoka and Echoing Green Climate Fellow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GchLfXTgII
3D Ocean Farming
14:33 min video
The old ways don’t work any more we need new ways of thinking about the world! I vote for wind farms and 3D Ocean Farming and against the status quo and BAU! And no, I don’t know how that will work out, but I can’t imagine it would be any worse than what we’ve done up until now!
Cheers!
Actually, everyone agrees that the electrical transmission line spill is no big deal. People are worried about the nearby OIL pipeline.
Once again, oil creating problems…
“The damage from the oil leak was not severe and the Coast Guard’s response appeared strong. But there’s another, scarier reason people were so concerned about this incident: Just 400 yards east of the ATC electrical cables lies Enbridge oil company’s line 5 – that’s the yellow line in this graphic.
Line 5 is actually two 64-year-old pipelines that have the capacity of moving 540,000 gallons of oil per day across the straits. That’s what many people, including the Alliance for the Great Lakes President Joel Brammeier, are worried about.
“It’s just a matter of time with line 5, and the response time doesn’t matter as much when you have thousands and thousands of gallons of oil pouring out behind a break,” said Brammeier. “In this case we were fortunate that the break was relatively limited, and the amount of oil that escaped from the electrical line was relatively small.
“In a situation where an actual working oil pipeline breaks, you could have thousands and thousands of gallons of oil going directly into Lake Huron or Lake Michigan.”
https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018/05/01/straits-mackinac-spill-raises-new-fears-great-lakes-disaster
Is there any reason for a cable to be brought ashore? Put a pylon a short distance off-shore, where the sea floor is relatively stable, rocky maybe, then have a short overhead stretch to an on-shore pylon. No problems with shifting sands. You could even make a pier and docking points out to the pylon for dual use 🙂
NAOM
Naom
The transmission lines are one of the big issues surrounding these types of projects, both onshore and off, for hydroelectric as well as wind. (See Northern Pass and it’s potential replacement, Clean Energy Connect).
The shelving of the Clean Line transmission was a huge blow to the wind industry.
Likewise, the terminating of the massive Wind Catcher project could well be the death knell of wind generation in the US, east of the Mississippi, at least.
Shore front communities, where offshore cables will be landed, are inclined to NIMBYism big time.
Same goes for the offshore whirleys, as opposition from tourist towns like Ocean City, MD and Atlantic City shows.
Using an overhead shore landing the parts of the shoreline that are inhospitable to beaches and people could be used keeping them away from centres of population. Also see Fernando’s suggestion above, any thoughts on its practicality?
NAOM
The landing in East Hampton, NY, is apparently so strongly preferred by the developer (economic reasons, perhaps), that they are pushing the local authorities for an ok rather than relocate to a nearby state owned beach (which would presumably be easily permitted).
There are so many factors involved in these massive projects that an outside observer can only guess what is going on.
One thing for sure, though, it takes surprisingly little effort to delay or sidetrack them.
I’m not sure if Fernando was being somewhat facetious, but to simply cut a small trench and lay a cable within it is a million times faster and cheaper than horizontal directional drilling and casing. Rocky bottom could be another story altogether, however.
Apparently even the Europeans are having issues of all sorts with the transmission cables, particularly where they are attached to the base of each turbine.
There is not a whole lot of easily accessible data concerning operational challenges to the offshore wind farms.
At least I have a hard time keeping track of it.
I think that is an invitation to those here who keep close tabs on these things to do some digging about those issues.
NAOM
Nick
Of course the few hundred gallons of DF 45 that spilled is inconsequential in ‘the real world’.
But that is not the point.
The PERCEPTION of potential damage to a wider audience of emotionally charged, uninformed readers can, does, and will continue to wreak havoc on any hopes of prudent actions in these matters.
Example … take 2 minutes to read the MSDS of the common dielectric fluid, DF 45, used in transmission lines.
Now, give that data to a skilled fearmonger to present to the denizens near Lewis Bay, MA.
At the very least, Nick, telling people that toxic, carcinogenic benzene will be emplaced near habitats, endangered species, yada yada (we all know the drill by now), will – at the very least, throw sand in the gears of moving forward for that particular wind project.
Citing uncertainties surrounding such activities, calls will ensue for ‘studies’ to be made … comprehensive ones lasting 3 to 5 years … make that decades.
See where I’m going with this Nick?
It would appear we – in the US, at least – have reached the point at which polarization, emotion, self interest have all supplanted rational discussions in our quest for a better future.
Oh well … let the Games continue.
Well, if you read the new about that incident, the reporters actually get it right, and downplay the importance of the spill of the insulating oil from the transmission line.
And, yes…people can and do get manipulated by the Kochs of the world. That’s our main problem, I think. I wish there was a good solution to the problem posed by massive misinformation from Fox News, Rupert Murdoch’s various outlets, Sinclair Media, etc., etc.
Any ideas for solutions to help us combat propaganda?
Make Coffeeguyzz King.
… mebbee have Fernando be Deputy King …
“… mebbee have Fernando be Deputy King …”
this might happen in CM’s world, but absolutely not mine.
I posted a link to a YouTube that dealt with the psychological issues of changing behaviour. I suggest checking it out and taking note around the time I recommended.
NAOM
notanoilman, could you post that link again. I can’t seem to locate it.
Thanks, Ron
Sorry, was in the last Open Thread:-
An interesting talk with some useful ideas for those dealing with combating climate change around the 12 min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4
NAOM
While we dither.
CO2 EMISSIONS SOAR AS ALASKA HEATS UP
“Tundra soils appear to be acting as an amplifier of climate change,” co-author Steve Wofsy, a Harvard atmospheric scientist, said in a statement issued by NASA. “We need to carefully monitor what it’s doing up there, even late in the year when everything looks frozen and dormant.”
https://www.ecowatch.com/alaska-permafrost-climate-change-2399706675.html
We are totally toasted. The Arctic is melting really fast. The Northwest passage will be open any year, and soon after the entire Arctic will be free of ice. Perhaps as soon as 2025. This is going to cause a major change of weather in the entire Northern Hemisphere. There is no way to stop it now. It is too late. Not even a major cut to CO2 emissions could prevent reaching +1.5°C by 2030 and then a tipping point is likely to take us all the way to the Hot House.
We should start evacuating coastal cities all over the world. Perhaps incentives should be given to people to relocate to higher ground. The problem is knowing how high is safe. Once Antarctica starts going this could be a 10 m. rise in a few decades. Once people see their neighbors moving out of coastal areas and real state prices cratering there, they’ll understand what is coming our way and stupid deniers will shut up.
Home insurance in coastal areas should be increased by law, to cover for coming flood damages. That would be another incentive to moving out.
Not just coastal insurance but flood plains too. Back that up with a federal, state and local laws saying ‘no help with reconstruction’.
NAOM
Yes, the world is getting hotter but there is very little that man can do now to change the process. Even climate scientists are recognizing there will always be solar changes, volcanoes, and so and so forth to get in the way of whatever man does (also geologically we are still coming out of a cold period). We aren’t in control.
Yes Perry, but you have it backwards. We are the super-volcano and the sun catchers and no one or anything has gotten in our way. We are in control and headed exactly where we aimed.
You are wrong. Having the power to wreak and destroy does not mean we are in control. We are aware of the problem, we say we are going to change things but we clearly do not. The only country that is reducing emissions, the US, is not doing it on purpose but accidentally. We are not in control.
I don’t see why most people seem to think we can do something about the climate. The evidence shows we will not. We may have been able to do something in the 80’s when the problem was acknowledged. By now it is clear that we have chosen the wrong path. The climate is a lost cause. We have to prepare for impact.
Experts agree that the biggest danger is sea level rise. We have to start moving people out of coastal areas and low islands right now, when there is still time to do it in an orderly fashion. Climate change is starting to affect our crops, making them less nutritious and reducing production in warm areas. We need to expand farm lands to feed the growing population, or increase production by using better pesticides and weed killers. We will need an international program to feed the population or we will see famines like the world has not known in decades or centuries. The UN will have to be put in charge of global food distribution. There will be massive population movements that are already starting in many places, like Southern Europe. To avoid the type of fascists reactions we are seeing in Germany, countries will have to accept quotas and the rights of illegal immigrants will have to be guaranteed internationally.
That is what we have chosen. That is what it is still under our control.
Carlos said “You are wrong. Having the power to wreak and destroy does not mean we are in control. We are aware of the problem, we say we are going to change things but we clearly do not. The only country that is reducing emissions, the US, is not doing it on purpose but accidentally. We are not in control”
Too bad Carlos, everything in that paragraph is wrong. First of all there is no “we”. The amount of people that actually are cognizant and willing to make the changes necessary are few in number. The rest ignore it or blatantly promote FF burning and environmental destruction.
Second, people are making decisions every day to continue the poisoning, destruction of nature and pollution of the world. These are conscious decisions made each day by people around the world. They are strongly cooperating with the system that put the predicaments in place and are not rebelling. They are not even thinking about other ways to do things, at least not most of them.
Third, yes on a national level the US has been making active decisions to reduce the use of FF energy through required construction practices, greater mpg programs for vehicles, subsidies and cheap loans to renewable energy, legal requirements to meet certain percentages of renewable energy in electric sector. Individuals, towns, cities and states have made commitments and taken action to reduce FF energy use.
It’s not accidental in the US, it is purposeful and has avoided much burning over the decades.
Yes, there is a wealthy contingent fighting these efforts but that too is not accidental.
When a person drives somewhere, turns up the heat, does not add insulation or fill in cracks in a house, decides to fly huge distances for vacation and makes several trips to stores instead of combining them into one, all are conscious decisions. People make the easiest and most convenient for them decisions versus doing some thinking and planning that would save time, energy and save them money too. Lots of lazy dumb decisions multiplied by billions every day.
Yes, we are in control. We make those decisions and perform the actions even in the face of alternatives. We are responsible and yet most take little responsibility outside a certain social necessity.
People also make the decision to just go along and not rebel, even when they know the system can lead their children and their grandchildren into a horrifying world.
You can’t fix a problem until you take responsibility for our daily decisions. Our ancestors are dead so it’s up to us and it is us continuing the dangerous system.
Otherwise this may happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWoiBpfvdx0
Carlos says “I don’t see why most people seem to think we can do something about the climate. The evidence shows we will not. We may have been able to do something in the 80’s when the problem was acknowledged. By now it is clear that we have chosen the wrong path. The climate is a lost cause. We have to prepare for impact.”
Sigh, the decisions we make now will effect the future. Sure the very near future may be mostly baked in, but why guarantee that the farther future will cross all the thresholds to large methane releases and a mass extinction event like the PETM?
There is a difference between calamity and total destruction.
It’s not just the climate, we need to actively change the way we do things so they are helpful to nature, not harmful. Now is the best time to start if you have not already and spread the example.
“Climate change is starting to affect our crops, making them less nutritious and reducing production in warm areas. We need to expand farm lands to feed the growing population, or increase production by using better pesticides and weed killers. We will need an international program to feed the population or we will see famines like the world has not known in decades or centuries.”
The increase in destructive and toxic agriculture has led us to another large predicament. Increasing the toxins and the land use is just more insanity leading to faster destruction. Once the insects are dead, forget most food. Forget most life on the planet including ours.
“Experts agree that the biggest danger is sea level rise.”
No, sea level rise is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is continuing FF burning, increasing or maintaining population while also increasing consumption.
Yes, I agree there should be planning to assist and help the migrants from sea level rise, expanding deserts, famine and pestilence due to climate change. However this will probably be the most contentious problem humanity has faced, much tougher than reducing FF use and much more resistance from people and governments.
Most people will starve in place, we have watched that happen last century and still watch it happen now.
I guess you are not listening.
“The world is at risk of entering “hothouse” conditions where global average temperatures will be 4-5 degrees Celsius higher even if emissions reduction targets under a global climate deal are met, scientists said”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-climatechange/world-at-risk-of-heading-toward-irreversible-hothouse-state-idUSKBN1KR223
It is going to happen because it is too late even if we reduce emissions, and more importantly because we are not reducing our emissions. Look at the CO2 data. You are fooling yourself if you think people will come to their senses. That they will change their lifestyles because they are asked.
It is very easy. We are destroying the climate. We have been told repeatedly. We are doing too little too late and a lot of people don’t even care. The catastrophe is inevitable now. We must act to save as much as possible and it cannot depend on people coming to their senses. The problem is us, and the planet needs to be saved from us. We need to be saved from our wrong decisions.
Those that are not part of the solution are part of the problem.
The risk assessment was made against current carbon reduction agreements. First of all it’s a risk, a probability not a certainty. Second, everyone except you seems to know the current agreement falls short and has to be upgraded to have a significant effect.
All is not lost, but if enough people think it is and enough people shirk their responsibilities then it may become so.
If you choose to be a doomer that is your choice, at least have the decency not to promote it and try and convince the rest of the people that it’s done and over. It’s not, it’s really just getting going and we are aware of the role of feedbacks. Awareness breeds action, it’s the things we don’t know that get us.
The biggest problem is increasing overpopulation and overconsumption which makes it an uphill battle. So cut back consumption, that affects the whole world.
I’d be a doomer if I reached those conclusions all by myself. When it is the best scientists who say that I am being a realist.
You are just not following this logically.
1. We know since at least the late 80’s that our emissions are irreversibly changing the climate as they’ll stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
2. In 2015 an international agreement was reached to limit emissions to limit global warming to +1.5°C. By 2018 it is clear that most nations that need to reduce emissions are not doing so or cheating in the accounting.
3. Scientists warn that even the reduction in emissions that we are not effecting might not be enough to prevent the climate from tipping into a hothouse.
So what is the part when we are saved? Is this a Hollywood movie with last minute solution? And more importantly, how are we saved?
I really like the part of “Awareness breeds action.” US president Barack Obama said that climate change is the greatest threat we face, so what did Americans do? They voted for Trump. So much for the action that resulted from awareness.
Carlos Diaz
I seldom comment on this site, more of a reader than a contributor.
If the global economy grinds to a halt, whereby emissions will be tapered, do you have any idea what will happen in the world?
If you are not an experienced farmer, or haven’t experienced surviving in a wild environment, you are as good as dead shortly after the halt.
Why do you think the U.S government goes to dangerous places in the world ? For the spread of democracy or in search of oil and other resources which grease the wheels of the global economy? You think they are dumb? They know if the oil stops flowing the U.S and then the world at large will be in chaos.
Now the climate will start to bite, when it does people will have to deal with it. Generally people and almost certainly people in governments or positions of power don’t care about 30 years from now, they care about NOW.
Hence the phrase, “see no further than the end of one’s nose”.
In my worthless opinion, nothing will stop the global economy from halting (in the near-term) barring a major catastrophe such as a global nuclear war, asteroid impact etc. In the long-term it will grind to a halt no doubt, when resources are no longer accessible or too expensive to attain, but when that will be is up for debate, hence this website.
That’s my two cents. Peace
Iron Mike, thank you for your comment.
So I see you don’t believe our economy will adjust to a much lower level of fossil fuels consumption. I guess horse and carriage promoters had similar views.
We know now how to build efficient electric cars that do not cost much more than ICEs. New technologies like regenerative breaking really make a difference in their efficiency. The change to a fossil-free economy will create lots of business opportunities. And if we have to make sacrifices and make with less so be it. What is your alternative? Let climate change alter the planet in ways that will make it support a lot less people in a lot worse conditions?
It is going to happen because it is too late even if we reduce emissions, and more importantly because we are not reducing our emissions. Look at the CO2 data. You are fooling yourself if you think people will come to their senses. That they will change their lifestyles because they are asked.
Carlos, I have been preaching that sermon for well over 20 years. Not just about climate change but also about the overshoot of human population. We are way, way, way, past the point of no return. But some people still think we can fix everything. It would really be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Ron, I’m not sure we can fix anything . I’m just desperately trying to figure out how to get the driver of this train to hit the brakes as we hurtle towards the cliff. Right now it seems they’re intent on pushing the throttle up a notch!
I am sorry about your recent loss. I did not say it at the time but, my thoughts are with you.
Looking around, sometimes I think the biggest problem facing mankind is the desire to enjoy luxury at the expense of anyone and everything, in other words — ego. This view is reinforced when, year-after-year I watch my neighbors replacing their vehicles with “bigger and better” models, buying huge motor homes, new more powerful quads, giant boats, etc.
100% Doug. That is the root of the problem. It is psychological and gene deep. All under the illusion of “progress”.
This concept is brilliantly put in one scene in the movie Apocalypto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1aGxco-wcA
Must be a local phenomenon. Of the top 25 light vehicle models sold globally, only 4.5% were pick-up trucks and heavy SUVs.
Even then some of the F-150-‘s are hitting 25 mpg highway and aiming at 30 soon.
A lot the “SUV’s” thrown into the counts are crossovers which have average mpg near 30.
Around here in farm/forest country most of the vehicles are small cars with some pickups and a few big SUV’s thrown in. Even then, I noticed a trend where the Pickup sits home and the owner commutes most of the time in his little Honda or Toyota car.
Sure, the tradesmen and farmers have vans and pickups and a few guys who just like them. Most people are buying smaller efficient cars.
A local phenomenon? In 2017, 11.1 million light trucks were sold in the US. In 2016, sales of light trucks accounted for 65 percent of the 17.1 million vehicles sold in the US. Trucks accounted for an all-time record 68 per cent of sales in the Canadian light vehicle market in 2017. Or by ‘local’ do you mean North America? 😉
According to trucks.com
Although total auto sales eased slightly last year, automakers sold 2.8 million full- and mid-size pickup trucks in 2017, a 4.8 percent increase over the prior year.
Pickup trucks now account for 16.4 percent of U.S. auto sales. That’s up from 15.3 percent in 2016.
https://www.trucks.com/2018/01/04/2017-pickup-trucks-auto-sales/
So out of about 17 million vehicles sold, 2.8 million pick up trucks were sold. Even in the pickup centric USA, that is only 16 percent of vehicle sales.
What are you, a denier? Science has spoken. There is near unanimous agreement among climate scientists, and complete agreement among models. The probability that they have got this wrong is nil. We do not know how fast the process is going to play but once Antarctica starts collapsing, it is game over. The collapse of Larsen B ice shelf was a warning.
Deniers are just trying to obstruct what needs to be done by playing dumb. Perhaps democracy is not the best way to tackle this global problem. The Chinese already showed how it can be done when they sacrificed their future demography for the good of humanity. If they hadn’t implemented the single-child policy the population of the world would be exploding. And they didn’t ask the people. They just did what needed to be done. The future is bleak and we need strong governments under strong UN leadership to face it. Those that try to obstruct or delay our response to the climate challenge will have to face their responsibility. We are past the time when convincing people could solve the problem. The evidence has been presented. The right to deny it should not imply the right to condemn millions of innocent people.
Mixing the UN into our government by enabling climate change terrifies me beyond belief. No thanks. You support a purely communistic way of thinking. You will never get a majority of people living under democracy to willingly sacrifice sovereignty and freedoms and follow your proposals.
Nobody can predict the future either. What you are so sure will happen is not at all certain.
Mixing the UN into our government by enabling climate change terrifies me beyond belief.
Have you checked to see if there are any monsters hiding under your bed?!
It is not me who is so sure. If it were me I wouldn’t trust myself. But science has spoken. We got our best scientists and gave them loads of money and this is the answer they have come with. It has been 40 years in the making and no real scientist dares to doubt it.
Science is the only thing that hasn’t let us down. When politicians and priests have shown how little they can be trusted, we have Science to rely on. Science has shown how they can send a space probe to a satellite of Saturn. There is no way they might have gotten this wrong. We must trust them, scientists.
Mixing the UN into our government by enabling climate change terrifies me beyond belief.
What terrifies me even more, is the thought of living on a planet that is very different than the only one I know, the one that has sustained life as we know it. The thought of a planet with no ice caps resulting in an unfamiliar climate with strange, unpredictable weather patterns and unfamiliar coastlines with cities like Miami under water is terrifying to me. I do not think that there is any way 7 plus billion human beings can survive on such a planet and my fear is that I will not be able to live my life out peacefully on such a planet. On such a planet the pursuit of survival will far outweigh the pursuit of happiness.
Majority of the earths geological history, there has been no ice caps at the poles….or what is referred to as permanent ice.
True, but not when homo sapiens were on Earth.
Of course, our population has averaged 1-10 million with a near extinction 70,000 years ago.
7.6 billion? Please don’t laugh—–
Maybe the earth is using humans to get out of this lingering cold period?! lol
Well, you may have a point—
It was getting colder for the last 4,000 years.
Then humans started dumping all those hydrocarbons into the atmosphere– and we are getting really toasty!
In fact, at 410 Co2, we have never lived under these conditions.
All of the earths geological history there were not 7 plus billion human beings living on it.
A very recent development, in which we use 10 grams of hydrocarbons to produce 1 of food.
Anyone see a problem?
“Majority of the earths geological history, there has been no ice caps at the poles”
The Cosmic Calendar
https://youtu.be/GzG9fHMr9L4
We are tentatively penciled in to show up on
31 Dec, at 22:24 (2.6 million years ago)
Will we scratch ourselves out before the next Jan is one second old?
That’s right, you will have to take over and create an ecosocialist climate control tyranny run by scientists who will publish their peer reviewed decrees in “Nature Climate Communications”
LOL! That’s actually funny!
That would be a nice change from the Oil and Gas Journal and Coal Age that runs the show now.
No. We just need to listen to scientists and do as they tell. That isn’t so difficult, and it is no tyranny.
That’s actually difficult because scientists are really ignorant when it comes to engineering, project planning, cost controls, safety, economics, and stuff like that. 😐
They don’t have to do that. If they say zero emissions are required we’ll have to make it possible one way or another. The cost will have to be assumed.
The ones who decide are supposed to gave fully functional brains and rely on engineering, project management and economic assessments. I realize most individuals, including scientists, the media, politicians and popes dont understand the subject, but i sure hope somewhere we have adults who realize how things ought to be done.
But scientists are really good at geophysics and understanding the behaviors that we will need to rely on to harness renewable energy.
Some engineers may be good at this as well but then again they may know some geophysics.
I’m guessing you don’t have a lot of friends who are scientists…
That may be true but my wife, a Mathematical Physicist who spent 20 plus years teaching engineers mathematics at one of the world’s top universities, always insisted that most engineers graduate with depressingly poor math skills. So, maybe it all balances out? 😉
Most = greater than 1/2.
Since a C grade is supposedly average, then I would agree that about 1/2 the engineers that graduate have average or below average math skills, and that would be “depressingly poor” in comparison to the highly math skilled engineering students.
I would agree that about 1/2 the engineers that graduate have average or below average math skills,
That’s mean! 😉
Are you calling him a deviant? :}
It doesnt. The mathematical skills engineers do have is what gets you in a car, lets you drive over a bridge, get in an elevator, and arrive at your floor safely.
It took me about three decades to really understand how to get a large project done from the conceptual stage to operating conditions. And another decade after that to realize that i would always have more to learn. And thats something a simple math professor cant even fathom.
Hell, most company managers cant grasp it either. I think most of us who did have to get something complex done can tell stories about stupid management who didn’t understand the way things were getting done. So you can also imagine that a university professor would be completely lost.
It doesnt. The mathematical skills engineers do have is what gets you in a car, lets you drive over a bridge, get in an elevator, and arrive at your floor safely.
Ok, but it takes the analytical skills of scientists from multiple fields to clarify the unintended and sometimes negative consequences of a lot of that engineering. Engineers rarely see, let alone understand the big picture.
Case in point, engineers can do the necessary calculations to build a mega dam hydro power project in the Amazon basin while not having the slightest clue about the irreparable damage they are doing to the ecosystem and local inhabitants in the areas the dam will flood!
Hi Carlos Diaz,
Sorry I couldn’t reply to your above comment.
So I see you don’t believe our economy will adjust to a much lower level of fossil fuels consumption. I guess horse and carriage promoters had similar views.
I don’t think that is a fair comparison. Data shows fossil fuels are still the dominant source of the world energy consumption. So say what you want about people like me, the data speaks for itself.
We know now how to build efficient electric cars that do not cost much more than ICEs. New technologies like regenerative breaking really make a difference in their efficiency. The change to a fossil-free economy will create lots of business opportunities. And if we have to make sacrifices and make with less so be it. What is your alternative? Let climate change alter the planet in ways that will make it support a lot less people in a lot worse conditions?
Not in Australia where i live and even if we had EVs the huge huge majority of electricity generation in Australia comes from coal. Here is a video describing the situation in Australia regarding EVs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_0UTOc6X4
With regards to efficiency, yes things have became more efficient, but then Jevons paradox might come into effect depending on what we are talking about. And the other things you mention regarding fossil free economy and a technocratic civilization you are envisioning is sorry, nonsense to me. Entropy will always bat last.
I don’t have an alternative because I find it rather stupid to have one, the world is going in this direction whether you or anyone likes it or not, having an alternative will not make any difference, we are beyond the point of no return regarding exponential rate of CO2 PPM and maybe soon CH4 . Also more importantly, this is life, 500 million years in the making on earth. Species go extinct, other species take their place, planet warms, and fossil fuel formation period occurs, planet cools snowball, or at least ice ages follow. You think all this hustle and bustle will matter a million years from now, 10 million years from now, 100 million years from now. A very brief period in geological time? No matter what humans do, the earth will “recover” (Meaning it will continue to support life) and one “day” the earth will no longer harbour life (when the sun luminosity increases in a few billion years). Life is very brief, enjoy it, no one is important, and everyone returns to the earth. That is my worthless opinion.
Fossil fuel dominates because it is the cheapest most efficient source of energy available for transportation but that won’t last. Despite the big swings fossil fuel prices will increase long-term as they become more scarce, then other sources will become cheaper. Probably nuclear, as it is right now the source of energy that is evolving faster. Nuclear plants used to be a lot cheaper in the 1960’s so we can learn (re-learn?) to make them cheaper. Then liquid fuels will be synthesized for air transportation. Renewables will increase to be a bigger part than they are now.
The only thing that should worry us about the distant future (>100-1000 years) is to not wreck the climate or damage the planet. We can’t even imagine what type of economy they will have.
Since the climate is the greatest threat we face (Obama dixit), and it is clear that people are not going to change their ways even when they have the information, it logically follows that the solution should be imposed on people, whether they want it or not.
Hi Carlos,
If you impose that on people, you are opening a whole new can of worms. The question of morals, ethics, freedom and liberty come into play and its a slippery slope.
Governments have a poor track record of imposing policy on the masses. People will turn around and draw comparison to Nazi Germany and their eugenics program. And again there is “controversial” scientific arguments which assert that currently there is strong dysgenics in the human gene pool, as a result of relaxed selection (result of industrial civilization) and lack of practicing eugenics.
Again not saying you are wrong. But imposition of these policies will possibly cause civil unrest, hard to say what will happen really, but can’t see it happening personally.
And again there is “controversial” scientific arguments which assert that currently there is strong dysgenics in the human gene pool, as a result of relaxed selection (result of industrial civilization) and lack of practicing eugenics.
Yeah, that is another of the things I have been preaching for half a century. When everyone survives, natural selection loses its grip. So if dumber people have far more kids than smarter people, the general population gets dumber. I know, the Flynn effect is supposed to disprove this but the Flynn effect has, I believe, a different cause. I just do not believe people are getting smarter, it defies logical explanation.
Hi Ron,
I think the Flynn effect is the effect of recent modernisation in humans.
“Ultimately, Flynn concludes that human beings are not smarter—just more modern.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter-than-your-grandfather-probably-not-150402883/
There is a recently published book on the topic called Crumbling Genome. If you read it the author (geneticist) sits heavily on the fence. One gets the feeling that he fears being politically incorrect. But anyways the result is the same as you mentioned, the funny thing is, it is a known fact that dumber people tend to have more kids, so logical one can assert the future generation will not be too bright. I think there was this statistic in the book that it has recently being documented that in Iceland and U.S, females tend to select against intelligent males. It is crazy when you think about it. I am in my early 30s and i have witnessed females selecting against intelligent guys in Australia. Not going to generalise but to even see it around you is an odd experience.
Ron,
You might enjoy a story by C M Kornbluth from the 1950s:
The Marching Morons. It may be findable on the web.
Thanks, Synapsid, I just purchased it, Kindle edition, for all of 62 cents. I will definitely read it. It looks really interesting.
The Marching Morons
Thanks again,
Ron
I know, but if it comes to decide between ameliorating climate catastrophe or respecting people’s right to let it happen in full, what is the logical choice?
If it was a Chicxulub asteroid on an impact trajectory, we would not let democracy get in the way of saving most of the planet’s life.
Democracy is going to be destroyed by climate change anyway. Once it becomes a question of a few surviving and the rest dying, no democracy can survive that.
About 50 individuals currently hold as much wealth as as half the population of the planet and you’re talking about freedoms, liberty and democracy?!
Governments have a poor track record of imposing policy on the masses.
Exhibit A, China!
And again there is “controversial” scientific arguments which assert that currently there is strong dysgenics in the human gene pool, as a result of relaxed selection (result of industrial civilization) and lack of practicing eugenics.
Either you are not up to date on the latest biotechnology or you don’t fully grasp the implications. Since the tools are now available, I can guarantee that someone somewhere will use them on humans sooner or later !
Google: Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, Dr. George Church, CRISPR-cas9, Gene Drives, Craig Venter, Synthetic Genomics, and Yuval Noah Harari, that should at least give you a starting point.
OOPS! never mind, too late, here’s an update:
Human germline modification
On Jan 21, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that 86 people in China have had their genes edited using CRISPR.[248][249]
At least four labs in the US, labs in China and the UK, and a US biotechnology company called Ovascience announced plans for ongoing research to apply CRISPR to human embryos.[250] Scientists, including a CRISPR co-inventor, urged a worldwide moratorium on applying CRISPR to the human germline, especially for clinical use. They said “scientists should avoid even attempting, in lax jurisdictions, germline genome modification for clinical application in humans” until the full implications “are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations”.[54][251] These scientists support basic research on CRISPR and do not see CRISPR as developed enough for any clinical use in making heritable changes to humans.[252]
Source Wikipedia
Holy crap i didn’t know about the recent developments. Thanks for the info Fred. I found this article while researching.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released/
Those 50, along with their support staff (including the militaries that uphold their order), will want crisper-citizens that are compliant rent payers. Smart rent payers can be trouble., may realize the game.
We will be able to eliminate defective genes the same way we eliminated smallpox.
We will be able to eliminate defective genes the same way we eliminated smallpox.
Yeah, which in and of itself might not be a bad thing at first glance.
Though gene complexes regulate may aspects of heredity and it’s rather hard to know a priori what else you are inadvertently eliminating from the future gene pool along with those defective genes, which may or may not, have beneficial survival qualities to the species as a whole as the environment changes. A discussion for another day.
But we now have the ability to create designer humans with special qualities and guarantee those genetic modifications are passed on to specific offspring.
This is technology that is especially ripe for manipulation by wealthy elites. It is both a game changer and a destroyer of a future level playing field.
We have a pretty good idea that Homo sapiens probably eliminated our cousins the Neanderthals.
Imagine what kind of dystopian future might come about with this kind of technology in the hands of a few ultra wealthy sociopaths!
The sad story of 1366 technologies.
I have been warning about this for some time now, as I have followed the story of this startup and tried to keep members of this forum up to date. I think John Weaver of PV Magazine USA sums it up best when he says:
If the world would like a lesson on how to frustrate the layperson’s perspective on the potentials of the United State’s advanced manufacturing base – We the People have an example for you.
First, you fund cutting edge research with taxpayer money, then you offer the successful researchers a loan for $150 million so they can scale that taxpayer funded research into a revenue factory that employs some of those same taxpayers. Next – somehow muck up the loan and supply chain-building process so much it drives the taxpayer-funded researchers into the arms of a global powerhouse in South Korea, and lastly, when said researchers ask for access to the U.S. market without tariffs on the products of their shiny new factory, tell them they might have broken the law by seeking investment support elsewhere.
The factory is currently under construction in South Korea pretty much as I had predicted. I am deeply saddened by how this is turning out and am am not even an American! I guess congratulations are in order for the Trump administration for successfully blocking the progress of renewables……..in America, while they pursue the propping up of the old guard, coal. For those interested in a more in depth look at this story, I have posted excerpts from a few articles below:
1366 Technologies drops plans for Genesee County plant
A solar energy products company that had planned to build a flagship factory in Genesee County that eventually could have employed up to 1,000 people isn’t coming to Western New York – at least not for a long time.
The company, 1366 Technologies, said it has scrapped its plans to build a factory to make silicon wafers at the STAMP site in the Town of Alabama after failing to receive federal loan guarantees that it was counting on to finance the project.
Instead, 1366 Technologies said it will build the factory overseas.
The decision is a setback for the state’s economic development efforts in the region, with the 1366 Technologies project in line to receive nearly $100 million in incentives had it been built.
The problem, 1366 Technologies officials said, was that the company never was able to complete an agreement for $150 million in loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy……[snip]
1366 Technologies is developing methods that it believes will allow the company to produce silicon wafers – the basic ingredient of solar cells – at half the cost of traditional methods once its 130,000-square-foot factory begins operating next year.
If the market developed as 1366 Technologies executives hoped, the plant eventually could have been expanded to increase its capacity twelve-fold, with the ability to produce enough wafers to make solar panels with 3 gigawatts of generating capacity annually.
Instead, 1366 Technologies will focus on building its first plant at an undisclosed overseas location. The company began seeking the federal loan guarantees during the Obama administration, but questions had grown about the company’s ability to obtain that financing help under the Trump administration. The company said it had decided to stop seeking the loan guarantees.
1366 abandons plans for New York factory
For the past five years, 1366 Technologies has been the poster child of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program. While recipients such as Solyndra and Beacon Power went belly-up, the innovative wafer maker had not only survived but was thriving, with impressive technical results, a massive contract to supply its Direct Wafers to Hanwha Q Cells, and a partnership with polysilicon giant Wacker Chemie.
But while DOE agreed to fund 1366 Technologies’ first large-scale solar manufacturing facility in upstate New York in 2011, six and a half years later no disbursements have been made, and the company has withdrawn from the loan guarantee process.
1366 Technologies: Trying to assess what went wrong
There’s more to 1366 Technologies slipping away from the STAMP project than just losing the first company to commit to the technology park in Alabama — it’s also a loss of the kind of innovative company that would be good for the region, said Genesee County Economic Development Center CEO Steve Hyde during a meeting today with local reporters.
“These guys really do have a very innovative product,” Hyde said. “They’re changing an industry that’s a high-growth industry. Usually, when you have credible quality IP (intellectual property) married to an industry of high growth, the sky’s the limit. That was something that I really loved because we would be really introducing that kind of innovation here in our community, which has always been part of what I’ve been trying to cultivate in our community.”
As reported earlier, 1366, which makes silicon wafers for solar power, announced today that they would not build their first full-scale production facility in Genesee County after the company and the Department of Energy were unable to agree on terms for a loan guarantee.
Already with more than $80 million in the bank from private investors and tax abatements guaranteed by GCEDC and Empire State Development, 1366 was trying to finalize a $150 million loan guarantee to help get its plant, with 1,000 local jobs, up and running. The original DOE guarantee was granted in 2011 but 1366 still needed to raise $100 million in private equity both to unlock the funds and to finance the first phase of the plant construction. (The public support for the project totaled $56.3 million in tax abatements and state grants over 10 years. Since 1366 never finalized financing and closed on the transaction with GCEDC, the company received no taxpayer money.)
Solar Startup Asks for Tariff Exemption, Draws Trump Rebuke
A U.S. solar startup has picked its own trade fight with President Donald Trump.
1366 Technologies Inc., which spun out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has drawn a rebuke from the U.S. Energy Department for asking that its silicon wafer factory under construction in Asia be exempt from American tariffs. The Energy Department says the overseas facility may violate an agreement to manufacture in the U.S. as part of a $150-million federal loan guarantee for a factory the startup was planning in Upstate New York.
Trump’s DOE punishes Obama-era solar ‘success story’
The Department of Energy is protesting a Massachusetts solar company’s request for an exemption to U.S. import tariffs, arguing that the company’s plan to build a factory in Asia appears to violate agreements to manufacture its breakthrough technology in the United States.
1366 Technologies of Bedford, Mass., which developed technology that could slash the cost of solar cells, told DOE in January that it would withdraw its application for a $150 million DOE loan guarantee tied to a U.S.-based production plant. The government guarantee had been in the works since 2011.
The plan to build a U.S. production plant made headway in October 2015, when 1366 and New York state officials announced with fanfare that the first full-scale factory would be built in upstate New York. In January, however, the company reversed course and said it would begin production at a still-undisclosed location in Asia.
The concern, 1366 CEO Frank van Mierlo said, was that the process of reapplying for the loan guarantee under the Trump administration had dragged on for too long, and the outcome remained uncertain. The technology was ready to be commercialized, and it couldn’t wait any longer
This is why they could wait no longer!
Nexwafe announces 250 MW “disruptive” kerfless wafer factory in Bitterfeld, Germany
The utilization rate of materials and energy in Nexwafe’s kerfless wafer production processes is said to be almost 100%, at a time when price pressures on solar modules are expected to get significantly heavier in the immediate future.
Nexwafe’s kerfless wafers could drive down the 40% of module costs accounted for by wafer production.
Having secured a further €1.5 million ($1.7 million) in funding – this time from Chemiepark Bitterfeld-Wolfen GmbH (CPG) – Nexwafe GmbH has announced it will set up shop for the production of its epitaxially grown, kerfless silicon wafers in Bitterfeld, Germany. It will be the first such facility in the world, the company says.
Uh, oh. Pickup trucks are catching on in Europe.
According to IHS Markit, a global market research firm, there were 121,718 pickup trucks sold in Western and Central Europe in 2015, up from 98,083 in 2013. And the firm says through August, sales of pickups in Europe have increased 21 percent from the same period a year ago.
https://www.trucks.com/2016/10/24/europe-pickup-trucks-mercedes-fiat/
Tomorrow’s Harvest Begins Today
Dayvan Cowboy
Marshall Islands: Concrete dome holding nuclear waste could leak
(Apparently, based on another source of info, it is already beginning to leak.)
So what do you want? A clean, vital, viable planet? Or a technogadget, peddled by shills, entertainers and sociopaths and coercive social technology– what you call ‘government’?
Have you ever heard of ‘initial conditions’? The ‘butterfly effect’?
Well, how about applying that to current and large-scale material and social technology and running a simulation and see what the results are?
Maybe you already know (but don’t care).
Been to a couple of places in the Marshall’s.
Not a happy place.
Germany will be 50% low carbon electricity by 2030.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2017/03/31/100-renewables-by-2050-germany-pays-the-price-for-its-ambition/#78f8b4b71e98
Wow. France achieved better than that 35 years ago, when we had a chance of stopping climate change.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/world-zero-carbon-emissions-before-2040-two-decades-climate-change-global-warming-greenhouse-gases-a7682001.html
100% by 2050? Really, one must wonder why they are actually allowing the building of a new coal plant if they really want to do that.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-co2-emissions-targets-at-risk/a-18862708
Germany embracing gas to combat climate change ha ha
https://www.nord-stream2.com/
Look Peter, why do you not get correct numbers for Germany:
2017: 40% RE + 10% nuclear
2030: 60-65% RE
The interesting question for France is, what will they do 2030. Their NPPs are not competitive and France has no good RE industry. The motive for French NPPs was not enviromental considerations.
There is no new coal power plant in the German pipeline. Why are you lying?
What is your NordStream point? It replace the pipelines vial Ukraine and Poland? Again stupid propaganda, no hard facts in a correct context. You are a stupid troll, not more.
Ulenspiegel
Is this a lie then?
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/050818-boiler-damage-delays-germanys-11-gw-datteln-4-coal-plant-to-2020
datteln 4 has not been completed as boiler needs replacing, ie they are still building it.
Just because you are ignorant of a fact, does not make every source about that fact a lie.
datteln 4 has not been completed as boiler needs replacing, ie they are still building it.
Right! Which doesn’t exactly make it new, it was originally permitted back around 2007 more than 11 years ago. Times were quite different back then. There are currently no more new coal fired plants in the pipeline for Germany! Your example, is, as usual, just another case of extreme cherry picking!
Here’s the full story on it:
https://energytransition.org/2016/10/germanys-last-new-coal-plant/
Germany’s last new coal plant
Fred
It has not been used yet. That makes it new.
Every time you answer one of my posts you just make yourself look more and more stupid.
I enjoy this very much
It is not new in the pipeline and there are no more being planned!
You are trying to make it sound like there are plenty more being planned and built. That is called being disingenuous! You can call me all the names you want and it won’t change the fact that no new coal plants are being built in Germany.
Furthermore it might yet happened that even the only dubious example that you could come up with is so flawed that it might have a very short life
California’s response to record wildfires: shift to 100% clean energy
Last week, California state lawmakers passed State Senator (and candidate for US Senate) Kevin de León’s SB 100, which amps up the target to 50% renewables by 2026, 60% by 2030, and 100% from “renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources” by 2045
“California uses the least electricity per capita of any state,”
https://skepticalscience.com/ca-response-record-wildfires-clean-energy.html
=
U.S. Per Capita Electricity Use By State In 2016, in kWh per capita
1 California 6,536
United States 11,634
36 Texas 14,286
51 Wyoming 28,299
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/us_per_capita_electricity.html
Fred – I expect you will be aware of this tragic news?
BRAZIL’S NATIONAL MUSEUM HIT BY HUGE FIRE
“A fire has gutted the National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro, the oldest scientific institution in the country. Most of the 20 million items it contained, including the oldest human remains ever found in the Americas, are believed to have been destroyed.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45392668
Meanwhile Argentina seems to continue bouncing from crisis to crisis which, with all their resources, seems inexplicable.
ARGENTINA IMPOSES AUSTERITY MEASURES IN BID TO STABILIZE PESO
“The currency has lost about half its value this year against the US dollar despite the central bank raising interest rates to 60%.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45392362
I still like Argentina– great fly fishing, good wine, beautiful women, not crowded, big mountains.
Kinda like Montana in the 1950’s, only better wine.
Great example the combination of excessive protectionism and socialism?
Or is it something else? I have not studied the economic history.
It’s been a lot of other things, but socialism it ain’t!
I had composed a reply and though I had posted it but it seems to have disappeared.
In any case, a sad day indeed! I only visited that museum once many years ago when I lived in Rio.
Sometimes I have doubts about concentrating huge collections in one place. A sad day.
NAOM
Very sad—
This tragedy was due to lack of adequate funding by a corrupt government that didn’t value their own national history, science and art.
Having spent past two summers bathed in smoke this is very real to me.
DRIVEN BY CLIMATE CHANGE, FIRE RESHAPES US WEST
“Wildfires in the U.S. have charred more than 10,000 square miles so far this year, an area larger than the state of Maryland, with large fires still burning in every Western state including many that are not fully contained…
“The relationship between climate and fire cuts both ways. A longer fire season and bigger fires in the boreal forests of Alaska and Canada are burning not just trees but also tundra and organic matter in soils, which hold roughly a third of the Earth’s terrestrial carbon,” said David Peterson, a former U.S. Forest Service research scientist.
And, “Temperatures from extreme fires can top 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit—hot enough to kill all plant life, incinerate seeds hidden beneath the surface and bake the soil until it becomes impervious to rain.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-driven-climate-reshapes-west.html#jCp
It is clear today, but it has been a smokey summer in Bend Oregon.
Well shit, they’re just animals, people need to be able to make a buck, right?
DOZENS OF ELEPHANTS KILLED NEAR BOTSWANA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
“Carcases of nearly 90 elephants have been found near a famous wildlife sanctuary in Botswana, conservationists say.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45396394
I hope someone shoots them too, motherfuckers!
What with? They took the guns off the wardens, then the killing of elephants went up. Says it all.
NAOM
people need to be able to make a buck, right?
You know, I’ve been thinking a lot about that. First of all it’s no secret that we are in ecological overshoot and there are way more people on the planet than natural systems can possibly provide resources for. Having said that, as angry as I am at the poachers themselves, the tiny group of super wealthy individuals who control as much wealth, as the 3.5 billion or so, who are barely eking out a living at the subsistence level, bear most of the blame. They also need to be held accountable!
https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/news/a-journey-from-5c-to-2c
A journey from 5°C to 2°C
CLIMATE NEWS – News and opinions about climate science
The models that take us to a world where global warming is limited to 2°C, are much too optimistic, according to Glen Peters at CICERO.
A journey from 5°C to 2°C w/ Glen Peters, CICERO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=529Og_YR0IU
China is surging ahead with solar and wind power installing an incredible 53Gw of solar last year.
https://renewablesnow.com/news/china-adds-record-5306-gw-of-solar-in-2017-602234/
and 20Gw of wind. Combed the 2 renewable sources are enough to power 70 million homes.
The failure of so much solar and wind to reduce China’s coal burning is disappointing.
https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/chinas-rising-coal-use-defies-forecasts-11272017105607.html
China is also ensuring a good supply of gas building a massive 3,000km new gas pipeline.
http://www.ooosgm.com/projects/construction/the_power_of_siberia/
It has also become the second largest importer of LNG.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201802/24/WS5a90fe43a3106e7dcc13dd2a.html
China now consumes 12.7 million barrels of oil per day.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/oil-consumption
The increase consumption of oil is truly staggering, 20 years ago it only used 3 million barrels per day.
China now consumes 12.7 million barrels of oil per day.
To put that into perspective the Current US population is 325 million while China has a population of 1.38 billion!
Yet,in 2016, the United States consumed a total of 7.21 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.69 million barrels per day.
Yes fossil fuel consumption is still growing in China but they have a clear goal of changing that. What is truly note worthy is that China with over four times the population of the US still uses much less oil than the US…
So, how come you are not complaining about oil consumption use in the US?!
i have done several times. As I said before the only opinion you value is your own. That is why you cannot remember what anyone else has said.
You should take this test, you will pass with flying colours
https://www.ft.com/content/98839504-6334-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56
I haven’t posted a single opinion in my comment above, only the facts, sir!
Followed by a simple question as to why you were so concerned about China’s oil consumption while seemingly failing to express any such concern about the US’s consumption, given the enormous differences in the two country’s per capita consumption.
A perfectly reasonable question, given your overall posting history, wouldn’t you say?
Yet your response is one more adhominem attack on my person and my opinion?!
Now I will post a personal opinion: I think China will make ever greater progress by continuing to do everything in its power to get off fossil fuels as soon as it can. It will continue to lead the way by producing PV panels, wind turbines, EVs ( that includes bicycles and electric buses) both on its home turf and for the international market especially targeted at the developing world. Places such as Africa and South America.
An astute move given the current US administration’s hostile stance towards Chinese products and international trade expressed by its recent application of tariffs.
China will continue to make progress in cleaning up its own environment, an example of which, is its massive tree planting projects. I could go on but I’m not here just to list China’s accomplishments as there are also many negatives not the least of which are, its many human rights violations, that can and should be mentioned.
But my point is simply that it is necessary to take a step back and take a look at the big picture. As I see it, presently China is moving forward on many fronts some good some not so good, while the US is moving mostly backwards, hopefully that changes very soon!
Cheers!
Loony tunes Fred
When you attack someone for stating a fact that Germany is building a new coal power station shows how deranged you are.
end of
https://energytransition.org/2016/10/germanys-last-new-coal-plant/
A wave of new coal projects is now over in Germany. It resulted from two actions at the EU level:
the Industrial Emissions Directive of 2010, which requires much cleaner coal plants and this year; and
emissions trading, which swamped utilities with tens of billions in windfall profits.
Around ten years ago, utilities across Europe thus began planning a slew of coal plants and gas turbines to replace old coal. Germany’s made news partly because they were completed just after Fukushima in 2011, and Energiewende critics jumped on the opportunity to claim that Germany aimed to replace nuclear with coal—even though no new coal plant has received a permit since 2009.
.
The failure of so much solar and wind to reduce China’s coal burning is disappointing.
This is the problem: solar and wind HAS reduced China’s coal burning. Just because it hasn’t clearly caused China’s coal consumption to drop doesn’t mean that it hasn’t reduced China’s coal burning, compared to what it would have consumed without the installation of solar and wind.
Your comments have consistently implied that wind and solar have made no difference. That’s highly unrealistic.
Hello to everybody,
I am a reader but now I have to post a comment of something never been referred here before.
The geothermal energy is a possible solution for oil depletion. It can be installed anywhere by just drilling more or less deep. It is the ultimate renewable energy resource. But has been forgotten worldwide because of a Switzerland prototype plant in a mountain that when it was put to start made a minor earthquake. Since then this type of energy was almost abandoned. But the drilling oil wells logically, I think, can cause tectonic disturbance, once and awhile, too. So my point of view is that a minor earthquake isn’t a reason for given up of such a so promising energy source that can be available in every part of the planet, even in Africa, for free.
Hi Pedro,
It would be nice if tapping the energy was so easy, but in fact finding the locations where it is feasible is quite challenging. Read up on the industry. There haven’t been many comments regarding it, as you say.
In Calif we got just under 6% electricity from geothermal in 2017.
We would be getting a lot more if was easy.
I am not aware of any new sites on the planning track.
Check on Iceland, there is a lo going on there. There was one in Hawaii – until that volcano popped. I believe that this is being looked into in Cornwall, UK. Ground heat is being used as a heat source for heat pump driven home heating. As Hickory say, it’s not an easy option.
NAOM
Here is solid report on Geothermal-
https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Geothermal_2016.pdf
Sonoma County has one just north of you (at least I think it is still in Sonoma).
Yep- The Geysers.
They had a problem with it in the past- not enough water available to pump down to take advantage of the heat capacity to generate steam. This water shortage curtailed production. At the same time the county had episodes where the treated sewage would occasional exceed the capacity of infiltration ponds down towards Petaluma way. So they realized they could pump the treated water up to the Geysers and use it for steam generation.
Here is the official version- very interesting solution.
http://geysers.com/water
No sh#t! Well, at least it got sterilised.
NAOM
Chinese solar:
“China has more solar energy capacity than any other country in the world, at a gargantuan 130 gigawatts. If it were all generating electricity at once, it could power the whole of the UK several times over. China is home to many sizeable solar farms – including the huge 850-megawatt Longyangxia Dam facility on the Tibetan Plateau, with its four million panels. And the largest solar plant in the world at the moment is in China’s Tengger Desert – its capacity exceeds 1,500 megawatts.”
And, this is interesting: “One extraordinary venture uses solar panels to melt permafrost, so that trees will grow on the reclaimed land.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180822-why-china-is-transforming-the-worlds-solar-energy
WOW!
One extraordinary venture uses solar panels to heat an underground grid designed to melt permafrost, so that trees will grow on the reclaimed land. It is reportedly an attempt to make the area more appealing to Chinese settlers.
Damn! That stupid idea alone has got to be worth about a few trillion negative points against the Chinese Technocratic government! It is the perfect example of why all engineers need to be kept on a very tight leash and should never be allowed to roam about freely without the strictest supervision of scientists! 😉
It is the perfect example of why all engineers need to be kept on a very tight leash and should never be allowed to roam about freely without the strictest supervision of scientists!
Engineers solve “problems” by moving dirt and making machines.
When this is the problem, they are baffled, deny global warming, and straighten the nearest stream.
Yep! melting permafrost with PV is easy! Understanding why that is a really bad idea is a whole nuther level! you need a decent grasp of microbiology and biochemistry. Maybe if engineering students had to take those courses as a regular part of their curriculum before they were allowed to do things like build dams or melt the permafrost… but if they did then they’d become scientists instead and they would no longer want to build those things 😉
A real concern is the advancing climate zones, moving northward in the northern hemisphere. Expect the surface permafrost to be gone in North America by the end of the century (permafrost line will move to the Arctic Ocean).
To my dear family members from Germany currently vacationing on the shores of lake Balaton in Hungary. I doubt any of you will ever read this post… 😉
https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-gobal-warming-freak-weather-explained/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Europe’s freak weather, explained
By Stefan Rahmstorf | 8/16/18, 1:40 PM CET | Updated 8/17/18, 4:45 PM CET
BERLIN — We’ve all become increasingly used to reports of extreme weather over the past few years. But this summer’s raft of dramatic weather events is significant: Not only does it show what warming can do, it points to the potential large-scale trouble that lurks in the disruption of the planet’s winds and ocean currents.
In the past few months alone, we’ve seen extreme heat in Western Europe, Canada, Alaska, the western United States, Texas, Japan and Algeria, which set a new temperature record for Africa. Greece, Scandinavia, California and Siberia all suffered through drought and wildfires, while Japan, the U.S., Europe and India were hit with devastating floods. The human toll and harvest losses are still being tallied…
…But there is something more interesting going on here too.
2018 was a whopping 4.3 degrees above the average value of the first 30 years in which data was measured.
It’s not just that the weather is doing what it always does, except at a higher temperature level. Rather, there is growing evidence that the dynamics of weather itself are changing.
Good Luck with that!
They just had the worse typhoon in decades in Japan. Why the evidence is being ignored by so many beats me.
The weather has been consistently getting worse for a long time. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had awful cold spells this coming winter due to Arctic warming. And then when energy systems are unable to cope with climate change-caused weather extremes some people will blame renewable energy.
Those that live in cold-winter areas should prepare to cope with blackouts. Better house insulation, alternative heating systems, good insulating clothing and blankets.
Tomorrow’s Day Ahead pricing for wholesale electricity in the Boston area just passed the $200/Mw threshold.
It looks like the gas burners are going all out at the 14,500 Mw level. Providing 67% of total juice.
Pilgrim nuke is limping off into the sunset at 42% capacity for several days now.
At just over 2%, coal and OIL are providing twice the amount of electricity as wind and solar combined.
Those folks are heading for a catastrophe of epic proportions over the coming winters when the natgas is not available for electricity generation.
And yet many are fighting wind farms. Shooting oneself in the foot appears to be a human trait.
So many times over the years I had to bear the tirades of people who were against renewables and often I said to them, “fine, you will be begging for them in the future”. That time is approaching.
Life in the dark and cold will weed out the dumb ones, one can hope at least.
I’ve recently been following an online site based out of Mass that regularly posts articles relating to New England’s energy situation.
It some ways, it is hysterically funny reading about all the objections to … well, just about everything.
The whirley opponents list numerous objections.
The bird fryers have their legions of detractors.
Even the usually-sainted hydropower wrecks native habitats, destroys pristine eco systems. (In a new one to me, some claim the decaying submerged vegetation is a huge source for … wait for it … methane!!
Of course, everyone despises the electric transmission lines as well as the gas pipelines.
Folks who accept the necessity may acquiesce … as long as you stick it some where else, not near me.
One of the more puzzling aspects is the growing clamor to build more localized LNG facilities (although the standard opposition is also very vehement).
Why methane trucked around at – 260 degrees via diesel powered trucks is better than simply piping the same stuff in, remains a mystery to me.
Coal and nuclear are like leprosy.
So … what do, what do??
Autumn winds startin’ ta blow.
Time’s running way short.
Even the usually-sainted hydropower wrecks native habitats, destroys pristine eco systems. (In a new one to me, some claim the decaying submerged vegetation is a huge source for … wait for it … methane!!
It might be a new one to you but it has been a rather well known fact to most biologists and ecologists. Basic microbe biochemistry 101. Of course the engineers who plan these dams are usually clueless about the environmental impacts so they need to be told so by scientists.,,
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hydropower-as-major-methane-emitter-18246
magine nearly 6,000 dairy cows doing what cows do, belching and being flatulent for a full year. That’s how much methane was emitted from one Ohio reservoir in 2012.
Reservoirs and hydropower are often thought of as climate friendly because they don’t burn fossil fuels to produce electricity. But what if reservoirs that store water and produce electricity were among some of the world’s largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions?
Be careful, Fred. You might be shooting down Nicks hydro storage approach.
(If not you, Nick, numerous other people tout the pumped storage tactic to compensate for wind/solar intermittency).
I’m not against all forms of hydro storage. There are places where it works just fine. The problem is with dams that are constructed in areas where very large areas of forests or other vegetation are flooded or left to decay underwater. Pumped hydro in rocky or specially prepared caverns is fine.
This works fine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McByJeX2evM
The Electric Mountain | Fully Charged
This one on the other hand is an example of a complete and unmitigated ecological and social disaster!
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/02/belo-monte-legacy-harm-from-amazon-dam-didnt-end-with-construction/
Belo Monte legacy: harm from Amazon dam didn’t end with construction
Those folks are heading for a catastrophe of epic proportions over the coming winters when the natgas is not available for electricity generation.
Meh! For about a 100 bucks you can get a good sub zero sleeping bag! You don’t need to heat a whole house, just keep the pipes above freezing, you can heat just your shower water and your bathing area. Not the end of the world by a long shot. It can easily be achieved with good insulation and passive solar, If you want luxury, add some wind, PV and battery storage and you be living like the kings of old! Don’t need no stinkin nat gas or any fossil fuels for that matter. The sooner we quit that addiction the better!
Plumbing invariably traverses uninsulated crawl spaces.
My decade-long involvement in the flood restoration field frequently showed the correlation between cold temperatures, high energy costs, folks with more month left over at the end of their money (aka po’ folk), and a complete unawareness of preventative measures. (Slowly, continuously running the water greatly mitigates against freezing).
At the end of the day, if the New Englanders start to experience these issues as chronic, self induced situations, they – like the Aussies – may decide to change direction.
Plumbing invariably traverses uninsulated crawl spaces.
Yeah, I think I may have specifically mentioned ‘Well Insulated’ in my comment.
Mercedes-Benz unveils new EQC electric crossover SUV; series production in 2019
Mercedes-Benz has unveiled the first member of its EQ electric vehicle line-up: the new Mercedes-Benz EQC crossover SUV. The EQC marks the start of a new mobility era at Daimler.
Featuring two asynchronous electric motors at the front and rear axles with a combined output of 300 kW, an 80 kWh Li-ion battery pack and combined power consumption of 22.2 kWh/ 100km, the EQC delivers an electric range of more than 450 km according to the NEDC. Acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h takes 5.1 seconds, and the top speed is 180 km/h (112 mph).
The EQC supports its driver with five driving programs, each with different characteristics: COMFORT, ECO, MAX RANGE, SPORT and an individually adaptable program. In the more economical driving modes, the haptic accelerator pedal that prompts the driver to conserve power plays an important role. The driver is also able to influence the recuperation level using so-called paddles behind the steering wheel.
Depending on the SoC (state of charge), the EQC can be charged with a maximum output of up to 110 kW at an appropriate charging station. In around 40 minutes, the battery can be charged from 10 – 80 percent SoC (provisional data).
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180904-eqc.html
China
The latest disappointing news for 2018, China’s pollution has increased at it’s fastest rate since 2011.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/05/30/china-co2-carbon-climate-emissions-rise-in-2018/
China’s gas consumption rose by 31 Billion cubic meters in 2017 despite installing 80Gw of solar and wind power.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-gas-production/chinas-soaring-natural-gas-output-unable-to-meet-demand-set-loose-in-pollution-fight-idUSKBN1FP006
The average house consumes around 250 cubic meters per year. 31 billion divided by 250 = the consumption of 124 million homes! Despite the massive increase in gas, which the government planned in order to clean up the air. Coal consumption increased by 20- 20 million tonnes.
Hopefully with China’s new Nuclear power stations starting up, Co2 emission might fall a little next year.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanced-nuclear-reactors
China could always build more solar and hope the sun shines at night. ha
For some reason you seem rather obsessed with China’s path towards renewables recently.
Yes, the entire planet is warming due to CO2 emissions and it would probably be a lot worse if not for what China is doing.
China with a population of 1.3 billion is the 1 emitter of CO2 globally.
The US is number 2 with a population of only 3.3 million.
Per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (metric tons)
US 16.1
China 7.7
China does a significant portion of the entire world’s heavy manufacturing.
While the US achieves their much higher per capita emissions despite the fact that it has very little heavy industry to speak of.
Now none of this is good news for the planet’s climate and all nations need to get off fossil fuels the sooner the better. As far as nuclear goes the Chinese do have some interesting new plants in the pipeline and they have designed them to be plug and play with their coal power plants. I posted a link to this once but don’t have it handy at the moment.
Dragging out the old and very tired canard, that the sun doesn’t shine at night to discredit solar, is just truly pathetic at this point!
The conversion from coal to natural gas does relieve local air pollution and water pollution. However, from a global warming perspective they are the same.
A Year After Harvey, Has Houston Learned Anything?
By Mimi Swartz
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/harvey-anniversary-houston-preparing-next-big-storm/
Before Hurricane Harvey, the buzzword that dominated Houston’s leadership circles was “transformative.” As in, the transformative projects made possible in large part by gifts from energy moguls and other vastly wealthy local citizens.
Sure, like so many cities, Houston had its financial problems; an ongoing, increasingly bitter battle with firefighters over city pension funds comes to mind. But prior to the storm, Houston seemed to have turned a corner in its self-conception. It was the same place, only different. Still steeped in Texas culture—still possessed of the outsized optimism that has always fueled progress here—but with a global, more cosmopolitan outlook. Houston, the nation’s fourth-largest city, the undisputed energy capital of the world, had become a place where English was just one of many languages (145, according to some sources) heard about town, where saris and burkas and turbans were as commonplace as cowboy hats and Vuitton bags. If a person was hunting for a sophisticated, tolerant, wholly livable city—notwithstanding the heat, traffic, and humidity—Houston was it. Hence, “transformative.” The magic had happened and would surely happen again and again.
Today, the landscape has changed, both literally and figuratively. The buzzword most commonly tossed around now is “resilience.” The term is, of course, a nod to the heroic spirit on display after the storm. But if “transformative” had a quick, almost magical ring—all it took was a beneficent donor to whip out his or her checkbook and, presto, another temple to Houston’s grand ambition was underway—“resilience” speaks to a longer struggle, a recovery from something difficult and maybe even dire.
And so the notion of resilience is just as crucial now as it was immediately after the storm. On the one hand, Houston could become a model for how to take on two of the thorniest issues plaguing cities around the world: climate change and increasingly unaffordable housing (the two are, it turns out, nearly inseparable).
And if Houston shies away from these challenges? Well, the world moves on without it. “Investment and capital can go anywhere these days,” says Dale Morris, a director of strategic partnership for the Water Institute of the Gulf, referring to everything from medical technology to the energy sector. “If the money doesn’t feel safe—if it isn’t going to be protected from flood risk, along with the workers who work there—it’s going to go elsewhere.”
Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit? (Don’t Blame Cars.)
Jonathan English
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/how-america-killed-transit/568825/
One hundred years ago, the United States had a public transportation system that was the envy of the world. Today, outside a few major urban centers, it is barely on life support. Even in New York City, subway ridership is well below its 1946 peak. Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown.
This has not happened in much of the rest of the world. While a decline in transit use in the face of fierce competition from the private automobile throughout the 20th century was inevitable, near-total collapse was not. At the turn of the 20th century, when transit companies’ only competition were the legs of a person or a horse, they worked reasonably well, even if they faced challenges. Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive. This drove even more riders away, producing a vicious cycle that led to the point where today, few Americans with a viable alternative ride buses or trains.
Now, when the federal government steps in to provide funding, it is limited to big capital projects. (Under the Trump administration, even those funds are in question.) Operations—the actual running of buses and trains frequently enough to appeal to people with an alternative—are perpetually starved for cash. Even transit advocates have internalized the idea that transit cannot be successful outside the highest-density urban centers.
What happened? Over the past hundred years the clearest cause is this: Transit providers in the U.S. have continually cut basic local service in a vain effort to improve their finances. But they only succeeded in driving riders and revenue away. When the transit service that cities provide is not attractive, the demand from passengers that might “justify” its improvement will never materialize.
Here’s how this has played out, era by era. A forthcoming companion article will look at how differently things unfolded in other parts of the world—watch this space for a link.
Cats
Even where trains and bus routes do exist, there are often real issues getting from A to B.
With a car you can get from your door to door and you know approximately how long it will take. A journey with 2 bus changes can take 2 hours where a drive is only 30 minutes.
The other day an 85 year old neighbour tried to take the bus shopping, after waiting half an hour she came back home. Getting to work the number of times the 5.30am bus did not turn up, was not sustainable. So I got a car and no longer had to wait 40 minutes in the pouring rain wondering if the next bus would be cancelled also.
There is major passenger railroad to the east of me that serves a very dense population and a large amount of commuters. The service has so many breakdowns and delays, is so poorly run, that a radio station has made a regular comedy spot about it on their morning news time.
Most of it is bad management and poor management decisions over the long run.
If you look back in the archives mass transit has been discussed quite a bit. Since this is primarily an energy site, mass transit overall is not the most efficient way to move people. In fact a non-plug-in Prius with a single passenger is more efficient at moving people than mass transit. Moving to all electric cars beats mass transit by far. If one is looking for efficiency, the way to go is lightweight electrics such as e-bikes, e-motorcycles and lightweight electric 4 wheeled vehicles. Somewhere I read and e-motorcycle crossed Canada on $10 worth of electricity.
We don’t need mass transit for mass transit’s sake, we need to head for improvements in efficiency and low carbon or no carbon output.
If we want trains, make them electric and power them as much as possible with renewable energy (wind/solar). Buses, same thing. Cars can be made much more efficient and city/dense town areas can have lots of e-bikes, e motorcycles and lightweight e-cars (as taxis).
If we allocate each person 1 kWh per day for transport, just to take care of the new ones dropping onto the planet each day there would have to be over 80 million new PV panels added each year if we went all electric, just to keep up. That is one hundred miles or more for an e-bike.
If you look back in the archives mass transit has been discussed quite a bit. Since this is primarily an energy site, mass transit overall is not the most efficient way to move people. In fact a non-plug-in Prius with a single passenger is more efficient at moving people than mass transit. Moving to all electric cars beats mass transit by far. If one is looking for efficiency, the way to go is lightweight electrics such as e-bikes, e-motorcycles and lightweight electric 4 wheeled vehicles.
I think that might depend to some extent on the size of the city, its layout and also the population density. I base my opinion on the two largest cities where I have lived. Namely NYC and São Paulo. Both have excellent urban mass transport systems and especially in the case of São Paulo mass transit beats any individual private car for getting around. Of course your mileage may vary in other locations… 😉
Other than during peak rush hour taking a foldable e-bike on the subways and trains would probably be the optimal solution in terms of efficiency!
Disclaimer: Admittedly I’m quite biased, as I’m a huge fan of the public mass transit system in São Paulo. It has rarely let me down and I’ve used it quite extensively!
Take a peak!
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/spau/sao-paulo.htm
Cheers!
The private cars do not get around in São Paulo, it is a car park 🙂 Walking is faster, taxis are suicide.
NAOM