A Guest Post by Islandboy
The EIA released the latest edition of their Electric Power Monthly on March 23rd, with data for January 2018. The table above shows the percentage contribution of the main fuel sources to two decimal places for the last two months.
The winter solstice occurred around the 21stf of December so, the absolute contribution from Solar remained much lower in January than in the summer months but, rose slightly from 4536 GWh in December to 4917 GWh, with the corresponding percentage contribution remaining almost the same at 1.32% as opposed to 1.31% in December. Nuclear generated 74649 Gwh, 1.3% more than it did it December but the increase in total generation resulted in the percentage contribution to the total declining to 20% from 21.3% in December. The gap between the contribution from All Renewables and Nuclear started to narrow in January with the 1.3% decreased contribution from Nuclear as opposed to the the 0.74% increase in the contribution from All Renewables resulting in a difference of 3.25%. The amount of electricity generated by Wind increased by about 18%, (4058 GWh) resulting in the percentage contribution increasing from 6.51% to 7.19%. The contribution from Hydro increased 2915 Gwh (13%) in absolute terms with the increase in total generation resulting in the percentage contribution increasing only slightly by 0.3%. The combined contribution from Wind and Solar increased to 8.51% from 7.9% in December and the contribution from Non-Hydro Renewables also increased to 9.94% from 9.5%. The contribution of zero emission and carbon neutral sources, that is, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas and other biomass decreased to 36.75% from 37.32% in December.
In 2016 and 2017 only saw a slight up tick in the use of Petroleum Liquids for electricity generation unlike previous years when the use of Petroleum Liquids jumped by up to 1% in either January or February compared to the typical levels for the rest of the year. The unusually cold weather in January 2018 resulted in significant up tick (1%) in the use of Petroleum Liquids similar to that seen in the years prior to 2016.
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. In January 2018 the output from solar was 4917 Gwh, 3.8 times what it was four years ago in January2014. If the summer output follows recent trends, more than 11,000 GWh should be generated in a single month some time this coming summer.
The graph below shows the monthly capacity additions for 2018. I have changed the format of the chart so as to reduce the amount of changes I have to make to the source table each month. By putting the year to date figures at the bottom of the table, when I fill in the data for each month, the Year to Date figures will be updated without any input from me. In January 1.18 percent of capacity additions were Natural Gas. Solar added 45.97 percent and and Wind contributed 50.72 percent of new capacity for a joint contribution of 96.69 percent. Batteries had a relatively minor capacity addition of 0.62 percent, 1 percent of capacity additions were Geothermal and capacity addition fueled by Petroleum Liquids amounted to 0.51 percent. In January 2018 the total added capacity reported was 1598.3 MW, roughly 150 MW more than January 2017.
The chart below shows the capacity retirements for January 2018 with the same format changes as the chart above for the same reason. 99.93 percent of the retirements were Coal fired plants (4317 MW), 0.02 percent were fueled by Natural Gas (1 MW), 0.01 percent were fueled by Petroleum Liquids (0.5 MW) and 0.03 percent of the capacity retirements came from Landfill Gas (103.8 MW). Note that the left side Y-axis scale had to start at 99/88% for the retirements from sources other than coal to be visible in a meaningful way. If I set the scale to start at zero percent the other sources would not be visible at all.
2018 has not started well for fossil fuel interests in the electricity generating sector, especially for coal with 99.93 percent of retirements for the first month. Other fossil fuel interests have nothing to celebrate with only 1.69 percent of new capacity using fossil fuels.
Please post any non-petroleum comments under the Electric Power Monthly post.
Thanks.
The Lackawanna Energy Center, the Moxie Freedom plant, and the Footprint Power plant are all in the mid stages of commissioning, due to be online within weeks.
The 2 dozen massive power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania will produce over 10 Gw power within the coming 2 to 4 years, providing the PJM region with 6 to 8 cent/kWh electricity for decades to come.
For the folks keeping track of US electricity generation/consumption, the ongoing saga of transmission lines into Massachusetts should be worth monitoring.
Now that the huge Northern Pass was shot down, the backup through Maine via CMP is the only game in town.
Kinda late, in some respects, as best case scenario is several winter seasons with no Pilgrim’s 700 Mw as it is retiring next year. (Actually, Pilgrim has been down this past month with a series of operational issues. No big deal when there is sufficient gas for power generation. The above mentioned Footprint is in Salem Harbor, MA).
The folks who are big boosters of wind sourced electricity may be dismayed at the growing opposition to this endeavor as environmental degradation is being used to obstruct build out.
The desperately needed power proposed via CMP crosses a whitewater rafting area and the Appalachian Trail.
Seems like opponents of the 50 story high towers have ‘large’ targets to demonize.
“The folks who are big boosters of wind sourced electricity may be dismayed at the growing opposition to this endeavor as environmental degradation is being used to obstruct build out.”
Any articles that we can read about this?
Not sure what the problem is with new power lines, just had a huge one put in over the Appalachian trail in Jersey from Pa. Didn’t seem to detract much from the area, in fact the power line cuts are about the only areas one can get a large view of the region, since trees obstruct most of the views.
Just south of Jessup there is a rail head and transfer station for fracking materials.
Does anyone think the Marcellus fields in the region will be supplying several decades of natural gas to the region? I was under the impression they were short lived wells with fast fall off of output.
BTW, I have been to wind tower sites in that region of PA and there did not appear to be much environmental degradation compared to the nearby coal fields and fracking sites. In fact they were surrounded by forests and nothing toxic leaking from them or needing to be fed to them.
Lackawanna Energy Center, Jessup
GF
A comment by Nick a year ago led me to the world of wind build out opposition.
He mentioned that I must be visiting these sites for my info when the reality is that I was completely unaware opposition existed.
It does and it is growing.
The site Stop These Things and some Save The Eagles site regularly feature unflattering info on wind stuff, but – and this should be important – It. Does. NOT. Matter if the presented data is accurate, reliable or verifiable. Most people do not seem to read or understand a lot of the technical data that reports usually present.
The transmission lines – similar to natgas pipelines for gas – are the big chokepoint for wind.
Clear Line being shot down was a big blow in that regard
As far as degradation from wind farms (industrial turbines is the preferred terminology from opponents. Catchy description, no?), check out the Lowell Mountain site in Vermont.
Eastern wind sites will preferentially be placed atop hills/mountains. View shed despoilage – more catchy descriptions – is the new term du jour for demonization.
As for sources, I just type in any topic, add ‘controversy’ or ‘opposition’ to the search and go to the ‘News’ sub category from Google.
Tons of new, wide ranging articles pop up.
Regarding Appalachian Basin supply … Little validation exists for what I am about to say other than my own, multi year long immersion into all things Marcellus/Utica/Upper Devonian …100 year supply, easy.
,
Enno’s site, as well as the recent Department Of Energy report ‘Primer on NGLs – Focus on Appalachian Basin’ should offer ample info on what an incredible resource lies beneath the ground up there.
Schools, local and regional governments, the folks who live there are looking at many decades of vibrant economic activity if the hydrocarbons continue to be recovered and utilized.
It. Does. NOT. Matter if the presented data is accurate, reliable or verifiable.
Well, of course it matters. What I think you mean to say is that objective reality isn’t the ONLY thing that’s important: perception matters, and if opponents of renewable power can demonize it with misinformation then they can delay it’s buildout.
It’s interesting to look at customer-side solar power, which is much harder (though not impossible) for utilities and FF interests to block, and which requires much less transmission (it’s primary use, by it’s owners, of course, needs no transmission at all, and it’s secondary use by neighbors needs much less).
I think you’ve been watching the New England ISO website – you can see the effect quite nicely from the fact that there’s no longer a summer-time mid-day peak. Customer solar has bitten off the peak and left a big divot. Now the peak is in the evening, and rather lower than the old peak.
Yeah, one of the organizations tried to get me to join them to stop the latest high tension line over the Ap trail. Didn’t, they had all the wrong reasons and even with other groups joining did not stop the power line (which was 20 percent more efficient than older ones).
Vermont has been way ahead on renewable energy. They were number two in the nation in 2017.
“Regarding Appalachian Basin supply … Little validation exists for what I am about to say other than my own, multi year long immersion into all things Marcellus/Utica/Upper Devonian …100 year supply, easy.”
“Focus on Appalachian Basin’ should offer ample info on what an incredible resource lies beneath the ground up there.
Schools, local and regional governments, the folks who live there are looking at many decades of vibrant economic activity if the hydrocarbons continue to be recovered and utilized.”
With 100 years of natural gas and 200 years of coal, the first large undersea methane bursts should happen before the natural gas runs out as storms mix the hotter surface water deeper. Also the human population might stay high through the century. The megafauna have been going extinct for a long time and those left are mostly in very restricted numbers and ranges now, most long before industrialization, but the last mammal megafauna will be gone before the coal runs out. Of course humans are megafauna.
Happy burning! Might as well throw in all the tar sands, trees and peat on top of it. Maybe even methane clathrate mining to support those vibrant communities.
Much of the megafauna lasted through the Ice Age, until about the time the latest versions of humans appeared . Coincidence?
No coincidence. Hunt w dogs. Very effective.
Yes, fire, traps and thrown spears too. As one Indonesian taught me, for a bigger animal just dig a bigger pit. Gravity is a bitch when there are pointed stakes at the bottom.
Good point.
Nick
The bifurcation between reality and perceptions of same has widened to the point of ridiculousness.
Absent some reconciliation across wide swaths of the political and ideological spectrum, the US, at least, will continue its path of acute polarization leading to who knows where.
Somewhat to this point is the recent announcement by Exelon to close the 3 units of the Mystic plant in Massachusetts.
Those folks MOST definitely cannot afford another 2,000 megawatts of generation to permanently go bye bye.
This situation contains practically the entire panoply of ‘stuff’ in connection to the current renewable/fossil fuel/LNG/Yamal sourcing/sustainable future/putting food on the table and keeping the lights on kind of ‘learning moment’ that seldom arises.
If Exelon refrains from the next Forward Auction in just a few months’ time, the urgency on regulators, legislators, industry operators will become acute as there is very little time left to ensure adequate heat and electricity during cold snaps up there.
A good source for New England info is
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/regional-electricity-outlook/grid-in-transition-opportunities-and-challenges/natural-gas-infrastructure-constraints
More natural gas is needed, probably different legislation allowing electricity producers to share the risk of long term pipeline contracts with consumers. Possibly a way to do this would be for electricity customers to choose between a fixed price or a “market price”. Those choosing the fixed price would share in the cost of natural gas pipelines. Those choosing the “market price” would be subject to high winter prices when there are shortages. The main issue here is the free rider problem, better to just allow the electricity producers to just pass the pipeline cost to all electricity customers. The Massachusetts Law is not very smart, it may take some winter deaths due to lack of heat for it to change.
They should incinerate trash instead of importing more gas.
Al
They have been doing that for years.
As of this posting, data right from the ISO site, New England is drawing 13,350 Megawatts.
6% is from renewables.
Of this Renewable subset (6% of total)
49% is from Refuse (burning trash)
3% from Landfill Gas (captured methane emanating from decomposition)
And, for the industrial wind turbine advocates, 14% of the renewable source – i.e., less than 1% of the total, is coming from wind.
:eyeroll:
I come here to talk to sane people, not people who think that fossil fuels are magically needed for magical reasons.
Offshore wind development along the west coast may be commencing, with a project announced 20 miles offshore Eureka (far northern CA), This area has monster wind- @ about 10m/s which is as good as any place in the 48.
If this goes well, it is a large area and could be a major center of electrical production to serve the grid from from Vancouver to Tijuana. Strong compliment to the huge NW hydro resource and the growing SW photovoltaic capacity.
Announcement of project- https://www.utilitydive.com/news/local-california-government-agency-strikes-partnership-to-develop-first-flo/520602/
Offshore Wind Map- https://www.boem.gov/uploadedImages/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Renewable_Energy_Guide/Wind-Resource-Data2.jpg
Very interesting to see this detailed breakdown. Readers may be interested in similar recent analyses for India I’ve been working on.
Go here to see contributions of different renewable sources: https://indiapowerreview.com/indian-solar-grid-generation-keeps-on-growing/)
and here for the overall picture icluding coal and gas (last chart): https://indiapowerreview.com/renewable-generation-overtakes-hydro-in-december/
and, finally, here for a recent Indian renewable generation milestone: https://thewire.in/energy/record-set-as-india-produces-100-billionth-unit-of-renewable-energy-in-a-year
I plan to update these about monthly. What happens in India over the next decade or so will be big for everybody.
Carolus- thanks for the update and links. Important to monitor this, obviously.
It looks like renewables have achieved about 10% of the generation from thermal sources (last graph on the page)
Long way to go, but the trend is good.
https://indiapowerreview.com/renewable-generation-overtakes-hydro-in-december/
How long for Pruitt – there’s a joke in UK soccer that a manager will be guaranteed to be sacked within a few weeks of getting a statement of support from the club chairman; it’s getting the same in the White House.
Trump Sticks By EPA Chief As Lawmakers Call For Resignation
Pruitt’s “corruption scandals are an embarrassment to the Administration, and his conduct is grossly disrespectful to American taxpayers. It’s time for him to resign or for @POTUS to dismiss him,” Curbelo, a moderate Republican, said on Twitter.
https://www.epmag.com/trump-sticks-epa-chief-lawmakers-call-resignation-1693641
Pruitt is a clown, but the White House is a circus so he fits right in. 🙂
Pruitt is a ideological idiot, a perfect Trump employee—-
Pruitt is very smart. He’s a very effective hatchet man for FF industries.
He may be the devil, but don’t underestimate him.
“Pruitt is very smart.”
Really?
A psychopath for sure– but a religious Christian (by definition a idiot), and climate denier.
Not the brightest porch light on the block.
Do you think that the Christians are trying to bring about the End Time? A self-fulfilling prophecy.
I really don’t pay that much attention–
“The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.”
Yep—-
The story may be wrong, but after studying astrophysics, cosmology and especially black holes, one can imagine almost anything being possible somewhere/somewhen. It’s a big set of universes in universes in universes….
Actually, Pruitt is an incompetent. He’s a fanatic, but he’s achieved essentially nothing, because he simply doesn’t know how to work the bureaucracy. He’s also managed to accrue illegitimate expense bills already! Which is the quick path to prosecution.
Hmm. That’s encouraging, but I’d be curious to see a discussion of it. What I’ve seen has suggested that there’s simply a great deal of momentum, and that he could do little more regardless of his bureaucratic skills – e.g., the Supreme Court CO2 decision, comment periods, outside agencies he doesn’t control (CARB. FERC. Etc), and so on.
As a patron of the circus arts, I resent that comparison. Circuses are full of talented people who make the public happy. The White House isn’t and doesn’t. 🙂
The White House is but a mere section of a ring of many rings under the big top of planetary proportions.
Text from attached graphic:
…Rinse and repeat… over and over again, as per ‘definition’…
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/8a8dm1/jim_carrey_has_painted_a_portrait_of_scott_pruitt/
Jim Carrey has painted a portrait of Scott Pruitt
ALGAE, IMPURITIES DARKEN GREENLAND ICE SHEET AND INTENSIFY MELTING
“The Dark Zone is a literally dirty belt of the melting area — the ablation zone — of the ice sheet. The darker this ablation zone is, the more of the sun’s energy it absorbs, and the faster the ice melts. Albedo is a measure of the reflectance of the ice sheet. It is the major factor governing how much incoming solar radiation is used to melt the ice and is the main positive feedback in Arctic climate change. Bright white surfaces, like snow or pure ice, reflect the sun’s energy, but dark surfaces absorb it. The fact that a large portion of the western flank of the Greenland ice sheet has become dark means that the melt is up to five times as much as if it was a brilliant snow surface.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180404114735.htm
Yes, about time for melt season to start.
And they said that no one was making more land. How wrong can they be?
All those climate refugees in the future will flock to Greenland with it’s increasing habitable land area and great supply of cold fresh water.
Meanwhile,
ANTARCTICA IS MELTING FROM BELOW AND THAT’S BAD NEWS
“Scientists have long been alarmed by the rate at which ice is melting in the Arctic around the North Pole. According to recent reports, the Arctic may be ice-free by 2040 due to climate change. The Antarctic, the region around the South Pole on the other side of the world, was thus far deemed more stable, as its ice had been shown to melt slower and in a less regular pattern. But a new study examining the current state of the Antarctic ice sheet shows that glaciers there are actually retreating at great speed, thereby contributing to a rise in sea levels. In fact, Antarctica could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise.”
http://www.dw.com/en/antarctica-is-melting-from-below-and-thats-bad-news/a-43239093
Melting from below? Hell’s bells it’s the devil’s work! Very sneaky. 🙂
I recall Alley talking about this probability a while ago, now it appears to be a verifiable situation. Makes sense since Antarctica has been receiving increased insolation for thousands of years, along with the latest stint of global warming. Tipping points are usually visible with hindsight.
Aren’t we lucky though? All this advance in knowledge and data collection makes sure we are not blindsided by the changes happening.
Actually, thinking about it, part of Greenland ice sheet sits on water. The pressure and the geothermal heat flux melt the bottom layer of ice somewhere down below 3000 meters if I remember correctly. The coldest ice is found at somewhere around 1500 meters, after that it warms up as one goes deeper.
I wonder about the amount of soil that will be exposed as the ice melts.
There won’t be any of course where glaciers are in retreat.
But as the ice cap melts around the margins some good soil may be exposed.
Judging from the very little I know about Greenland, that soil is likely to be highly subject to erosion and will last only a few years without the most careful management.
In any case it will be a long time, most of a century, before farming there is of more than local importance…if ever.
Where the glaciers retreated in South Wales there was left large quantities of clay and terminal moraines. Maybe Greenland will be the same?
NAOM
Glaciers are one of the major soil formers. They grind up and move rock and this unconsolidated particulate is the basis for soil formation.
True about forming soil but this applies over geological time frames.
Whatever soil is exposed won’t be exposed by the retreat of flowing ice , but rather simply melting ice that has been moving very little , maybe not at all as a practical matter.
What I have read about the land farmed by the vikings that settled there leads me to believe it was (is) very light and loose in layman’s terms and very fast to erode if plowed at all.
It seems unlikely to me that Greenland will ever amount to much in terms of land based agriculture.
But there might be huge real potential for aquaculture.
OK, then the forests did not follow the receding glaciers in North America and much of the Midwest is a dead zone for farming since the loess washed and blew away.
Even the Danes are saying agriculture potential is increasing in Greenland.
Maybe consider 12C to 24C higher than now. Also the cooling ice cap retreat will not cool the atmosphere due to altitude or reflectivity anymore so we are not even sure what that effect will be on earth temps except it will be higher.
The interior is below sea level over a large portion so it will be a lake or bay.
One nice thing is that Greenland will not experience sea level rise in fact it will grow in size as the ocean rises due to loss of gravity and rising land.
But, we may have underestimated the melt of Greenland Ice sheet since the land is rising quickly as the ice is leaving.
https://www.popsci.com/as-its-ice-sheet-melts-greenland-is-rising-faster-than-expected
How the trees chased the glaciers.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BorealMigration/boreal_migration3.php
GoneFishing,
If you click on Not in Kansas Anymore, at the bottom of the article, you get the preceding article. Partway down the page you’ll see SEM images of pollen grains labeled, L to R, pine, aspen, birch, alder. The second one is willow not aspen; the two are in the same family but different genera, and their pollen grains don’t resemble one another at all. Note, though, alder’s grain: pentagonal. Now that is class. Occasionally you’ll find hexagonal but, hey, the in-crowd will go for pentagonal every time.
This for all you pollen fans out there.
… Now that is class. Occasionally you’ll find hexagonal but, hey, the in-crowd will go for pentagonal every time.
This for all you pollen fans out there.
While you are at it perhaps a review of Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons would be in order…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicotyledon
Largely from the 1990s onwards, molecular phylogenetic research confirmed what had already been suspected, namely that dicotyledons are not a group made up of all the descendants of a common ancestor (i.e. they are not a monophyletic group). Rather, a number of lineages, such as the magnoliids and groups now collectively known as the basal angiosperms, diverged earlier than the monocots did. The traditional dicots are thus a paraphyletic group. The largest clade of the dicotyledons are known as the eudicots. They are distinguished from all other flowering plants by the structure of their pollen. Other dicotyledons and monocotyledons have monosulcate pollen, or forms derived from it, whereas eudicots have tricolpate pollen, or derived forms, the pollen having three or more pores set in furrows called colpi.
‘When a teenager I grew many many many seeds [“hemp”]. One of thousands sprouted as a tricotyledon. I was fascinated, and went on to University where I degreed in Plant Science.’ (from the short version- yrs 16-21)
I suggest taking a look at this back of the envelope math on how much heat energy one needs to melt the Greenland ice. http://pathstoknowledge.science/2012/03/12/how-much-energy-is-required-to-melt-all-the-ice-in-greenland/ As one can see, there’s no reasonable span of time where this poses a danger to humanity, especially considering the immense adaptability and ingenuity the human species has always displayed.
As one can see, there’s no reasonable span of time where this poses a danger to humanity, especially considering the immense adaptability and ingenuity the human species has always displayed.
Riiight!
Humankind has been around for about 2.5 million years. Modern humans, Homo sapiens only about 200,000 years or so. And Human civilizations only about 10,000 years. Judging by the level of ignorance and stupidity displayed by the trolls that show up here and make such moronic comments, it’s really hard to imagine that we will be here for all that much longer…
In case you might want to educate yourself a bit this should keep you busy for a while.
Online Course: A Brief History of Humankind – Yuval Noah Harari
62 videos 299,214 views Last updated on Nov 9, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfc2WtGuVPdmhYaQjd449k-YeY71fiaFp
There will be a few quizzes and a final exam once you have completed the course.
Esteemed FredM,
Recent and ongoing work has pushed us sapients back to about 300 000 years at Jebel Irhud in Morocco. These results have been well received so far, I believe.
The critters look odd: from the front they look like moderns (us) and from the side the brain case is lower than ours and reminds me of the shape of the older hominin crania. The new material from Jebel Irhud doesn’t display our trademark neoteny to the extent we do.
Pollen: Note that the willow grain shows the tricolpate shape but the birch and the alder grains do not, let alone the pine grain. Had the aspen grain been present we’d have seen pretty much a featureless sphere.
Pollen grains are marvelous in their variety–you should see walnut and pecan.
300,000 in Morocco was a surprise—-
The look is a bit strange compared to 200,000 years ago——-
Mixed logic?
Yes, Dudley, we were talking agriculture and forests. I heartily agree that agriculture is highly dangerous to all life.
As far as forests and megafauna, humans are not up to living with most other creatures. We are the danger in all cases.
As far as energy, is 80 watts/m2 insolation enough from the top, plus extra heating as the height decreases (lapse rate) and ocean heat which comes from areas far more vast than the Greenland ice sheet, plus warm air from the now heating Arctic as it loses it’s ice and snow, plus warm air from the south. .
Enough energy for you?
So do the math, but use the right size heat collector system, which is much larger than the size of Greenland.
It comes out to about 74 days of actual solar insolation striking the earth surface in a day. Over two hundred years that is about 0.1 percent of the daily energy making it to the surface.
Greenland is a zombie at this point, the only thing saving it is that it is mostly white and at high altitude. Even that will not save it under these condition. The lower it gets, the faster it goes. The edges are all at low altitude.
Conditions are warming, altitude is dropping, end of story, end of ice.
Hi GF,
I should have made it clear that I was talking about the near future, the next few decades or maybe the next century or two, rather than in terms of geological time.
If you look at any place a glacier has receded in the last hundred years or so, you will NOT see any significant amount of soil, as that term is usually understood.
What you will see is bedrock, and some sand and gravel and boulders. Plus melt water coming down from above of course, depending on the time of year and the weather.
Soil is not formed in any significant quantity from such materials over human time frames.
Sure, there may be some excellent soil in Greenland, soil which was formed and then covered by ice in the distant past, when Greenland may have been warm and green for long periods of time.
The chances are fair to good, because there is some good soil already exposed in some very limited areas, particularly at the spots the Vikings settled.
Maybe when the ice cap melts, large areas with excellent soil will be exposed.
If it melts to that extent, it won’t be anytime soon, in human terms.
So far as I know, nobody has yet drilled down thru the ice cap in more than a very few spots, and I haven’t heard that a nice layer of soil has been found at any of these spots , although as I pointed out earlier, I don’t know much about Greenland. I’m not a working scientist , and have never claimed to be one, especially not one working on climate questions.
There won’t be any soil found in places where glaciers are FLOWING NOW, down to the sea, for one hell of a long time, in human terms.
If there was any appreciable quantity of soil in such spots, deposited in previous times, it’s very likely been scoured off and transported out to sea as the glaciers calve.
Ice sheets most definitely played a defining role, even THE defining role, in creating our mid western soils. The thing is, the ice sheets that covered the mid continent didn’t extend to a sea shore, as they do in the case of Greenland. So the bedrock they pulverized was left to mature into superb soil….. but the process took hundreds and thousands of years.
Maybe there are places in Greenland that will likewise be left with a nice thick layer of primitive mineral proto soil when the ice retreats far enough….
Greenland is certainly big enough, and the geography appears to be favorable in some areas. Some inland areas may already have good soil under all that ice.
Introductory soil science is usually taught in the sophomore year in ag colleges. Ya take the intro course your second year because chemistry and biology are prerequisites.
The intro text books used today aren’t all that different from the ones used back in the sixties when I took that course. The biggest difference is that there’s now a lot more emphasis on micro flora and fauna, compared to back then.
For anybody interested, here’s a superb link that summarizes the basics of soil formation.
https://people.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs161/Lecture17/Chapt2_formation.pdf
AI Will Create “Useless eaters” | Yuval Harari
“We may see the creation of the most unequal society that ever existed” @6:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOasT0GJoZg
AI Will Create “Useless eaters” | Yuval Harari
The Algorithm has decided. ‘No soup for you!’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVm1KcrHM6s
Seinfeld Soup Nazi – “No soup for you!”
Be careful, I have a barbecue starter to fry your circuits.
On a slightly more serious note, here’s a very recent talk featuring Milton Friedman and Yuval Harari from just last month.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7P3rDXrVQ0
Yuval Noah Harari
Published on Mar 27, 2018
Yuval Noah Harari and Thomas L. Friedman discuss the big issues affecting our collective future, in a free-flowing conversation moderated by Rachel Dry. What are the biggest threats that currently face humanity? Where are the opportunities?
Filmed in London (UK) on 19 March 2018, at an event produced by the New York Times and How to: Academy.
I was a bit surprised, since Friedman actually seems to have begun to see some of the writing on the wall.
Thanks, I have watched it, well worth watching.
“On a slightly more serious note, here’s a very recent talk featuring Milton Friedman and Yuval Harari from just last month.” …
I was a bit surprised, since Friedman actually seems to have begun to see some of the writing on the wall.
Surprisingly lively for Milton Friedman. 😉
Surprisingly lively for Milton Friedman. ?
LOL! indeed! And I had only one beer before that slip…
Yesterday’s news about google working with the military using ai to recommend targets for the drones to hit was particularly disturbing. Just imagine alpha go directly in charge of drones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html
If it saves lives, such as properly interpreting images so civilians are not targeted, then fine. AI in the military is inevitable, might be there already since the whole thing is cloaked in secrecy.
Fred —
LIKE HUMAN SOCIETIES, WHALES VALUE CULTURE AND FAMILY TIES
“In a detailed genetic kinship study, an international team is the first to reveal that just like human societies, beluga whales appear to value culture and their ancestral roots and family ties. They have demonstrated that related whales returned to the same locations year after year, and decade after decade. Not only do these whales know where to go and where not to go, they are passing on this information from one generation to the next…
Their incredibly sophisticated series of vocal repertoires and acoustic systems suggest that they are capable of forming very complex relationships and groups. However, the issue of whether these animals and other non-primates are capable of developing culture has been debated for a long time partly because of how culture is defined and since they are very difficult to study in the wild.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180405093217.htm
Pretty cool stuff,
WHY NOISE CAN ENHANCE SENSITIVITY TO WEAK SIGNALS
“Researchers have discovered a new mechanism to explain stochastic resonance, in which sensitivity to weak signals is enhanced by noise. The finding is expected to help electronic devices become smaller and more energy efficient… Noise is generally a nuisance that drowns out small signals. For example, it can prevent you from catching what your partner is saying during a conversation. However, it is known that living organisms find it easier to detect predators in noisy environments since noise enhances the sensitivity of the sensory organs. This phenomenon, called stochastic resonance, is considered to be of great use for engineering devices and addressing noise problems in various other fields. However, there have not been convincing explanations as to why noise enhances sensitivity to weak signals since initial report of the phenomenon in 1981.”
Like all engineers I’m familiar with dithering as applied to analog signals before analog-to-digital conversion and that stochastic resonance can be used to measure transmittance amplitudes below an instrument’s detection limit and that if Gaussian noise is added to a sub-threshold signal it can be brought into a detectable region but had no idea that predators (humans?) in noisy environments employ this to enhances sensitivity of the sensory organs. I guess this shows how little I know about the world and I’d bet dolphins and whales are adept at this. 🙂
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180405093308.htm
Makes sense that raising the desired signal by adding noise would put it into a more sensitive range within the detector (moves it above internal detector noise levels and lowest limits).
Wasted taxpayer dollars? I don’t think so.
DETECTING THE UNDETECTABLE
“Over the past 30 years, physicists have failed in their attempts to uncover the secrets of dark matter. Now, by building an unparalleled state-of-the-art detector in Sanford, South Dakota, researchers are closing in on the answer to one of the most persistent problems in science. If they fail, it may leave more questions than answers.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180406-detecting-the-undetectable
Hornswoggled again? It’s happened many times and I am not talking about the paid purposeful lies from fossil fuel interests. Poor communications, biased or incomplete data sets, lack of explanations, hidden variables and moving baselines for measurement are rife in the scientific community. As Einstein implied, everything is relative.
So how hot is it really? A tougher look at global temperature.
In other words, merely changing the baseline to preindustrial, as agreed to at the Paris Agreement, can show that we’re already above the 1.5°C guardrail that the Paris Agreement had pledged we should not cross.
There’s more! As a recent publication points out, most methods that calculate the global temperature use sea surface temperatures. However, doesn’t it make more sense to calculate the temperature of the air just above the sea surface? Measuring air temperature at the surface is done in the case of temperatures over land, where one doesn’t measure the temperature of the soil or rocks when telling people how warm it is. Since air surface temperatures are slightly higher than sea surface temperatures, the result of looking at air surface temperatures across the globe would be a temperature that is approximately 0.1°C warmer. Furthermore, many areas in the Arctic may not have been adequately reflected in the global temperature, e.g. because insufficient data were available. Since the Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest of the world, inclusion of those areas would add another 0.1°C to the rise. Adding this to the above 1.53°C rise makes that it’s already 1.73°C (or 3.11°F) warmer than preindustrial.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-much-warmer-is-it-now.html
“So you want to play by the rules? Ok, let’s play by all the rules.” Leslie Nielsen
The number of humans necessary to sustain the lifestyles of the elite should continue to shrink, which means more humans are expendable and politics may do little to help them. This robot is pretty impressive. It takes energy to run, but far less than a middle class human over a lifespan.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ampKvvFtQyc
The hacker’s dream, the elite’s nightmare.
Maybe all those movie zombie’s really foretold robots. The walking undead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHz9NAwfgnA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTWoNwWIqUw
They are ‘impressive’ until you realize that they are babysat something awful and that it’s a ‘commercial’ whose separation from reality is far more vast than the difference between a car commercial and the reality of the car.
Insofar as some ‘elites’, so to speak, may find their support structures eroding, they might also find their survival skills limited in relation to those that previously supported those very support structures, or those who, perhaps more interestingly, ‘played lumpenproletariat’ against or in the shadows of them.
Reality has different ideas and outcomes than the radical limitations of theory or wishful fantasy.
One day a squadron of these shows up at the Energy Control Hub, equipped with a 3rd gen sonic weapon, and evicts the humans…
Examples of Embedded Values and The Non-Neutrality of Technology (and Why That Makes It Non-Plural/Undemocratic)
(and part of the reason why sufficiently-complex technology like this, including the electric car and photovoltaic panel industries will likely fail, and spectacularly)
AI Researchers Boycott South Korean University Over Plan To Build ‘Killer Robots’
‘The Business of War’: Google employees protest work for the Pentagon
Artificial intelligence sticks foot in mouth for the first time
39-44 seconds (cued for your convenience)
“The first time I saw a review of one of my permaculture books was three years after I first started writing on it. The review started with, ‘Permaculture Two is a seditious book.’ And I said, ‘At last someone understands what permaculture’s about.’ We have to rethink how we’re going to live on this earth — stop talking about the fact that we’ve got to have agriculture, we’ve got to have exports, because all that is the death of us. Permaculture challenges what we’re doing and thinking — and to that extent it’s sedition.
People question me coming through the American frontier these days. They ask, ‘What’s your occupation?’ I say, ‘I’m just a simple gardener.’ And that is deeply seditious. If you’re a simple person today, and want to live simply, that is awfully seditious. And to advise people to live simply is more seditious still.
You see, the worst thing about permaculture is that it’s extremely successful, but it has no center, and no hierarchy.
Alan Atkisson (interviewer): So that’s worst from whose perspective?
Bill: Anybody that wants to extinguish it. It’s something with a million heads. It’s a way of thinking which is already loose, and you can’t put a way of thinking back in the box.
Alan: Is it an anarchist movement?
Bill: …You won’t get cooperation out of a hierarchical system. You get enforced directions from the top, and nothing I know of can run like that. I think the world would function extremely well with millions of little cooperative groups, all in relation to each other.”
You’re acting like a pretentious idiot. Try learning something about reality. We’ve been pointing you in the right direction for years, but pearls before swine, apparently.
K43: The Thermodynamics of Civilization: The Connections Between Global Economics, Energy, and Constraints on Policy
Re: The Thermodynamics of Civilization: The Connections Between Global Economics, Energy, and Constraints on Policy
Aside from the graphic layout of the PDF you link to, being a criminally prosecutable visual affront on any poor unsuspecting individual, who actually tries to read it, it is chock full of fallacious assumptions and half truths! And that, is being kind.
So Caelan, here’s a little food for thought exercise for you. Any chance you could give us a detailed thermodynamic analysis as to what the implications of the use of smartphone technology has had on eliminating the need for copper landlines all over the world? Feel free to include a detailed account as to how ‘Jevon’s Paradox’, figures into the mix.
https://www.statista.com/chart/2072/landline-phones-in-the-united-states/
PHONE OWNERSHIP IN THE U.S.
Landline Phones Are a Dying Breed
by
Felix Richter,
Jan 8, 2018
As smartphones have become a constant companion for most people in the United States, landline phones are rapidly losing their relevance. In 2004, more than 90 percent of households in the U.S. had an operational landline phone – now it’s (significantly) less than 50 percent. That’s according to data provided by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, which has been tracking phone ownership in the U.S. as a by-product of its biannual National Health Interview Survey since 2004.
If the trend continues at the current pace, and there’s little reason to believe it won’t, landline phones could soon become an endangered species, much like the VCR and other technological relics before it.
Edit:
http://time.com/63718/shocker-in-1980-motorola-had-no-idea-where-the-phone-market-would-be-in-2000/
In 1980 Motorola predicted This with regards cell phone use.
The projections I find fascinating are the ones in the middle column. They’re from Motorola, and they involve the year 2000, which was then two decades in the future.
It’s not entirely clear whether the total figure of 207,399 phones represents cumulative sales or sales in the year 2000 or the number of subscribers. But no matter how you slice the data, it’s wildly off. I don’t have numbers for the 10 markets mentioned, but according to the FCC, when the year 2000 rolled around, there were 109 million wireless phone users in the entire country. That’s 400 times Motorola’s estimate for the markets in its study.
In 1980, the folks at Motorola knew more about wireless phones than anyone else in the world. But they couldn’t see what economies of scale would do to pricing for handsets and service. They weren’t aware that the breakup of AT&T, mandated by the U.S. federal government in 1982, would lead to dramatically increased competition in the communications market. They likely didn’t envision that by 2000, it would be clear that phones and PCs were on their way to merging into one category of device.
Esteemed FredM,
Friends were trapped in Tampa during the approach to landfall of Hurricane Irene which had been sporting Category 5 status. They said the main concern of them and others they were in touch with was how to keep their phones charged. The same difficulty presented itself during the Santa Rosa fires in California.
This news led to my formulating the following:
If where you live is subject to hurricanes, earthquakes, or wildfires you need a landline as a backup.
I live, modestly, in Seismic Hazard Zone 4. It doesn’t go higher than 4. I have always had a landline. They will pull my landline out of my cold, dead…well, well…moving on:
Time for more port.
During long power outages one can use a car battery to charge the phone if need be. Also a small PV panel can charge several. There are also portable power packs and solar charged power packs.
The phone lines are as susceptible to destruction as the power lines. During the aftermath of Sandy, the only thing working was the cell system. The power, landlines and internet were out for weeks. Had no problem keeping my phones charged. Had big problems getting gasoline for the vehicles and generator.
Esteemed Gentlepeople, cellphones do need the cell towers or base stations that need their own electricity; often there is some battery capacity for short breaks (e.g. few hours). Then usually these base stations are connected to wired phone networks so there are actually several vulnerable points in the cellphone network.
With cell networks mobile units may be brought in to provide service. Stations may be interconnected by microwave links. A 100% service might not be established but it should be possible to set up service within walking distance in most areas.
NAOM
Esteemed S, if all hell breaks loose we won’t need cellphones. Up until that point they have worked well during all outages around here including direct hit by Sandy. There are always ham radio operators too.
In Sandy’s wake, here’s why millions of Americans have cell service but no power
https://qz.com/21909/hurricane-sandy-and-cell-phone-network-service/
Of course in the future, the cars will all be transmitters/rcvrs and form their own mobile communications networks that we can tap during emergencies.
We haven’t crashed yet. 🙂
Esteemed Synapsid, 😉
If where you live is subject to hurricanes, earthquakes, or wildfires you need a landline as a backup.
Nope! I built my first home made solar generator from a cheap 50W Chinese solar panel, a 10 Amp Morningstar charge controller, a deep cycle marine 12 V, lead acid battery, with 200W DC to AC inverter for charging my cellphone and a couple of other things way back when Hurricane Wilma hit.
Why would you want to depend on something as prone to failure as an electric grid and a landline phone?! Most landline phones won’t work without power from the phone company sent through the phone lines. If the lines are down no power and no phone or internet services…
Not sure if more Port is advisable for certain synapsids.
Esteemed FredM,
How many of our fellow citizens would, or even could, do what you describe? What you’re describing is certainly a good approach but I’m talking to the rest of us.
Those canny phone companies have battery packs stashed all over their systems; they have finite lifetimes, sure, but they help a great deal. As an example, those folks in Tampa I referred to had landline availability well after the cell systems went silent.
Sure, if the lines go down the system stops working, but the lines don’t always go down and in some areas they’re buried (which leaves them vulnerable to other problems) and there are crews aiming to bring them back to order. “As a backup” means adding a layer of resilience in the face of disaster that doesn’t have minutely predictable results.
While my experience may be an exception, FWIW, I have never experienced a landline phone failure at the same time as an electrical grid power failure. The landline phone was always working.
In any case, if you want true resilience in the event of climate change and other natural effects, I’d go for other more local, basic and natural life-supporting things besides what the crony-capitalist plutarchy ‘grid’ can provide, in large part because it’s far less resilient. When the electricity goes out for a long enough time, priorities can tend to quickly shift to water, food and shelter.
See also here and for maybe a little irony to boot.
Is the possible extra backup from landlines for short periods of time worth $20,000 to $30,000 to you over your lifetime?
All I know is that calling someone or even emergency services during bad weather and disasters does not necessarily get help in a short time frame. They too can’t move or are already stretched out with other responses. Best to be responder or first aid trained and know who else in the neighborhood is also trained.
http://www.businessinsider.com/landline-phone-ownership-coming-to-an-end-in-united-states-chart-2017-5
I know in Santa Rosa the cell volume was so heavy, it was down for quite a while.
I was finally able to get through after several days.
(I moved to Oregon a few months before- actually I was in Mexico)–plus towers were history fast— it depends on your environment.
Land lines were a non issue except in non disrupted parts of the city.
Like what?
Also, what about you? What are your qualifications pertaining to your comment?
About the author:
“Aside from the graphic layout of the PDF you link to, being a criminally prosecutable visual affront on any poor unsuspecting individual…” ~ Fred Magyar
It’s perfectly clear, simple and legible and looks like one of those presentations.
The rest of your comment also seems to need more thought and/or elaboration from you, and seems more designed, along with its intro, to make you look like you know more than you do (or the author does) about what you’re writing.
BTW, did you ever figure out which ‘driver’ you were referring to?
BTW, did you ever figure out which ‘driver’ you were referring to?
Go back and re-read it. I was quite clear! Your reading comprehension skills apparently need a bit of upgrading.
It’s perfectly clear, simple and legible and looks like one of those presentations.
Surely you jest. I owned a computer graphics studio in New York, I can assure you that people are lined up against the wall and routinely shot for far less offensive and egregious use of colors, graphics and choice of fonts than that horrendous assault on one’s senses. Ugh!…. Go ask any art director!
“Rick Nolthenius has been head of the Astronomy Department at Cabrillo College in Aptos, CA for the past 30 years. He earned his PhD in Astronomy and Astrophysics after doctoral work at Stanford University and UCLA.
So what?! Doesn’t mean his assumptions about future scenarios aren’t based on myopic assumptions. Go back and reread my point about the so called experts at Motorola making predictions back in 1980 about the potential market for cell phones in 2000. I can’t wait for your analysis on the thermodynamic implications of the elimination of copper wire based land lines on 21st
century civilization.
As far as my personal qualifications, since I’m not applying for a job or writing peer reviewed papers here, who cares, maybe I’m just another high school dropout and a life long beach bum! Hang ten, bro!
Actually that’s your job to back up your implicit/explicit assertions, since you are making them, including this one below…
See also here.
“…maybe I’m just another high school dropout…” ~ Fred Magyar
If so, that might explain things.
BRAZIL’S OIL SALE PLANS PROMPT FEARS OF GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTION RACE
“Extraction is already under way, but the administration of Michel Temer, who seized power in an impeachment plot against former president Dilma Rousseff last year, is keen to accelerate the process. It has proposed a bill – known as MP 795 – that would slash taxes up until 2040 for firms that win auctions to develop the oil fields. The subsidy would give the government one of the lowest revenue shares in the world of each barrel extracted, effectively undercutting competition.”
Meanwhile, Brazil’s carbon emissions surged 8.9% last year – the biggest rise since 2008 – largely as a result of increased deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/brazils-oil-sale-plans-undermine-its-role-at-bonn
The only good news there, is that Michele Temer is already 77 yrs old. He won’t be in power for much longer. The odds are against it for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he has been the subject of multiple probes into allegations of corruption involving him and his administration. His approval ratings are lower than Trump’s. Though there has been talk of another military coup like the one in 64, I suspect that the vast majority of the Brazilian people will not peacefully abide by such a turn of events. I view this MP 795 bill as somewhat akin to Trump and Pruitt pushing a rebirth of the coal industry. It’s short term thinking and will ultimately fail in a spectacular fashion.
“After failing chemistry and physics classes in his first year of high school, he gave up the “curso científico”, which prioritized hard sciences and math. In 1957, he moved to São Paulo to finish high school in the “curso clássico”, composed mainly of subjects in the humanities and languages.”
yep–
after a General tweeted a not-so-vague coup threat – the supreme court voted to deny Lula’s petition – effectively preventing him from running for president. no need for a coup when the military can just openly threaten the judiciary and is backed by an executive branch filled with criminals (temer was literally caught on tape talking about bribes, etc, and is still in office; rousseff was impeached over what amount to a checking account overdraft).
I would say the ongoing coup in brasil is one of the biggest untold stories of the past 4 years.
So what will we do with all that carbon once it’s in the atmosphere and oceans? What is the plan?
Maybe we just like a roller coaster ride, one with lots of up before the down.
Remember, this is a phase shift environment with lots of stored carbon forms. Sensitivity to inputs change with temperature. Hang on we are going up!
BTW, I have noticed locally that groups of people are allowed to be more destructive than individuals. The more voices pushing in one direction, the faster we go that way.
Maybe we just like a roller coaster ride, one with lots of up before the down.
Remember, this is a phase shift environment with lots of stored carbon forms.
You mean like those darn pesky CH4 molecules?!
Faster than expected:
https://soundcloud.com/fasterthanexpected/fte24-arctic-sam-carana-about-arctic-and-global-temperature-1-feb-2018
I mean water/ice/snow phase transitions, dissolved CO2 transitions, biological transistions with temperature, methane clathrate transistions, and cloud transistions. Of course all of those feedback into the system. The fact that we can see and measure the changes means it is moving at very high speed compared to most global changes. But then again, maybe not. Possibly some of the climate transistions and sensitivity shifts have been there all along, somewhat blurred by the rock records over eons of time to appear as if they took longer or were less chaotic.
Take a look at the top of Greenland, comparing winter to summer. In winter it’s frozen solid, in summer a lot of it is covered with rivers of melt, tens of thousands of melt ponds, crevasses with waterfalls, darkened snow. Albedo changes dramatically with seasons, with the low albedo (ponds and dark areas down as low as 0.1) during the peak sunlight periods.
Soon we will have good information on the ocean CO2 response with temperature, global studies now in progress.
Biological transistion and chemical transitions going on in the permafrost regions are dramatic. Looks like the tundra has gotten a case of exploding pimples.
Mud volcano
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOASYqAPOe8
Arctic pingo eruptions and methanogenisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFgCP4etoh8&t=390s
I don’t agree with the speed of potential change broadcast by the Sam Carena group, but although they might have the rates wrong, the points about system changes seem dead on. But as I have come to the conclusion lately that any forecast past five to ten years is meaningless, I can’t really say.
We have to extract the CO2 from the ocean and air. There are scientists figuring out ways to do it. We will mobilize the people to do it eventually, probably after the right-wingers are executed.
From The Energy Transition Podcast.
“What do the frackers and Tesla have in common?
They have both succeeded in disrupting their industries by adopting new technologies, applying financial innovation, appealing to changing consumer preferences, and taking advantage of (or disrupting) their regulatory environments. ”
https://xenetwork.org/ets/
And both appear to be financially challenged at the moment—
But maybe financial well being is a liability?
(I listen to the The Energy Transition Podcast– but was somewhat suspect at this cast)
I like looking at boundaries and sometimes pushing them in my own life. However, what if overnight people just got sick of paying high heating bills and car bills as well as electric? What if they got sick of just buying too much stuff and got sensible about their buying and needs plus avoided debt?
I could see some people switching to EV’s or hybrids while putting up PV, super-insulating the whole house and dumping their traditional heating system. That might be the exception though for those with lots of extra money and stand-alone houses.
For most it might mean sealing leaks, covering windows with plastic in the winter, adding some insulation in the attic and venting better to reduce heat and air conditioning bills. Consolidating trips with the car and even ride sharing. Not buying so much unneeded stuff too would be an option. When new car time comes, getting that smaller more efficient one would be a go toward saving money (about $20,000 to $40,000 for the life of the vehicle). Keep putting those LED light bulbs in, reduce shower length, wrap the hot water heater, and other small cost saving methods. Eating out less and cooking/eating more at home too.
So if most everyone took up these simple traits, what do you think would happen?
In my youth I once spent a winter living in an uninsulated attic in a house in New Haven Connecticut. I did have a really good sleeping bag… I also cheated by having access to a heated bathroom for showering but I don’t think I have ever slept better than in that sub freezing attic.
I remember my attic bedroom where at certain times the ice formed on the inside of the windows. A bit hot in the summer, but back then air conditioning was not common at all so we just got used to it. Those were the days, youth and numbness to the elements.
So, the thing is…
…what’s actually happening IMO is that entire communities are switching to LEDs, switching to EVs, putting up PV, superinsulating the whole house (or apartment building!). It starts with those who are rich, and it moves on to those who are *in rich communities*. There’s a social effect where when enough rich people in your community are doing it, the middle class start to do it too, and then when there’s enough demand, economies of scale mean that it becomes cheaper, and obviously the people who go into the business of installing the solar panels and selling the EVs feel that they have to “eat their own dogfood” so they install them, and you continue in a virtuous circle.
Meanwhile in communities which never get started, they do nothing. It’s going to cause a massive divergence between some cities and others.
Greenland burning? Just doesn’t sound right does it? It happened last summer.
Greenland, home to the world’s largest permanent ice sheet outside Antarctica, is being swept by wildfires. Scientists say global warming and increased plant cover are likely factors.
http://www.dw.com/en/greenland-land-of-ice-on-fire/a-40136045
It seems nowhere wants to be left out of the carbon flux.
It seems nowhere wants to be left out of the carbon flux
Makes sense to me 😉
Some of the earliest known fluxes were carbonate of soda, potash, charcoal, coke, borax, lime, lead …
Source Wikipedia
After an influx of broken fluxometers flummoxed the conflux of refluxes, Fred fluxulated flamboyantly upon flux.
All this lead to a coke with lime soda and some potashios.
No no, then you get acid reflux.
You gotta put the lime in the coke, oh, nut and mix them all up, then you feel better 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LxC3M-Yngs
Put The Lime In The Coconut
Really great news for US politics. It was especially refreshing to read that women aren’t allowed to teach in their biblical study group — else they might be lead astray.
INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE BIBLE STUDY GROUP
“For the first time in at least 100 years, the US Cabinet has a bible study group. What do they learn? What does Donald Trump make of it? And why aren’t women allowed to teach? The location can’t be revealed – the Secret Service won’t allow it – but the members can. Vice-President Mike Pence. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The list goes on.”
Drollinger never tells his members how to vote, or which policies to pursue. But he hopes it becomes obvious by teaching them the Bible. “I will put the blueprint on the engineer’s seat on the train,” he says. “And it will show you the right tracks to the station. But I’m not going to tell you what tracks to take. But you’ve got to be pretty stupid not to follow the blueprint, because it’s there.”
Do his students ever disappoint him? “Oh yeah, I get disappointed a lot when I see immaturity,” he says. “I was just talking to one member… his wife hates him. He’s been overspending his capital in his marriage by working 14 hours a day on politics. “That’s disappointed me, because if he is divorced, then what kind of credibility does he really have long-term in the House [of Representatives] to make moral judgments?”
And what about their policies? “When a person obviously knows the Biblical thing to do and votes against what he or she knows what’s Biblical.”
One Democrat, struggling with her party’s support for same-sex marriage, contacted Drollinger for advice. He explained the Bible’s teaching, as he saw it. “The next bible study, she said ‘that was really good’. Now she can’t necessarily stand publicly on what I just taught her, but it’s going on in her heart.”
He says he won’t tell her how to vote on the issue – voicing opposition to marriage might cost her an election.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43534724
Separation of church and state? What happened to that?
My guess is, that the current MOTUS has never bothered to read the US Constitution, nor the History of the United States and even if he had, he doesn’t care about this country, its people or it’s institutions!
Incorporated into the first amendment to the US Constitution.
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.“
Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1st, 1802
“Men do stupid things regularly and mad things occasionally. And sometimes, the impulse to self-destruction is so overwhelming it overtakes an entire nation. …The best a person can hope for when he goes mad is that he runs into a brick wall quickly …before he has a chance to build up speed. That is why success, in war and investing, is often a greater menace than failure. …
“People seem to make such obvious and moronic errors that it seems as if they were driven to it by some instinct of self-destruction — like lemmings periodically exterminating themselves in a march off the cliffs. What’s more, this diabolical instinct seems to report for duty at the very moment when the future seems the brightest — that is, when it is most needed! Just when men are most proud, most confident, most expansive in their ambitions and hopes …that is when they make the most lunkheaded judgments.”
((partial agreement- we have not been making “good” investments for quite a while)
Separation of Church and State was the hard lesson learned from the English Civil War. I bet 99% of present day Americans have never even heard of that conflict.
NEW TECHNIQUE MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS PONDS ON ARCTIC SEA ICE
“Sea ice cover has been shrinking, and significantly faster than our models predict,” said Predrag Popović, a UChicago graduate student and first author of the paper. So we’re looking for where the discrepancy might be. One possibility is melt ponds. As the sun shines and the ice melts, ponds of water form atop the ice. These ponds absorb extra sunlight, because they’re darker than ice, which in turn causes the rest of the ice to melt faster. Their size and shape also influence how ice breaks up, and how much light gets to organisms living below the ice….
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-technique-accurately-ponds-arctic-sea.html#jCp
What does the bible say about that? Follow the ‘blue ice’ prints that were left lying around…
Then again, you’ve got to be pretty stupid not to follow the ‘blue ice prints’, because they’re there.
Just thought I should add some “hopeful” news on the carbon reduction front, From insideevs.com
March Plug-In Electric Vehicle Sales Continue To Soar
We can’t say we’re surprised that plug-in electric vehicle sales were up again this March, but the height at which they rose is incredible for the segment.
For the month, an estimated grand total of 26,373 plug-ins were sold. This sets an all-time record for U.S. plug-in sales. The previous two records were set in December 2016 and December 2017, with 26,107 and 24,785, respectively. The fact that this record was set this year in March is huge news. We can’t wait to see what this December brings!
Record-Setting 9,000-Plus Plug-In Electric Cars Sold In UK In March
The British car market declined by 15.7% in March and even plug-in car sales growth slowed down several percent – but still it’s growth.
9,293 new plug-in car registrations last month happened to be the best monthly result ever (up 8.8% year-over-year) at 1.96% market share.
However, all-electric models failed to expand, and all the growth comes from plug-in hybrids.
2,904 BEVs (down 7.5 percent year-over-year)
6,389 PHEVs (up 18.2 percent year-over-year)
Sadly, we don’t yet know how well the new Nissan LEAF sold in UK.
Like in many other countries, diesel registrations in the UK declined in March by 37.2%.
“Just thought I should add some “hopeful” news on the carbon reduction front, From insideevs.com” Yup, and —
US TRUCK SALES JUMPED NEARLY 16% IN MARCH
“In March 2018, US small car sales continued to fall significantly by 9.2% YoY (year-over-year) to 0.56 million vehicle units. In contrast, sales of utility vehicles and trucks were at 1.1 million units—an impressive rise of 16.3% YoY.”
https://marketrealist.com/2018/04/us-truck-sales-jumped-nearly-16-in-march-2018
And, according to the International Air Transport Association [IATA], on average, 8 million people fly every day. Over 3 billion people take to the skies each year, so it’s safe to say that commercial flights are something that will affect everyone’s life at some point.
Odd that you bring up aviation! Just saw this earlier today:
Top 10 Electric Airplanes that Are Already Here and Fly on Batteries (Youtube)
In th first thirty seconds, the narrator speaks of electric aviation cutting flight costs in half. Number 4 at 3min. 48 sec. in, is interesting since they compare it with existing aircraft with similar purchase price.
Meanwhile, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects 7.2 billion passengers to travel in 2035, a near doubling of the 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016. The prediction is based on a 3.7% annual Compound Average Growth Rate (CAGR) noted in the release of the latest update to the association’s 20-Year Air Passenger Forecast.
Meanwhile, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects 7.2 billion passengers to travel in 2035, a near doubling of the 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016.
Yeah but I heard somewhere that industrial civilization is supposed to collapse about ten years before that date due to run away global warming…
http://peakoilbarrel.com/eias-electric-power-monthly-march-2018-edition-with-data-for-january-2018/#comment-635636
In any case, the next couple of years should be interesting to say the least.
In any case, the next couple of years should be interesting to say the least.
But how many years (decades?) by now have you been saying that?
But how many years (decades?) by now have you been saying that?
For as long as I can remember!
.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
May you live in interesting times is not Chinese at all. It comes from Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac”.
Apparently the overall fuel economy rise has stagnated since 2014.
Sales-weighted fuel-economy rating (window sticker) of purchased new vehicles
for October 2007 through December 2017
http://umich.edu/~umtriswt/EDI_sales-weighted-mpg.html
Oh well, paradise lost, it got paved over and run over a while ago.
Yeah, well I say Tesla should hurry the fuck up and get their F-150 competitor out the door!
(I will probably be offline for most of the rest of today. Got some important work to do and when that’s done it’s carnival day in Kingston, Jamaica)
So, I’d guess Dr. Trimble would not be allowed to teach in the White House Bible Study Group — being a mere woman and all?
THE WOMAN WHO KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE
“She enrolled as an astronomy student, living at home while attending the university’s gifted program. Which she was—gifted. In a 1962 LIFE package about California’s educational system, a journalist profiled Trimble for a piece called “Behind a Lovely Face, a 180 I.Q.” The title acted surprised that a pretty lady might also have a productive brain—but Trimble quickly made it clear that people should cease to be surprised at her smarts.”
https://www.wired.com/story/the-woman-who-knows-everything-about-the-universe/
Fred, I expect you will find this interesting?
NEW BRAIN MAPS WITH UNMATCHED DETAIL MAY CHANGE NEUROSCIENCE
https://www.wired.com/story/new-brain-maps-with-unmatched-detail-may-change-neuroscience/
Mind duly blown. Tks!
LOL! Especially loved the video. The 5 year old’s face, when he grasps how many cells there are in the human brain is just priceless!
Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty
The Connectome is a comprehensive diagram of all the neural connections existing in the brain. WIRED has challenged neuroscientist Bobby Kasthuri to explain this scientific concept to 5 different people; a 5 year-old, a 13 year-old, a college student, a neuroscience grad student and a connectome entrepreneur.
Made me think back to:
http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-26-conversation-with-einsteins.html
Chapter 26: A Conversation with Einstein’s Brain
THE MIND’S I
BY DOUGLAS R. HOFSTADTER AND DANIEL C. DENNETT
TORTOISE: Well put-admirably put! Now that we have gone over our relative points of view, I will have to confess to being familiar with your way of listening to playing records, rather than looking at them odd though it does seem to me. The comparison between the two types of experience was what inspired me to exploit this example as an analogy to what I wish to present to you now, Achilles.
ACHILLES: More of your usual trickery, I see. Well, go on with it I’m all eyes.
TORTOISE: All right. Let’s suppose that I came to you one morning with a very big book. You’d say, “Hullo, Mr. Tortoise-what’s in that big book you’re carrying with you?” (if I’m not mistaken); and I’d reply “It’s a schematic description of Albert Einstein’s brain, down to the cellular level, made by some painstaking and slightly crazy neurologist after Einstein died. You know he bequeathed his brain to science, don’t you?” And you’d say, “What in the world are you talking about, `a schematic description of Albert Einstein’s brain, down to the cellular level’?” would you not?
ACHILLES: I certainly would! The notion sounds preposterous. I suppose you’d go on roughly as follows: “Probably you’re aware, Achilles, that a brain-any brain-is composed of neurons, or nerve cells, linked together by fibers called `axons’ to form a highly interconnected network.” I’d say interestedly, “Go on.” So you would…
Now I’m thinking mapping dolphin and whale brains and perhaps simulating cetacean consciousness in super fast quantum computers. Maybe a dolphin like AI would be better suited to driving autonomous vehicles using sonar. It might be useful when navigating in fog and zero visibility environments!
Cheers!
Dennett is always interesting—–
But both sides are not happy with him—-
Got some real time talking with him at Stanford—
In his book “Consciousness Explained” he concludes that consciousness is just an illusion — we aren’t really conscious at all, we just think we are. So there’s nothing to explain. LOL He calls his theory a “hall of mirrors”.
“Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” is a very good book about evolution.
Smartphones Are Killing The Planet Faster Than Anyone Expected
Yep! We are all fucked!
In the 80s it was common knowledge in development aid circles that Africa would never get telephones, because there simply isn’t enough copper. Now there are 800m mobile connections.
One of the other problems.
Cable theft – the cancer eating at the heart of the fixed network
http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/07/03/why-wired-telephony-in-africa-is-such-a-basket-case/
Fred, it’s the studies that are fucked. Much like percentages often lie, one sided studies are always false.
LOL! I know, but try explaining that to Caelan. He’ll usually up the ante with an even greater gish gallop torrent of BS. I just wasn’t in the mood for it…
Gish Gallop in 72 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12nYRa8PTzo
“It’s like Whack-a-Mole,sooner or later the same idiocy will pop up again.”
If you want an extra heavy dose of Caelan aka Killian Gish Gallop check out his posts over at realclimate.org
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/unforced-variations-apr-2018/#comments
Case in point:
@58 Caelan aka Killian says:
5 Apr 2018 at 6:49 PM
#53 Ray Ladbury said The problem is that the RF from cell phones doesn’t penetrate sufficiently to deposit any energy inside the human body. There is no plausible mechanism by which cell phones cause damage to humans. Period.
Did you read the story? Or just an ongoing bias? This is not like climate which really is settled. But, you are welcome to your opinion. I am somewhat agnostic, but I cannot imagine we can surround ourselves with various sorts of energies and have them not affect us.
Time will tell, but when companies pay off scientists and attack science that is not produced by them, it is never a positive sign. Occam’s.
LOL! I wonder if Caelan aka Killian has ever heard about cosmic and gamma rays, if he is so concerned about being surrounded by various sorts of energies…
The Oh-My-God particle, the highest-energy fermionic cosmic ray detected to date, had an energy of about 3×10^20 eV, while the highest-energy gamma rays to be observed, very-high-energy gamma rays, are photons with energies of up to 10^14 eV. Hence, the highest-energy detected fermionic cosmic ray was around 3×10^6 times as energetic as the highest-energy detected cosmic photons.
Source Wikipedia
I think the universe is hell bent on trying to kill us all!
Oh, and for the record:
Ray Ladbury actually knows a thing or two about radiation physics…
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2083698991_Ray_Ladbury
“I think the universe is hell bent on trying to kill us all!”
That is our assignment.
BTW Do you get many cormorants down your way?
BTW Do you get many cormorants down your way?
Sure do, why? You can find them as well as Anhingas out in the Everglades. Anhingas are much more common, you can find them in just about any pond with a fish population.
Speaking of which I was down at Lincoln Rd South beach the other day watching some fish in an artificial pond and saw a little blue Heron scooping up the freely provide ornamental goldfish.
Found bunches of them lately, on the migration north to their breeding grounds. I think some of them breed around here too, since I see a few all summer at a larger river about a dozen miles away.
Have little green Heron’s in the region. Also have some night herons, used to go out around dusk along canals and rivers to see them.
Spotted a sharp shinned hawk today, been getting very rare around here for years. Haven’t seen a kestrel (sparrow hawk) around my neighborhood in a decade.
Left the neighborhood to see all those, but have had an osprey working the lake near me last few days, now that the mergansers and eagles are gone.
GoneFishing,
We have cormorants here in the central Puget Sound region and they seem to have been here all winter long. We also have two mergansers at the boat launch near my home, and a few coots left from the rafts of them that showed up to winter over. Previously the mergansers were winter visitors too but this winter at least one stayed.
Great blue herons nest here, on both sides of Seattle’s ship canal. We also have kingfishers, which I think of as bullet birds, near the canal.
I’m not a birder (“twitcher” in England) but I do like to watch the water birds that join us in the winter.
We also have kingfishers, which I think of as bullet birds, near the canal.
Yep! You hit it right on the nose, er, beak… 😉
https://asknature.org/idea/shinkansen-train/#.Wsv73IjwaM8
Eiji Nakatsu, an engineer with JR West and a birdwatcher, used his knowledge of the splashless water entry of kingfishers and silent flight of owls to decrease the sound generated by the trains. Kingfishers move quickly from air, a low-resistance (low drag) medium, to water, a high-resistance (high drag) medium. The kingfisher’s beak provides an almost ideal shape for such an impact. The beak is streamlined, steadily increasing in diameter from its tip to its head. This reduces the impact as the kingfisher essentially wedges its way into the water, allowing the water to flow past the beak rather than being pushed in front of it. Because the train faced the same challenge, moving from low drag open air to high drag air in the tunnel, Nakatsu designed the forefront of the Shinkansen train based on the beak of the kingfisher.
I recall finding my first great blue heron rookery while kayaking a creek. I was always astounded at seeing those big winged, long legged birds land in trees and not crash. To see a few dozen in trees was a sight to behold.
Fred Magyar AKA Killian?
While Killian’s real name over at some site I don’t read or comment on might be Caelan, and he isn’t me, maybe his real name is, instead, Fred Magyar so that Fred Magyar, AKA Killian, can then post his comments here too.
But then, that seems too sophisticated for Fred, if perhaps not too far removed from his ostensible level of maturity, intelligence or sense of ethics.
Awesome! ^u^
While Killian’s real name over at some site I don’t read or comment on might be Caelan, and he isn’t me, maybe his real name is, instead, Fred Magyar so that Fred Magyar, AKA Killian, can then post his comments here too.
LOL! Well then you should check him out. coincidentally he is always talking about permaculture over at realclimate… and how it will save the world!
Funny also that while you are railing against technology and pseudosmartphones here he is telling a radiation physicist about how bad cellphones are, over there, and how biased he is.
Sounds like you and Killian would really like each other.
I think it is proof of the multiverse theory…
What do you mean by that and where is your support for it?
Also, from the article I posted, another independent study is mentioned:
How to Get Emergency Power From a Phone Line
Caelan, there is a reason why Jeff Bezos is a billionaire and your not. Copper hard lines are so 20th century.
Solar Chargers 15000mAh, Soluser Portable Dual USB Solar Battery Fast Charger External Battery Pack, Solar Phone Charger Power Bank with 6LED Flashlight for Smartphones Tablet Camera
4.1 out of 5 stars
157 customer reviews | 27 answered questions
Price: $15.99 & FREE Shipping on orders over $25. Details
https://www.amazon.com/Chargers-15000mAh-Soluser-Flashlight-Smartphones/dp/B07124QYCX/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1523252099&sr=8-26&keywords=solar+phone+charger
And by the way, you should have replaced the base. When you installed the Pergo.
This is what you get when you do the job right-
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8316-Milano-Dr_Huntington-Beach_CA_92646_M28504-07425#photo0
HuntingtonBeach, thanks but my comment above was more or less for fun. I care little about landline phones, cellphones, billionaires or being one.
By the way, did you and OFM (or whatever moniker) manage to dig yourselves out of your, to paraphrase Nick G, ‘weird black hole’, if you agree that you were in one?
Pallet On Rails ^u^
About soil in Greenland,
There was and apparently still is plenty of soil in Antarctica, way the hell on back there in geological time.
Maybe Greenland has soil too, and not just a little in just a few spots. If so, somebody will probably be farming there when the ice finally melts.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/04/why-antarcticas-prehistoric-forests-might-foreshadow-its-future/
Percentages of renewables is meaningless.
In 1995 over 90% of China’s electricity came from coal, this year coal is responsible for 65%.
What a great leap towards clean energy you may think.
Actually China is now burning 4 times as much coal as it did in 1995.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092
Countries which are fully developed and have a relatively flat energy consumption can quite easily cut coal consumption.
Britain has cut coal consumption from 80 million tonnes to only around 15 million tonnes in just 10 years.
China with a population 22 times the size of Britain consumes 250 times as much coal. WOW. It burns in 36 hours as much coal as the UK does all year.
China also has a way to go before electricity consumption per capita is equal to the UK let alone a country like Sweden.
China’s electricity consumption growth will make it impossible to cut coal consumption by an amount that will stop global warming. China’s cut in coal consumption from the peak is trivial, they burn in 365 days what the burned in 355 days. But is still all gets burned.
Yep, percentages without actual magnitude references are the device of evil statisticians and con artists.
“Percentages of renewables is meaningless.” True but a very popular “statistic” with the rose colored glasses crowd.
Cue Bartlett… if the growth rate of non-hydro renewables continues at the 2002-2016 rate of 14.6% per year and primary energy grows at the recent (2011-2016) annual rate of 1.25% per year, then 90% of World primary energy will be provided by non-hydro renewables by 2043.
It is likely fossil fuel output (total Joules of oil, natural gas and coal) will peak by 2030, possibly sooner, fossil fuel prices will rise relative to other energy sources and the expansion of non-fossil fuel energy production will accelerate.
The scenario for 90% non-fossil fuel energy by 2043 is likely too conservative.
Data in chart below from BP’s Statistical Review of Word Energy, non-hydro renewables, data for Primary energy growth also from BP stats.
Dennis, that’s a fine calculation. The big problem with it is “primary energy”, which is a garbage measurement.
Obviously, *final energy* is what grows. Every switch from 20% efficient gasmobiles to 95% efficient BEVs causes a massive drop in the amount of “primary energy” used, but uses about the same amount of final energy. (Or more if people drive more.)
If you redo your numbers using “final energy” you’ll come up with a more realistic date for when we hit 100% renewables — it’s in the 2030s.
Percentages of renewables is meaningless. In 1995 over 90% of China’s electricity came from coal, this year coal is responsible for 65%.
Don’t be absurd. China would use 40% more coal if the percentage hadn’t dropped.
*Sigh*
I’ve pointed this out before, but everything you think you know about Chinese coal burning is wrong. There’s an article with that title; google it.
One thing that really impresses me is the success Tesla has had in keeping secrets, such as how much progress is being made on solving the Model Three production problems.
The newest thing I can turn up in a quick search is about a month old.
There must be at least several hundred people who are not only working on site in the factory who know at least part of the story, plus hundreds to thousands more working with outside suppliers, not to mention anybody with a plane could fly near enough to get a good look at the parking lots using a camera with a telephoto lens.
Hell’s bells, the new cars can leave the manufacturing plant only three ways, on trucks, by train, or by being driven away. I don’t know if there IS a railroad, I haven’t checked.
Any idiot with a job along side the highway who can look out the window can count the number of trucks hauling cars that pass by.
So……. How is it that we don’t know more about what’s going on there?
It’s perfectly obvious that Tesla must buy virtually all of the materials going into the cars, every thing from tires and wheels to fabric or leather for the seats to windshields, because Tesla ain’t GM or Ford or Toyota, and doesn’t own factories turning out these parts.
And the people who are supposed to supply them aren’t going to schedule production without knowing when they will be needed.
Somebody explain it to me.
It’s not like this isn’t newsworthy. Somebody ought to be doing a little digging and getting some bylines.
Tesla got remarkably good at security against leaks from inside the factory. They also have massive vertical integration. Apparently all the raw materials are showing up as expected. The car production rate is controlled by how well the machines are working — and they’ve prevented any leaks regarding that.
This post is directed to Peter who wants to know how to calculate the size of a battery array that Germany would need to be 100% renewable. Because different batteries have different characteristics, I assume the use of deep cycle, wet, lead-acid batteries. Germany has several sources of renewable energy: wind, photovoltaic, hydroelectric and biomass. Because the last 2 will likely be available at full capacity when wind and PV are absent, they are subtracted from the load. In Fraunhofer’s “Electricity Production from Solar and Wind in Germany in 2014” page 5, net installed capacity is:
biomass: 8.153 GW
hydro: 5.619 GW
In Peter’s post on 02/27/2018 10:18 AM, he gives an example of Germany’s peak daily demand of 74 GW and a minimum of 60 GW. I use these demand values for my calculation assuming winter sunrise at 8:00 am, sunset at 4 pm, 74 GW consumed from 8 am to 8 pm and 60 GW consumed from 8 pm to 8 am the next day. The minimum battery array is one that can be used overnight without depleting assuming no power from wind and a full charge at sunset. At complete discharge the battery array needs to store the following energy:
(74 GW – 8.153 GW (biomas) – 5.619 GW (hydro) * (4 pm to 8 pm))
+ (60 GW – 8.153 GW (biomas) – 5.619 GW (hydro) * (8 pm to 8 am))
= 60.23 GW * 4 hr + 46.23 * 12 hr
= 795.7 GWh
This energy is needed at a 16 hour discharge rate which is a little faster than the standard battery rating given at a 20 hr discharge rate so the battery array needs to be a little larger. However, the battery array is being heavily discharged all the way to 0% which reduces its lifetime to about 500 cycles or about 1.4 years. If the capacity is multiplied by 9, then the battery array will cycle between about 100% and 90% charge on long winter nights lengthening its life time to 750 cycles or 750 * 10 / 365.24 days/year = 20.5 years. The battery array will thus last longer, have a lower overall cost and discharge at a rate well below its 20 hour discharge rate further increasing the energy that can be extracted from it. It will also provide energy to deal with cloudy days. If Germany does some demand side management by reducing power consumption at night (install LED’s) and shifts some power loads from night to day (refrigerators and freezers that run only in day), then the battery array could be reduced further. Sometimes the wind will blow at night providing electricity that reduces or eliminates the load on the battery array further increasing its lifespan. Thus Germany’s maximum battery array stores:
795.7 GWh * 9 = 7,161 GWh.
The minimum number of PV panels needed for this battery array are, assuming:
80% efficiency for grid-tied inverters, MPPT charge controllers, wiring and PV panels.
75% effiency for charging and discharging the battery array
38.124 GW rated of PV in 2014 (Fraunhofer, p5)
32.4 TWh generated during first 11 months of 2014 (Fraunhofer, p6)
biomass: 8.153 GW
hydro: 5.619 GW
74 GW consumed from 8 am to 8 pm
60 GW consumed from 8 pm to 8 am
sunrise: 8 am
sunset: 4 pm
Average capacity factor for PV in Germany:
(32.4 TWh / (334 days * 24 hr/day)) / 38.124 GW = .106 = 10.6%
This capacity factor includes the 80% efficiency for the equipment and is lower than at most places. Calculating the size of the PV array:
(74 GW * (8 pm to 4 pm) / .8) (PV in daytime)
+ (74 GW – 8.153 GW – 5.619 GW) * (4 pm to 8 pm) / .8 / .75) (batt at night)
+ (60 GW – 8.153 GW – 5.619 GW) * (8 pm – 8 am) / .8 / .75) (batt at night)
= (74 GW * 8 hr/ .8) + (60.23 GW * 4 hr / .8 / .75) + (46.23 GW*12 hr/.8/.75)
= 740 GWh + 401.5 GWh + 924.6 GWh
= 2066.1 GWh rated of PV
2066.1 GWh / (24 hr * .106 / .8) = 649.7 GW rated power of PV
This calculation matches average daily power produced from PV in the winter on some average sunny-cloudy day to the demand for a 24 hour cycle. The “average sunny-cloudy day” is a result of using the PV capacity factor of 10.6%, and it basically means Germany has (.106 / .8) / (6 h / 24 h) = 53% sunny days assuming PV outputs full power on sunny days and no power on cloudy days. This calculation does not provide enough PV power to quickly recharge the battery array after a cloudy day which would leave the batteries in a partially discharged state causing their plates to sulfate causing premature failure. Adding more PV panels beyond this average value is considered overbuilding.
To study the performance of this PV system I assume a 2 times overbuild and create a scenario with 5 days of clouds that allow 5% of the sunlight through, the last 2 days sunny and all 7 days with calm wind. At night the battery array provides 796 GWh with hydro and biomass running.
During the day the consumption is: 74 GW * (8 am to 4 pm) = 592 GWh.
During cloudy days the hydro and biomass run reducing the consumption the PV must power to: (74 GW – 8.153 GW (biomas) – 5.619 GW (hydro))*8 hr = 482 GWh.
Beginning on day 0 at sunset with the batteries fully charged:
Day 0, 4 pm: battery energy: 7,161 GWh
Day 1, 8 am: battery energy: 7,161 GWh – 796 GWh = 6,365 GWh or 89% capacity
Day 1, PV produces when cloudy:
649.7 GW * 2 (overbuild) * .8 * .05 = 52 GW
1299 GW * .8 * .05 * 7 hr = 364 GWh
Day 1, 4 pm: battery energy: 6,365 GWh – (482 GWh – 364 GWh)
= 6,365 GWh – 118 GWh = 6,247 GWh or 87% capacity
Day 2, 8 am: battery energy: 6,247 GWh – 796 GWh = 5,451 GWh or 76%
Day 2, 4 pm: battery energy: 5,451 GWh – 118 GWh = 5,333 GWh or 74%
Day 3, 8 am: battery energy: 5,333 GWh – 796 GWh = 4,537 GWh or 63%
Day 3, 4 pm: battery energy: 4,539 GWh – 118 GWh = 4,419 GWh or 62%
Day 4, 8 am: battery energy: 4,419 GWh – 796 GWh = 3,623 GWh or 51%
Day 4, 4 pm: battery energy: 3,623 GWh – 118 GWh = 3,505 GWh or 49%
Day 5, 8 am: battery energy: 3,505 GWh – 796 GWh = 2,709 GWh or 38%
Day 5, 4 pm: battery energy: 2,709 GWh – 118 GWh = 2,591 GWh or 36%
Day 6, 8 am: battery energy: 2,591 GWh – 796 GWh = 1,795 GWh or 25%
Day 6 is a sunny winter day with PV panels pointing in fixed directions not optimized for winter so I will use 5 hours of equivalent full power output instead of 6 hours. The PV panels generate:
1299 GW * .8 = 1,039 GW
1299 GW * .8 * 5 hr = 5,196 GWh
Day 6, 4 pm: battery energy: 1,795 GWh + ((5,196 GWh – 592 GWh) * .75)
= 1,795 GWh + 3,453 GWh = 5,248 GWh or 73%
Day 7, 8 am: battery energy: 5,248 GWh – 796 GWh = 4,452 GWh or 62%
Day 7, 4 pm: battery energy: 4,452 GWh + 3,453 GWh = {7,905 GWh} or 100%
which implies 7,161 GWh fully charged at:
8 am + (((7,161 GWh – 4,452 GWh)/ 3,453 GWh) * 8 hr) = 2:16 pm
Price with 2 times overbuild:
PV: 1,299 GW rated
battery: 7,161 GWh @ 20 hour discharge rate (358 GW)
cost to install PV at $1.50/rated watt: $1.95 trillion
cost of battery array at $100 / kWh: $716 billion
lifetime of PV array: > 40 years
lifetime of battery array: < 15 years
Assuming 3 battery arrays for the lifetime of the PV array:
($1.95 + (3 * $.716))t/(1.299×10^9 kW * 24 hr * .106 * 365.24 day/yr * 40 yr)
= $4.10 trillion / (4.83 x 10^13 kWh) = 8.49 cents / kWh.
This scenario with a 2 times overbuild probably does not produce the optimum low price. The battery array could be reduced, but if you go too low its lifetime decreases, the maximum charging rate is exceeded or it does not store enough energy for overnight or cloudy days. If you are interested enough, Peter, then put this algorithm in a spreadsheet and alter the amount of PV, battery and other sources of electricity until you find the lowest price. Reducing the power consumption at night would reduce the size of the battery array. Adding more PV would yield more power on cloudy days reducing the discharge of the batteries and recharge the batteries faster after the clouds leave. Increasing other types of peaking generation (such as biomass, geothermal and imported electricity) would also reduce the size of the battery array. Because the low capacity factor for PV in Germany nearly doubles the size of the PV array compared to most other temperate latitudes on Earth, Germany is not typical.
P.S.: Peter, I recall in one of your posts you stated that electricity from a battery costs 20 cents/kWh. In my scenario, it costs:
$716 billion / (7,161 GWh * 750 cycles) = 13.3 cents/kWh
The difference is perhaps 750 cycles from a lightly cycled battery and 500 cycles from a deeply cycled one. Understanding battery chemistry allows for optimization of price.
BlueTwilight
Thanks for your calculations
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=6
During the period 4th to 9th of February, wind, solar, bio and Hydro would be far less than demand. At every minute the batteries would be discharging in order to make up the shortfall.
Hydro at 3Gw, biomass at 6Gw even if you doubled wind and solar at no point would they produce enough to recharge the batteries, they could no even meet demand.
Also Germany has 45 million cars.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/587764/number-of-registered-cars-germany/
If these were given priority in charging, a minimum of 15 million cars would be charging at any time day and night. That would leave your battery banks flat in less than 2 days.
What then?
A simpler calculation.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2017
Germany used 548Tw/h in 2017, which is 548,000Gw/h.
Daily consumption of around 1,500Gw/h or 62Gw per hour.
on the 4th, 5th,6th and 7th wind and solar produced an average of 8Gw.
Germany has already over built wind and solar production to 130% peak consumption
at a massive cost, but lets say they will double that again.
16Gw * 24 = 384Gw/h and hydro and bio can produce 10Gw
10GW *24 = 240Gw/h
That leaves 1,500Gw/h – 384 – 240 = 876Gw/h for just one day.
or 36.5Gw for each hour. 36,500,000Kw/h
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/powerwall
Using the best batteries at the moment with and output of 5Kw and a storage of 13.5Kw/h
Germany would need 7,300,000 Tesla batteries to bridge the power gap for 2hours 40 minutes.
I think i am right in saying Germany would need around 250 million Tesla batteries for that four day period. At a cost of £1,375 Billion.
Assuming we are taking global warming seriously, than at some point all car and lorries would need to be electric and need charging.
Taking average mileage and range of the best car batteries Germany would somehow have to find generating capacity for another 10 to 15 million batteries every single hour of every day. How many backup batteries would be required to ensure lorries would be able to deliver food and people got to work is difficult to say. Perhaps another 100 million?
Germany has already over built wind and solar production to 130% peak consumption
No. No, no, no.
Wind in Germany has an average capacity factor of roughly 18%. Solar is around 11%. The average might be 15%. That means that Germany would have to install 62GW divided by 15% (or about 410GW) just to meet their *average* power demand. So, 410GW of wind & solar would be just barely enough, on average. 600GW or 800GW would be overbuilding. Their current level of around 80GW is only 20% of what they would need on average. It should be no surprise that it woudn’t cover a typical day’s power consumption.
Peter, are you clear on the concept of “capacity factor”? It’s very important. Are you clear on it??
Yes Yes Yes
Germany INSTALLED wind and solar CAPACITY is 100GW
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
If a country uses 70Gw and has 100Gw of coal fired power, then it has a capacity factor of approximately 130% of demand.
It is installed capacity that is discussed, or at least that is what a friend of mine who works for the national grid says.
A Wind turbine output can vary from 100% of CAPACITY to 0%. And in a country it can vary from 50% to as little as 2%. So obviously no meaningful figure can be put on wind output at any time in the future.
But then the National Grid’s way of looking at these issues may be wrong.
and here the German experts talking about installed CAPACITY
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf
Nick
When any electricity generation is built, it is quantified as installed capacity. That includes coal, nuclear, wind, solar or pumped storage.
It is a figure that is understood by everyone working in the electricity generating industry.
Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and pumped storage can deliver their installed capacity.
According to a friend who has a degree in electrical engineering and works for the national grid, solar and wind are rated in exactly the same way.
No one even tries to guess what solar and wind will produce on any given day. Your 15% guess is just that, and 99% of the time output is lower or higher.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633779/Chapter_5.pdf
Now your estimate of wind and solar Capacity is actually about right if one is using simplistic average production and demand. However it takes no account of variables.
A great deal of the time too much electricity would be produced, at other times far too little
Peter,
Why do you continue to bombard this site with half truths and misinformation? What is your agenda?
You obviously do not seem to have a clue about “capacity factor” as it is used in the electricity generation business. See:
6.7.A Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Primarily Using Fossil Fuels
6.7.B Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Not Primarily Using Fossil Fuels
Let me try and explain what the term “capacity factor” as used in the tables linked to above and generally in the electricity utility business means. It is a measure of the actual output of a given plant over a period related to the maximum possible output over that same period based on it’s nameplate capacity. By that measure, a 300 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) that is run flat out every day for a thirty day month except one, would have a capacity factor of 29/30 or 96.7% for the month.
A 3MW wind turbine if it produced 100% over a 24 hour period would produce 3 x 24 = 72 MWh. If in reality it produces 21.6 MWh ( 3 tenths of 72) it is said to have a capacity factor of 30% over the period.
Based on that definition, if you uttered the sentence quoted below in the company of a group of technical people from an electricity utility, you would probably be politely ignored. (not worthy of being a part of their conversation).
If a country uses 70Gw and has 100Gw of coal fired power, then it has a capacity factor of approximately 130% of demand.”
As for the following statement:
“No one even tries to guess what solar and wind will produce on any given day. Your 15% guess is just that, and 99% of the time output is lower or higher”
That is absolute bullshit. That is one of the useful aspects of weather forecasting as outlined at 3 min. 10 sec. of an episode of Robert Llewellyn’s Fully Charged featuring the UK’s National Grid.
Incidentally, at 8 min. 23 sec. in, the fellow from the National Grid says that the UK has 1 GW of solar. The U.K.’s installed solar PV capacity has reached 12.8 GW across 939,872 installations as of the end of January 2018, according to the latest provisional statistics released by the U.K. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Do you want to hazard a guess why the electricity utility in my neck of the woods is installing more weather stations?
Island
Before Nick butted in, we were talking about INSTALLED CAPACITY.
It was Nick who talked about capacity factor because he does not know they are 2 different things.
A nuclear power station can deliver it’s installed capacity all the time, powering your computer which enables you to write your misinformation whenever you like.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
I really wish people like you would be forced to only get wind and solar power. After a few weeks of blackouts and food going off in your fridge you may realise how wrong you are.
In the UK wind power has dropped so low for a day that only 1 million out of 28 million homes would have electricity. The other 10 million home owners who think we can only have wind and solar would be sitting in the dark.
Before Nick butted in, we were talking about INSTALLED CAPACITY.
Kind’ve. Sort’ve. If you say things that are unrealistic, then people will object. If you talk about installed capacity when you should take into account capacity factors (aka “load factor” in the UK PDF that you linked), then what you say will be inaccurate, and people will bring in the relevant facts.
Wind and solar are not expected to produce 100%. Everyone knows that. To suggest that wind and solar producing less than that is a problem…is silly. It’s like complaining that your new motorcycle only has two wheels. Or that a house with a pool has this big hole in the back yard.
Now, if PV is expected to produce at 11%, and it produces 1%….that’s worth discussion. But if it produces 11%, there is nothing to discuss.
Nick
You should tell the electrical engineers whose job it is to ensure a stable grid that they don’t know what they are taking about.
I think you’ll have a hard time finding a “grid engineer” who would disagree with what I said.
Of course, there are plenty of people who are experts in one area, but not in another that seems vaguely similar, who assume they’re an expert in that other specialty. I can’t count how many physicists I’ve seen spouting off ideas about energy that actually made no sense – they assumed that their expertise in physics magically made them experts in grid dynamics, renewable energy, etc.
Just because you’re an engineer, and you work for the grid, doesn’t mean you are an expert in the integration of wind and solar on the grid: there are a LOT of engineers working for the grid, doing a wide variety of things, most of which aren’t related to wind or solar.
And, of course, nobody on this blog is asking anyone to accept their ideas on authority. That’s key. You have to present your ideas with logic and evidence. Your arguments need to make sense, not refer to anonymous friends who agree with you.
Island, Peter is getting to sound very much like Javier. I am beginning to wonder if they are from the same troll school or have the same handlers.
NAOM
not a man
The people who run the national grids do not even take wind into account when assessing what source can be relied on.
Why don’t you go to a central balancing station and ask them to explain it to you? Take island with you.
That’s absolutely not the case in the US. I suspect that it’s also not true in the UK…becaus it would make no sense.
Wind and solar may be variable, but that doesn’t mean they’re random – their behavior can be forecast, and their output absolutely can be used to handle peaks in demand. Heck, solar has dramatically changed the way peak demand behaves and is “followed” by the grid.
Yawn
Sounds even more like Javier.
NAOM
What then? Well perhaps your assumption of 100% renewable isn’t the optimal scenario for them. Maybe 60% would be a good goal for a few decades, while they downsize.
Hickory
60% would be a good goal, but some people here think every country can produce 100% renewables.
Peter,
Most people here believe national grids should be interconnected with other nations as it reduces variability for the system as a whole.
It is World output which could be 100% renewable, if there was a World wide interconnected grid (as close as is physically possible).
This point has been made several times, you continue to ignore it and focus on individual nations. At minimum all of the European Union should be analyzed as a whole because electricity is freely traded across borders in that regional group.
Costs of coal, and natural gas will become prohibitive as these resources peak and wind and solar costs will fall as they expand and the technology matures (economies of scale and technological progress for newer technology), market forces will lead to a rapid scale up of renewables over the next 40 years, with coal and natural gas use for electricity output falling close to zero over those 40 years.
Note that from 2010 to 2016 that over 50% of the increase in World electricity output (in TWhr) came from hydro and other renewables according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
The continued rapid growth of “other renewable” energy (15% per year for the past 14 years) could lead to a rapid reduction of fossil fuel use, which will be necessary after the peak in fossil fuel output around 2025-2030. In addition, less energy will be needed because we will reduce wasted energy (about 60%) from inefficient thermal power plants and ICE engines.
Hi Dennis
The irony of subsidizing wind and solar is that it has cut the consumption of coal. This has meant that the price of coal has fallen globally.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html
https://www.quandl.com/data/ODA/PCOALAU_USD-Coal-Price
Globally coal prices are less in real terms and far less when taking inflation into account then 10 years ago.
So now poor countries can build coal power stations and burn coal that was previously too expensive.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/lamu-island-coal-plant-kenya-africa-climate/
https://www.thegwpf.com/african-nations-plan-more-than-100-new-coal-power-plants/
I bet many did not see that coming.
We have something that is called “Dunkelflaute” (no sun, no wind) in central Europe, this can last 8-9 days. Therefore, to think about batteries as major storage is a useless exercise. 🙂
There are two/three useful approaches:
1) Chemical storage (methane, hydrogen …)
2) More transmission lines to Scandinavia (>80 TWh reservoirs)
3) Huge artificial hydro storages (“Ringwallspeicher”); these could be onshore or offshore as parts of the North Sea are quite shallow.
Batteries are useful to store a share of the PV generation overnight, not more.
Nick G says wind is not random!!
Meteorologists tell us that making accurate predictions of weather is very difficult due to many interacting factors. Billion dollar computers fail to predict the direction of high and low pressures or the path of storms.
Now there is an answer call Nick
It’s hard to tell whether your picnic is going to be ruined, 5 days out.
Forecasting the wind speed 3 hours out? Not that hard. Two days out? Forecasts can still be very useful.
For just one example, see page 7 of https://www.ge.com/digital/sites/default/files/5-minute-wind-forecasting-challenge-Exelon-and-Predix.pdf
Be interesting to see where this goes:
CHINA TAKES FIRST STEP IN PAYING FOR CRUDE IMPORTS IN YUAN
“According to the proposed plan, Beijing would start with purchases from Russia and Angola, two nations which, like China, are keen to break the dollar’s global dominance. They are also two of the top suppliers of crude oil to China, along with Saudi Arabia….
A change in the default crude oil transactional currency – which for decades has been the “Petrodollar”, blessing the U.S. with global reserve currency status – would have monumental consequences for capital allocations and trade flows, not to mention geopolitics: as Reuters notes, a shift in just a small part of global oil trade into the yuan is potentially huge. “Oil is the world’s most traded commodity, with an annual trade value of around $14 trillion, roughly equivalent to China’s gross domestic product last year.” Currently, virtually all global crude oil trading is in dollars, barring an estimated 1 per cent in other currencies. This is the basis of U.S. dominance in the world economy.”
https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/China-Takes-First-Step-In-Paying-For-Crude-Imports-In-Yuan.html
This is the basis of U.S. dominance in the world economy
Well, that about sums it up——-
I’m willing to bet that in the near future the dominance of the Petro Dollar will give way to a blockchain based Li-ion cryptocurrency.
https://thelithiumspot.com/2018/01/08/project-updates-consolidation-and-cryptocurrency-mining/
This is the basis of U.S. dominance in the world economy.
That’s a fever dream. The US dominance comes from a very large and stable economy, and a currency which is accepted by *everyone* for both transactions and as a form of reserve. The fact that oil sellers accept it is a result of it’s reliability and safety, not a cause.
The important thing about petrodollars was not historically that oil was priced in, or paid for with dollars, it was that oil exporters chose to park their surpluses in US banks, thus stabilizing the imbalances that resulted from sudden increases in the price of oil. That hasn’t been a problem for a while: cash is leaving the ME, not building up there.
This post is directed to Peter who wants to know how to calculate the size of a battery array that Germany would need to be 100% renewable. Because different batteries have different characteristics, I assume the use of deep cycle, wet, lead-acid batteries. Germany has several sources of renewable energy: wind, photovoltaic, hydroelectric and biomass. Because the last 2 will likely be available at full capacity when wind and PV are absent, they are subtracted from the load. In Fraunhofer’s “Electricity Production from Solar and Wind in Germany in 2014” page 5, net installed capacity is:
biomass: 8.153 GW
hydro: 5.619 GW
In Peter’s post on 02/27/2018 10:18 AM, he gives an example of Germany’s peak daily demand of 74 GW and a minimum of 60 GW. I use these demand values for my calculation assuming winter sunrise at 8:00 am, sunset at 4 pm, 74 GW consumed from 8 am to 8 pm and 60 GW consumed from 8 pm to 8 am the next day. The minimum battery array is one that can be used overnight without depleting assuming no power from wind and a full charge at sunset. At complete discharge the battery array needs to store the following energy:
(74 GW – 8.153 GW (biomas) – 5.619 GW (hydro) * (4 pm to 8 pm))
+ (60 GW – 8.153 GW (biomas) – 5.619 GW (hydro) * (8 pm to 8 am))
= 60.23 GW * 4 hr + 46.23 * 12 hr
= 795.7 GWh
This energy is needed at a 16 hour discharge rate which is a little faster than the standard battery rating given at a 20 hr discharge rate so the battery array needs to be a little larger. However, the battery array is being heavily discharged all the way to 0% which reduces its lifetime to about 500 cycles or about 1.4 years. If the capacity is multiplied by 9, then the battery array will cycle between about 100% and 90% charge on long winter nights lengthening its life time to 750 cycles or 750 * 10 / 365.24 days/year = 20.5 years. The battery array will thus last longer, have a lower overall cost and discharge at a rate well below its 20 hour discharge rate further increasing the energy that can be extracted from it. It will also provide energy to deal with cloudy days. If Germany does some demand side management by reducing power consumption at night (install LED’s) and shifts some power loads from night to day (refrigerators and freezers that run only in day), then the battery array could be reduced further. Sometimes the wind will blow at night providing electricity that reduces or eliminates the load on the battery array further increasing its lifespan. Thus Germany’s maximum battery array stores:
795.7 GWh * 9 = 7,161 GWh.
The minimum number of PV panels needed for this battery array are, assuming:
80% efficiency for grid-tied inverters, MPPT charge controllers, wiring and PV panels.
75% effiency for charging and discharging the battery array
38.124 GW rated of PV in 2014 (Fraunhofer, p5)
32.4 TWh generated during first 11 months of 2014 (Fraunhofer, p6)
biomass: 8.153 GW
hydro: 5.619 GW
74 GW consumed from 8 am to 8 pm
60 GW consumed from 8 pm to 8 am
sunrise: 8 am
sunset: 4 pm
Average capacity factor for PV in Germany:
(32.4 TWh / (334 days * 24 hr/day)) / 38.124 GW = .106 = 10.6%
This capacity factor includes the 80% efficiency for the equipment and is lower than at most places. Calculating the size of the PV array:
(74 GW * (8 pm to 4 pm) / .8) (PV in daytime)
+ (74 GW – 8.153 GW – 5.619 GW) * (4 pm to 8 pm) / .8 / .75) (batt at night)
+ (60 GW – 8.153 GW – 5.619 GW) * (8 pm – 8 am) / .8 / .75) (batt at night)
= (74 GW * 8 hr/ .8) + (60.23 GW * 4 hr / .8 / .75) + (46.23 GW*12 hr/.8/.75)
= 740 GWh + 401.5 GWh + 924.6 GWh
= 2066.1 GWh rated of PV
2066.1 GWh / (24 hr * .106 / .8) = 649.7 GW rated power of PV
This calculation matches average daily power produced from PV in the winter on some average sunny-cloudy day to the demand for a 24 hour cycle. The “average sunny-cloudy day” is a result of using the PV capacity factor of 10.6%, and it basically means Germany has (.106 / .8) / (6 h / 24 h) = 53% sunny days assuming PV outputs full power on sunny days and no power on cloudy days. This calculation does not provide enough PV power to quickly recharge the battery array after a cloudy day which would leave the batteries in a partially discharged state causing their plates to sulfate causing premature failure. Adding more PV panels beyond this average value is considered overbuilding.
To study the performance of this PV system I assume a 2 times overbuild and create a scenario with 5 days of clouds that allow 5% of the sunlight through, the last 2 days sunny and all 7 days with calm wind. At night the battery array provides 796 GWh with hydro and biomass running.
During the day the consumption is: 74 GW * (8 am to 4 pm) = 592 GWh.
During cloudy days the hydro and biomass run reducing the consumption the PV must power to: (74 GW – 8.153 GW (biomas) – 5.619 GW (hydro))*8 hr = 482 GWh.
Beginning on day 0 at sunset with the batteries fully charged:
Day 0, 4 pm: battery energy: 7,161 GWh
Day 1, 8 am: battery energy: 7,161 GWh – 796 GWh = 6,365 GWh or 89% capacity
Day 1, PV produces when cloudy:
649.7 GW * 2 (overbuild) * .8 * .05 = 52 GW
1299 GW * .8 * .05 * 7 hr = 364 GWh
Day 1, 4 pm: battery energy: 6,365 GWh – (482 GWh – 364 GWh)
= 6,365 GWh – 118 GWh = 6,247 GWh or 87% capacity
Day 2, 8 am: battery energy: 6,247 GWh – 796 GWh = 5,451 GWh or 76%
Day 2, 4 pm: battery energy: 5,451 GWh – 118 GWh = 5,333 GWh or 74%
Day 3, 8 am: battery energy: 5,333 GWh – 796 GWh = 4,537 GWh or 63%
Day 3, 4 pm: battery energy: 4,539 GWh – 118 GWh = 4,419 GWh or 62%
Day 4, 8 am: battery energy: 4,419 GWh – 796 GWh = 3,623 GWh or 51%
Day 4, 4 pm: battery energy: 3,623 GWh – 118 GWh = 3,505 GWh or 49%
Day 5, 8 am: battery energy: 3,505 GWh – 796 GWh = 2,709 GWh or 38%
Day 5, 4 pm: battery energy: 2,709 GWh – 118 GWh = 2,591 GWh or 36%
Day 6, 8 am: battery energy: 2,591 GWh – 796 GWh = 1,795 GWh or 25%
Day 6 is a sunny winter day with PV panels pointing in fixed directions not optimized for winter so I will use 5 hours of equivalent full power output instead of 6 hours. The PV panels generate:
1299 GW * .8 = 1,039 GW
1299 GW * .8 * 5 hr = 5,196 GWh
Day 6, 4 pm: battery energy: 1,795 GWh + ((5,196 GWh – 592 GWh) * .75)
= 1,795 GWh + 3,453 GWh = 5,248 GWh or 73%
Day 7, 8 am: battery energy: 5,248 GWh – 796 GWh = 4,452 GWh or 62%
Day 7, 4 pm: battery energy: 4,452 GWh + 3,453 GWh = {7,905 GWh} or 100%
which implies 7,161 GWh fully charged at:
8 am + (((7,161 GWh – 4,452 GWh)/ 3,453 GWh) * 8 hr) = 2:16 pm
Price with 2 times overbuild:
PV: 1,299 GW rated
battery: 7,161 GWh @ 20 hour discharge rate (358 GW)
cost to install PV at $1.50/rated watt: $1.95 trillion
cost of battery array at $100 / kWh: $716 billion
lifetime of PV array: > 40 years
lifetime of battery array: < 15 years
Assuming 3 battery arrays for the lifetime of the PV array:
($1.95 + (3 * $.716))t/(1.299×10^9 kW * 24 hr * .106 * 365.24 day/yr * 40 yr)
= $4.10 trillion / (4.83 x 10^13 kWh) = 8.49 cents / kWh.
This scenario with a 2 times overbuild probably does not produce the optimum low price. The battery array could be reduced, but if you go too low its lifetime decreases, the maximum charging rate is exceeded or it does not store enough energy for overnight or cloudy days. If you are interested enough, Peter, then put this algorithm in a spreadsheet and alter the amount of PV, battery and other sources of electricity until you find the lowest price. Reducing the power consumption at night would reduce the size of the battery array. Adding more PV would yield more power on cloudy days reducing the discharge of the batteries and recharge the batteries faster after the clouds leave. Increasing other types of peaking generation (such as biomass, geothermal and imported electricity) would also reduce the size of the battery array. Because the low capacity factor for PV in Germany nearly doubles the size of the PV array compared to most other temperate latitudes on Earth, Germany is not typical.
P.S.: Peter, I recall in one of your posts you stated that electricity from a battery costs 20 cents/kWh. In my scenario, it costs:
$716 billion / (7,161 GWh * 750 cycles) = 13.3 cents/kWh
The difference is perhaps 750 cycles from a lightly cycled battery and 500 cycles from a deeply cycled one. Understanding battery chemistry allows for optimization of price.
This is a decent back-of-the-envelope calculation. A few suggestions:
This battery cost can be reduced by probably 75%. Li-ion is, and will be increasingly so in the future, far cheaper per charge-discharge cycle compared to conventional lead batteries. Ii-ion is in the range of $150/kWh capacity now, and that’s likely to fall to $100 well before we get to the point where we need such massive batteries. Li-ion has a much higher cycle life: some chemistries go as high as 5,000 cycles, vs the 500-750 assumed here. And, li-ion tends to allow higher discharge rates All of this means that you don’t need to overbuild the daily/diurnal battery pack by a factor of 9x, and may not need to replace it 3x over the life of the PV array.
The PV array probably can be overbuilt by a lower factor than 2x. There are several factors that will help more than this discussion suggests: windpower should be assumed to exist at significant levels (see US ISO calculations for wind peak capacity contributions); demand-side-management can be used even more extensively and is almost free; long-distance transmission will help at a lower cost; and “wind-gas” can be used to provide seasonal backup power at a rather lower cost than batteries or overbuilding.
Finally, one should include the time value of money. One can reasonably suggest that it can be reduced sharply by use of sovereign credit (either directly, or with governmental repayment guarantees), as is done in many countries including the US, but it can’t be ignored entirely. That will go in the other direction. But, all in all, overall cost should be lower than calculated above.
Plus places like MIT are working on new battery technology that is suited to this type of application. Current work is turning these technologies into commercial devices.
NAOM
I would not hold your breath.
Lithium ion first came into commercial use in the early 1990’s (thank you Japan)-
It has been a while—
Probably take 10 years so I’d be a bit blue in the face.
NAOM
Why is that important? Li-ion chemistries are far cheaper, more energy dense, etc than they were 20 years ago. Isn’t that all that matters?
More joy:
CHINA KEEPS BUILDING COAL PLANTS DESPITE NEW OVERCAPACITY POLICY
“Even without any new permits for conventional coal plants, there is enough capacity under construction or allowed to go to construction for China to keep adding one GW of coal-fired capacity per week for four and a half years, until the end of 2020.”
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/
Yeah, reality strikes again and again.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, …
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
Over all, Chinese companies are behind 340,000 to 386,000 megawatts of planned coal power expansion worldwide, …
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
The search for intelligence continues. We know the truth already.
From your link:
“The fleet of new coal plants would [will] make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from pre-industrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.”
And: The United States may also be back in the game. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he wanted to lift Obama-era restrictions on American financing for overseas coal projects as part of an energy policy focused on exports. “We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal,” he said. “We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe.”
And: “The frenzied addition of coal plants underscores how the world is set to remain dependent on coal for decades, despite fast growth in renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power.”
And: “Shanghai Electric Group, one of the country’s largest electrical equipment makers, has announced plans to build coal power plants in Egypt, Pakistan and Iran with a total capacity of 6,285 megawatts — almost 10 times the 660 megawatts of coal power it has planned in China.”
Here’s World Coal Consumption according to BP Stats, if the linear trend continues coal is eliminated in 65 years, I expect the rate of decrease will accelerate as coal will not be able to compete with cheaper wind and solar in the future. Coal plants will be shut down because they will be too expensive to operate.
“in 65 years” You’re joking. No one has a fucking clue what will be happening in (to) the world in 20 much less 65 years.
5 is a challenge.
Yeah, the excellent Yuval Harari/Thomas Friedman discussion cited above re our collective future is especially instructive in this regard.
Yep! 20 years?! No one has a god damned fucking clue! Well, except for the IEA. /sarc
Hi Doug,
That’s correct, nobody knows what will happen in the future. It is called a scenario, if the linear trend continues, then coal use falls to zero in 65 years, I expect the trend will not be linear, probably more parabolic.
That’s what the “if” is for. We don’t know what tomorrow will bring, but that has never stopped anyone from guessing about what the future will bring.
Yes, BUT that scenario, linear trend or not, is based on an assumption that everything will continue along pretty much as things have in the past, at least with respect to the rates of change humans have experienced historically. It completely ignores the reality of the three rapidly accelerating exponential climate changes discussed by Yuval Hararri and Thomas Friedman, as referred to by Doug.
Those changes being: Actual climate change, Mother Nature’s climate change which includes biodiversity losses and human population increase and last but not least the climate change of technological disruption such as robotics automation and AI.
The future, most certainly ain’t what it used to be!
Hi Fred,
A single assumption was made. “Linear trend continues”. I also said I don’t think the assumption is a good one.
Note that the assumed exponential changes in climate also requires a number of underlying assumptions. Those assumptions are also unlikely to be valid, for exactly the reason Doug gave. Nobody can predict the future.
Both optimists and pessimists are likely to be wrong.
Doug and I are in agreement, we have no clue.
Dennis, you are extrapolating a 3 year trend to 65 years?
What about the effect of increased natural gas use for power and heating?
Actually, since wind and solar are more of an exponential rise the possibility of a much shorter time frame for coal use in certain regions arises, if they are installed. Coal does not have to compete against wind and solar that are not installed. If a country has large coal reserves, it may very well choose not to install much renewable energy but merely use it as part of a larger package of several energy sources (the US is a great example of that).
Traditionally Pakistan has had relatively low emissions of climate changing gases. But under the global Paris Agreement to address climate change, the country has admitted it is likely to see a four-fold increase in emissions by 2030.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-coal-climatechange-feature/pakistan-races-to-tap-virgin-coal-fields-to-meet-energy-crunch-idUSKBN16612G
Most of the reductions have been in North America and Europe while most of the increases have been in highly populated regions of Asia.
India appears to be peaking, yet may still use up it’s coal reserves over a longer time period.
If coal reserves are used at a slower rate but still burned, it will make little difference in global climate change.
And then there is Africa.
Russia, as usual, is unpredictable.
http://www.mining.com/web/future-russian-coal-industry/
The transistion to clean energy is fully dependent upon a stable global economy, consistent political thrust, and local conditions. The degree of stability needed is high, while the odds of long term stability are low.
Let’s hope the politicians don’t stir the pot too much.
And then there is Africa.
R40BN FOR NEW COAL POWER PROJECTS
“Johannesburg – The Department of Energy unveiled yesterday coal independent power producers (IPPs) Khanyisa and Thabametsi as the preferred bidders to build two coal-fired power plants that will add 863.3 megawatts (MW) of electricity to the country’s system in the next five years. The first plant under the programme would begin commercial operation in December 2020, it said. Minister of Energy, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, said yesterday that the bidders had the backing of Korean, Japanese and Saudi Arabian investors. Marubeni Corp. of Japan is the lead developer of the Thabametsi IPP, while Korea Electric Power Corporation (Kepco) is its co-developer. “
https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/companies/r40bn-for-new-coal-power-projects-2078384
The fact is that coal is not cheap and as it depletes it will become more expensive. Costs for wind and solar will continue to fall making coal obsolete.
The 65 years was a very simple linear extrapolation, it is doubtful such a path would be followed especially if non-hydro renewables continue to grow at 15% or more per year.
It’s more likely coal for energy uses will be phased out in 25 years, possibly less.
A stable world is needed both for coal mining and renewable energy build out. Instability is likely to lead to lower energy use in general.
These projects are DOA.
Nonsense. The transition to clean energy will happen with an unstable global economy, inconsistent and hostile politicians, and so forth.
Please understand how microeconomics works. The moment it’s cheaper to install solar & batteries than to operate an existing coal plant… the switch happens. This varies according to local conditions, but it happens everywhere pretty quickly.
Yes, China is still building coal plants. But, that doesn’t mean that China’s coal consumption will rise.
First, many of these plants aren’t needed, and will have very low utilization factors. Chinese provincial governments like the employment that such projects provide, even if they aren’t needed. So, the fact that such construction still continues doesn’t really tell us much about the future of coal.
2nd, many old inefficient plants are being decommissioned and are being replaced by much more efficient new ones. So, even if coal-generated kWhs rise (which is doubtful), the coal consumed will very likely fall.
CHINA IS MASSIVELY BETTING ON COAL OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS — EVEN AS INVESTMENT FALLS GLOBALLY
• China is still investing massively in coal projects outside its shores, notably in places linked to the Belt and Road project.
• One reason is to offload coal overcapacity as China cracks down on the polluting industry at home.
Chinese financial institutions are the world’s largest investor of overseas coal plants, pumping in $15 billion in coal projects from 2013 to 2016 through international development funds, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based non-profit environmental advocacy group. There’s another $13 billion in proposed funding.
IT’S NOT JUST CHINA
Globally, there was an increase in global coal consumption last year after two straight years of decline, according to data released last month by the International Energy Agency. The trend was driven by Asian demand, the IEA added. East Asian economic powerhouses Japan and South Korea are also pumping money into the fossil fuel. According to the report from Greenpeace and others, Japan is the second biggest recent public financier of overseas coal-fired power capacity, with $10 billion invested in coal projects from 2013 to 2016. Another $9 billion in proposed funding out of Japan is in the pipeline. That’s as Asia’s second-largest economy builds up its fuel mix at home. Coal is cost efficient and supply threats from geopolitics are low, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has said. South Korea, meanwhile, has financed $8 billion in overseas coal power projects since 2008.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-is-massively-betting-on-coal-outside-its-shores–even-as-investment-falls-globally.html
A classic case of dumping. This was a familiar thing as far back as Marx, who thought that very roughly this kind of thing (falling profits at home, a need for new markets, etc) explained imperialism.
These sleazy salesmen are selling their obsolete products to developing countries, who will be saddled with bad investments as wind and solar take the place of FF.
Japan, meanwhile is like Saudi Arabia in it’s lack of vision. It has gone for solar in the past, but it’s utilities just can’t wrap their heads around wind power. Now, Japan’s archipelago is a partial explanation, but Japan can be inexplicably hide bound.
Before we go too far down the road of criticizing places like Japan and S.Korea for their energy security choices, consider the relatively privileged position you/we speak from.
The USA imports 7% of net energy consumption (as of 2015), whereas S.Korea imports 81% and Japan 93%.
And nucs haven’t worked out real well in Japan as of late.
They could slide from 1st world to 3rd world level economies real quick without steady supply of imported fossil fuel.
I’d be looking to have coal as a backup if I was in their position, bigtime.
An energy security point of view makes Japan’s choices look much, much worse! Wind and solar are truly domestic – they do not depend on external supply chains in any way.
Coal is expensive, risky and dirty, with a long and fragile supply chain. Wind and solar are cheaper, safer and cleaner, and entirely domestic.
It’s a pretty clear choice.
Nick- it is easy to philosophize about someone elses problem. You really think it is such an easy thing for Japan to replace 93% of their consumption. That will take a long long time.
Nick clearly knows more about powering Japan than thousands of Japanese engineers and scientists responsible for actually doing so.
Doug,
If you can find some relevant and high quality analysis from the “thousands of Japanese engineers and scientists” that supports the idea that coal is really a better choice for Japan, it would be interesting to see.
I’d be surprised if it exists. I suspect those engineers and scientists are gnashing their teeth in frustration at the choices being made by self-interested investors and their fully-owned politicians.
Germany and Saudi Arabia are interesting counter-examples. Both of them are committed to renewables, and have been publicly for years. But only Germany has actually implemented them. There’s a clear relationship between the power of FF industries around the world (including in the US, KSA and Russia), and their handling of renewables.
it is easy to philosophize about someone elses problem.
Hey! What else is this space for??
You really think it is such an easy thing for Japan to replace 93% of their consumption. That will take a long long time.
Could be. But the topic of conversation here is planning for the future: what choices should be made: coal or renewables. And, of course, both wind and solar are much faster to install than coal.
Doug, that’s TWO YEARS OUT OF DATE.
Here’s more accurate information:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/
Electric world? Sure, but in eight years? I like boundary values and this sure sounds like one.
Seba’s premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles. Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024. Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond. There will be a “mass stranding of existing vehicles.” The value of second-hard cars will plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a twin “death spiral” for big oil and big autos, with ugly implications for some big companies on the London Stock Exchange unless they adapt in time. The long-term price of crude will fall to $25 a barrel. Most forms of shale and deep-water drilling will no longer be viable. Assets will be stranded. Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/16/1942252/all-fossil-fuel-vehicles-will-vanish-in-8-years-says-stanford-study
So I guess the best thing to do is get an ICE large enough to live in, use as a room or for storage. That way when it is “stranded” it can be put to some use. Maybe convert the engine to burn wood gas and use it as a back up generator.
This has a time frame we can watch! Oh, the fun is just beginning.
Gone fishing,
I agree that looks like a boundary value scenario, similar (but at the opposite boundary) to scenarios that assume 2 trillion metric tonnes of carbon emissions.
Yes, very much like the fast end of coal burning and the electric world in 25 years. Neither will solve any major problems even if they could be accomplished. 🙁
But instead of becoming defensive/offensive why not give your actual opinion of Tony Seba’s claims. How much do you think he is off and how much might come to fruition.
Myself, I think he is at least partially right on all his claims if things keep going as they are now. The changes will be more regional then global in that time period.
Hi Gone Fishing,
I have given my opinion in the past. Chart below gives an optimistic scenario, about 313 Pg of fossil fuel emissions from 2015 to 2200. Including an estimate of all anthropogenic carbon emissions from 1750-2200 (including fossil fuels, cement production and land use change) total carbon emissions would be about 900 Pg of carbon emissions (roughly between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 [1600 Pg] carbon emissions.)
Bottom line, I agree Seba’s is a boundary value estimate, and I agree 8 years seems too short, my guess is 40+/-10 years, I also agree it will not solve the problem, but I do think 30 years to zero carbon emissions will cause fewer climate problems than 45 years to zero C emissions from fossil fuel.
Coal first, then oil, then natural gas as we get more energy per unit of carbon emissions from natural gas vs oil and from oil vs coal.
My optimistic scenario for fossil fuel carbon emissions in (Pg of carbon) in chart below.
So fossil fuels stay high for the next 12 years. Makes sense.
Unfortunately it takes some time to turn the ship. Perhaps it could be faster than this scenario, I assumed that solar and wind can ramp up no faster than what they have done over the recent past.
It’s possible peak fossil fuels will result in greater urgency and lead to an acceleration of the energy transition to something closer to Seba’s vision, but even I am not that optimistic.
Let’s guess that my scenario to 2026 is correct (and that is the year of peak fossil fuel output).
Perhaps fossil fuel prices rise enough that serious government action is taken to ramp up EVs, rail, public transport, HVDC transmission, wind, and solar. In that case it is possible that the steeper decline in fossil fuel use seen after 2036 in my scenario occurs starting in 2028. Unfortunately carbon emissions are only reduced by about 50 Gb in that very optimistic scenario to a total for all anthropogenic emissions of about 850 Pg C from 1750 to 2200.
Yeah, sadly, it does make sense.
Of course, any projection is a guesstimate about social and political choices. We could do better, but that depends on activism.
Call your representative!
You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle.
I have an old CRT-type TV that is an enormous pain to get rid of. No one wants it, and waste haulers refuse to take it. There is a governmental recycler, but it’s a long distance.
Obsolescence…
Lack of local society to take responsibility for itself. Means should be provided to get rid of old electronics. My area does it for free twice a year.
Electronics seem to be not too dificult, in general – I can dump a wide array of stuff at our local Best Buy.
But old TVs – they seem to be a special problem – the places that will take them are far and few between.
Cell phones are dirt cheap these days, and have been for some years now, and coverage is just about perfect in a lot of urban areas.
But there are still tons of land lines in use in such areas, and not necessarily because the people who have them are using them to get internet service.
Personally I don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that we will see even fifty percent of all new cars sold being pure electrics within the next eight years……. assuming gasoline remains readily available.
No matter how cheap cell phones are, the owners of built out and mostly paid for land line infrastructure are apparently still better off selling the use of it for whatever it brings in above the cost of maintaining it, rather than abandoning it and walking away.
If oil goes thru the roof, and the motor industry tries to go all electric, it’s altogether possible and maybe even very likely that we will see a lithium cartel emerge that will make the old OPEC cartel look amateurish.
Maybe a well cared for F150 that according to present day calculations should be worth say twelve thousand bucks will only be worth five or six thousand if the monthly payments on a new electric pickup truck are low enough.
But so long as gasoline is available at less than say ten bucks, such trucks will still be worth something, maybe six thousand instead of twelve thousand.
Forty gallons a month even at ten bucks is still only four hundred bucks for gasoline.
I believe the future of the industry is electric, but in six years?
To paraphrase Churchill, maybe in six years we will have reached the ” end of the beginning” of the transition, with a quarter to half of new light vehicles being either hybrid or pure electric.
If I’m still around, I’ll be glad to admit I was wrong, lol, IF I’m wrong about the speed of the transition away from oil.
Let’s NOT forget that a self driving vehicle can still run on gasoline or diesel fuel, or even compressed natural gas, if it’s not going too far and there are enough filling stations handy, or if there’s a breakthrough in the cost of the tanks needed to store gas in quantities sufficient to provide good range.
OFM, autonomous sounds good at first, but the more I hear about it the more I realize it is not really about transportation. There is a very dark side to this.
First of all, self-driving cars are a very long way away — it’s a much harder problem than most people think. Much, much harder.
Second, EVs are going to take over much *faster* than most people think. All you have to do is look at global EV sales by year, recorded at inside-evs.com, and plot them. It’s a very clean exponential growth curve — doubling time is roughly every two years.
Six years? I guess we’ll have about 10 to 20 million EVs produced per year. Eight years, 20 to 40. Ten years, nobody will be making gasmobiles.
Used gasoline cars will hang around a lot longer, but new cars will all be electric much faster than you think.
Note that the claim is that all new cars will be plugins by 2025, it will take more time for the fleet to turn over (probably 10 years or more). The scenario below for plugin vehicles considers recent sales growth rates and does not take account of the possibility of Transportation as a Service (TaaS) which might limit total light duty vehicles to 1.5 billion or less worldwide.
Seba vastly overestimates how easy it is, technically speaking, to make fully-self-driving cars. We simply won’t have them in 10 years.
He gets the switch to EVs right, though.
HB ought to be taking care of this, but since he’s apparently off spending his tax cut money……. being a member of the investment class………..
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/fbi-raids-office-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=politics-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20180409&silverid=NDQ1NDc0NTQ5NzQ2S0
Hey Trumpster, I will remind you that I voted for HRC. But I would like to thank you and your neighbors for my well being and your personal cuts in social services.
Great cartoon!
Now how about a little help here and there without being reminded?
Can anyone guess (without using a search engine) which country generated more electricity using renewable sources than it consumed during the month of March 2018?
I’ll bite – Iceland? Or somebody else in that Scandinavian neck of the woods?
I just looked it up, and was a little surprised…
Nissan will unveil a new electric model at Auto China 2018 in Beijing and showcase the new Nissan LEAF and the Nissan IMx KURO electric crossover concept vehicle. Nissan says that the new model will help meet growing demand for electric cars in China and highlights Nissan’s commitment to electrification under the company’s midterm plan
The IMx KURO is propelled by a pair of high-output electric motors at the front and rear, giving it all-wheel-drive capability. They combine to produce 320 kW of power and 700 N·m of torque—more than the Nissan GT-R supercar—sourced from a high-capacity battery that’s been redesigned and re-engineered for increased energy density. This new battery supports a driving range of more than 600 kilometers (373 miles) on a single charge.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180409-nissan.html
I wonder if there’s any timetable for the IMx concept vehicle?
Norway?
Scotland?
I looked it up after I posted that. It isn’t Scotland…
Costa Rica?
All very good guesses and probably correct in the case of Iceland, Norway and Costa Rica but, for those countries that wouldn’t be “news”.
Portugal reaches 100% renewables, ends fossil fuel subsidies
Portugal’s renewable energy sources generated enough power to exceed total grid demand across the month of March, a new report has found, setting a standard that is expected to become the norm for the European nation.
According to Portuguese grid operator, REN, renewable energy output over the month reached 4,812GWh, surpassing the nation’s total electricity needs for March, which only topped 4,647GWh.
In that time, power generated by Portugal’s hydroelectric dams accounted for 55 per cent of monthly consumption – boosted by drought-breaking rainfall of four times the monthly average – and wind power, 42 per cent.
The achievement comes nearly one year after hydro, wind, and solar power helped push the Iberian country to run on 100 per cent renewable electricity for 107 hours straight. Last March, however, the average renewables supply was 62 per cent.
But…wa wa… the grids will collapse if renewables exceed 10%…20%…50% errr um
A Troll
Around here the grid collapse with any strong storm or strong wind. Wouldn’t notice the difference.
Designed for flying, swimming, diving deep and surviving wide temperature ranges. Not one burns fossil fuels to do all that. They burn fish with a side order of insects, crustaceans and amphibians.
Batteries not included
Those are cormorants, yes? If so, fantastic birds. We have them over here in Halifax as well.
Yep, cormorants.
Not exactly a rare species, but very prolific—
The DDT did a big number on them but they bounced back and will be with us as long as the fish, I hope.
Why only the concern with rare species?
I’m a birder— I like them all.
The New EPA And Why The Radical Left Is Losing It
STEVE FORBES | Investor’s Business Daily
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-new-epa-and-why-the-radical-left-is-losing-it/
It should come as no surprise how the man who is boldly redirecting the EPA — a once rogue agency that operated far beyond its constitutional authority — is now the subject of routine attacks from liberal news outlets and activists who want him fired. Scott Pruitt has taken his job as EPA Administrator seriously and has done more to reinstate the EPA’s true, core mission than any of his modern-day predecessors.
Pruitt’s sharp focus is correct — to restore contaminated lands, safeguard our nation’s air and water, and do so by respecting real science rather than the ideologically driven fake science of his predecessors. He is demonstrating that we can both have a cleaner environment and greater economic growth and job creation. Contrary to the extreme environmentalist, prosperity and a safer environment can go hand-in-hand.
As Scott Pruitt observes, our nation can be, “pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-environment.”
He is absolutely correct.
Wow. So many lies and distortions of reality in such a relatively small statement.
It’s scary to imagine the degree to which someone like Forbes is detached from reality. They can believe anything at all. Up is down. Black is white.
Look up. What color is the sky? Why it’s polka dotted orange, because someone at a Koch funded think tank says so.
Seriously. This is a Supreme Court that claims to hew to a strict construction of the Constitution but protects bribery of elected officials with the First Amendment. And even this radically conservative Court affirms that the EPA was acting constitutionally when it regulated CO2.
Wow.
It’s not only Steve Forbes in agreement with Scott Pruitt’s good work. Note how many conservative stars are supporting Pruitt. This will be a big issue in campaign ads later this year, asking voters if they stand on the side of jobs or reckless extreme regulations?
From Forbes to Tea Party, Allies on Right Rally for EPA’s Pruitt
By Jennifer A Dlouhy and Ari Natter
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/from-forbes-to-tea-party-allies-on-right-rally-for-epa-s-pruitt
Conservative stars are coming out in force in a bid to save the job of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, a zealous advocate of their small-government movement engulfed by allegations of ethical lapses.
Prominent Republicans and leaders of the Tea Party movement — from publishing executive Steve Forbes to Senator Rand Paul — are penning op-eds, posting on Twitter, and picking up the phone to personally beseech President Donald Trump to keep Pruitt at the helm of the EPA.
“He’s a conservative hero,” Dallas investor Doug Deason, whose family has given millions to right-wing candidates, said of Pruitt. “It would be a huge mistake to do anything other than come out and support him.”
Edwin Meese III, an attorney general in the Reagan administration, former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and more than 100 other prominent leaders on the right issued a memo Friday highlighting Pruitt’s policy accomplishments and casting the EPA leader as instrumental to the president’s mission to slash through Washington bureaucracy.
“He is critical to President Trump’s efforts to streamline agency efforts in a way that assists American families and the economy,” said the group. Other notable signers included James Dobson, founder of Family Talk; David Bossie, the president of Citizens United; and Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.
High-profile business leaders including billionaire oilman Harold Hamm have also been enlisted to make personal entreaties, and tell the president that Pruitt has done more than any other top administration official to ease federal regulations standing in the way of manufacturing, mining, and drilling.
Pruitt has done more than any other top administration official to ease federal regulations standing in the way of manufacturing, mining, and drilling.
…manufacturing, mining, and drilling?! Seriously?! You really need to watch the conversation between Yuval Harari and Thomas Friedman. You don’t have a clue, do you?
And as for Pruitt, he should be in jail!
https://www.sciencealert.com/jim-carrey-s-newest-painting-features-scott-pruitt-and-his-many-many-scandals
Yesterday, comedian and actor Jim Carrey weighed in on the accusations of corruption with a humorous portrait of the EPA chief…
As Carrey correctly points out, renting a condo in Washington DC for just $50 a night is already absurd before you even contemplate its luxury status.
If the condo’s suspiciously low rate was given to Pruitt by the lobbyist for any reason other than a solely personal one, the EPA administrator would be in violation of government ethics rules.
That is indeed a wide array of conservatives.
It’s very sad to see so many people completely abandon their principles. It’s not surprising to see cynical salesmen like Rush Limbaugh (ex sports reporter) or Ann Coulter – they’re just paid flacks. We expect to see oil investors willing to sell their souls for ROI. But to see those who pretend to represent religious principles just lie like a dog* is very, very sad.
(*Yes, it’s an insult to dogs)
Seriously, that’s quite the list of career criminals (Meese, DeMint, Perkins, Harold Hamm, really? — all career criminals) who support the criminal Pruitt. I’m not saying I’m surprised.
I know of all those criminals from way back; they have rap sheets dating back to the 1970s.
‘We have brought swallows into Milan’, says father of the vertical forest
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/04/10/brought-swallows-milan-says-father-vertical-forest/
That is beautiful, for a building. Imagine if waterfalls and climbing paths were incorporated. And arched sky-bridges to neighboring such buildings.
Imagine if waterfalls and climbing paths were incorporated.
Yeah that is one of the first things I thought about. However it does create structural and design problems since water weighs roughly 1 kg per liter. Though certainly not insurmountable. I was thinking of wide shallow streams with occasional deeper pools flowing over vertical drops and spiraling down through the center of the building. Maybe having stretches transformed into aquatic ecosystems stocked with crustaceans, molluscs, amphibians, turtles and fish that could also be harvested.
And waterslides!
If there was enough capital to work with, I could see places like Singapore heading in this direction before too long.
That knocks me out. I’m amazed that they succeeded in getting that built.
You can see the buildings on google earth. I found them 3000 ft due west of the train station.
Unsure a detailed thermodynamic analysis is necessary, if even possible, and in any case, if we take a look at global energy consumption, it appears to still be increasing, according to Nate’s and Rune’s graph, despite the switch to pseudosmartphone or any other ‘tech’.
And as I already seem to recall suggesting as examples in previous comments, we now have other problematic issues peculiar to pseudosmartphone pseudotechnology and related and that don’t just involve pollution.
Updated chart, 1990 to 2016 from BP data, growth rate is slowing (slope of curve less steep) of late.
Chart has consumption of fossil fuels in tonnes of oil equivalent per year (biofuels are excluded from the consumption numbers), I have assumed biofuels production is equal to consumption as there is no biofuels consumption data.
I expect slow growth until the peak is reached in 2025+/-5 for all fossil fuel consumption (coal, oil, and natural gas).
Thanks, Dennis.
Here is what really happened.
In the 1980’s the world was strongly warned against the dangers of fossil fuel initiated global warming.
Coal use stayed at just above 4 billions tons per year then started rising dramatically around 1990 until it nearly doubled by 2012 and has now slightly reduced. So it basically doubled after the warning.
In the same time period, global use of oil almost doubled and has not fallen.
In the same time period natural gas use more than doubled.
Basically the warnings were ignored for almost 40 years and now when a slight slowdown in rate increase in some use areas happens (which has happened before) we are supposed to believe that it’s the coming end of fossil fuel use. I think we need five more years of data at least to call the game down on fossil fuels in a global view.
If it hasn’t fallen significantly in five years, then it will not matter anyway.
Major difference between then and today is, now we understand more of the natural climate cycles that cause change.
Max- I really don’t think we understand the “natural climate cycles that cause change.” very much at all, even if such cycles do exist.
Personally I doubt there are any true pattern of ‘cycles’. More of a random drift through time.
I think we know the solar cycles, and we currently are in a low sun spot cycle, so would be (and will be) even warmer with more sunspots. We also understand the Milankovitch cycles are insufficient in themselves to cause the glaciation and melt extremes we have experienced in the past – they need the feedback from permafrost melt and changing albedo of ice and snow cover – effects that have now been accelerated above the previous limits. And we understand the ENSO variation enough to know that an extended period of La Nina within an overall warmed planet, as we have been in recently, will be followed by a larger El Nino, with consequences on high temperature records and other extreme climatic events.
“Personally I doubt there are any true pattern of ‘cycles’. More of a random drift through time.”
Please inform the physicists that orbital cycles are now random. That should get a lot of laughs.
Sure, there are cycles of orbits and sunspots, but the overall climate of earth has not been cyclic in the past in any meaningful way that we have been able to uncover through paleo-forensics. There are so many variables that exert their effects independently (continental drift changes ocean currents, volcanism, etc) that a cyclic nature of earths climate just does not exist. Lurching in and out of ice ages has not been uniform and does not constitute a cycle (as far as I am concerned).
Really? I know most people have a problem when more than one variable is present. But physicists are not most people.
Lurching in and out of ice ages has not been uniform and does not constitute a cycle (as far as I am concerned).
Um, I was going to post some climate science links that clearly contradict that assertion but I think GF already put a few nails in that coffin…
Esteemed FredM,
I agree with your point but I will add that during most of the history of ol’ Earth there have been no sequences of ice ages. The current one began a bit less than 3 million years ago.
Observing our current set of ice ages we see, as you indicate, that they are highly cyclical, (in two parts: before about 900 000 years ago and after that time.) Someone looking at the whole recorded history of our planet, though, could point out that such sets of ice ages are few and far between. Perhaps Hickory was referring to that larger scale.
Perhaps you forgot that for much of the history of the planet, CO2 levels were quite high and atmospheric pressures quite different.
It takes lower CO2, combined with orbital perturbations, combined with phase changes to make ice ages and glaciations.
There are other factors, but it takes several to start an ice age, the planet already being cooler to begin with, the distribution of land masses and sometimes long term volcanic eruptions.
Several of these factors must coincide to start an ice age, which is why you don’t see an obvious pattern. The pattern is there, it is just complex and near a boundary position for the planet’s climate making it rarer than being warm.
Looks like random up and down to me. Not a cycle, or uniform, or predictable. And like Synapsid said- that graph doesn’t go back very far.
You are joking, I hope for your sake.
Hickory,
The chart covers the entirety of homo sapiens existence.
The pattern is based on astronomy, primarily the movements of the earth and moon in relation to the sun though there may be some minor influence from Jupiter and Saturn.
The “minor” perturbations of Jupiter have determined the varying ellipsoidal character of the orbit which change the irradiance by about 23% over time.
Gone fishing,
Thanks for the correction.
Yes Saturn and Jupiter determine the eccentricity (change in the shape of the ellipse) and are likely of major importance.
For those like me, the article below may be helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
click on chart to enlarge
Dennis, orbital eccentricity graph down at bottom of comments
In the 1980’s the world was strongly warned against the dangers of fossil fuel initiated global warming.
Hmmmm…that’s misleading. Sure, there were warnings. But, we know that there was very little response, and that the response is in no way comparable to what’s being done today. It doesn’t make sense to compare the two periods.
I mean, sure, we’re not doing enough. But, we’re obviously doing something and it’s very possible to make fairly reasonable projections based on renewable and EV implementation.
The movement by scientists to warn the public and government about global warming started in the 1970’s. I have actually traced some public warnings back into the 1950’s. President Carter had solar PV put up on the Whitehouse 38 years ago, that was not done in a vacuum. The solar house movement was happening in the 1970’s from a beginning in the 1940’s.
“I mean, sure, we’re not doing enough.”
True, very true. Whatever we did and whatever we are doing did not stop the tremendous increase in fossil fuel burning after the warnings went out. To make it simple, if we were to cut the rate in half by say 2040, it would still be way too high and way too late.
It takes about two decades for society to respond to simple, one value, problems. Your propensity to think along a similar old energy paradigm for the future is indicative of the inertia in civilization. There is no real urgency given to changes that are both invisible and omnipresent. In order to respond to threats like that would involve using our higher thought facilities, which seem to be mostly ignored where they do not give immediate advantage.
President Jimmy Carter installed 32 solar panels on the presidential mansion amid the Arab oil embargo, which had caused a national energy crisis. The Democratic president called for a campaign to conservative energy and, to set an example to the American people, ordered the solar panels erected in 1979, according to the White House Historical Association.
Carter predicted that “a generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people; harnessing the power of the Sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”
Carter’s solar panels were about oil, not GHGs.
a similar old energy paradigm for the future
???
There is no real urgency given to changes that are both invisible and omnipresent.
Sometimes there is. In this case, there has been a serious opposition. Change is ferociously opposed by several determined and very wealthy industries, and a family of multi-billionaires who have pursued a comprehensive and stealthy strategy for 70 years. At this point I think they’ve lost, though they’re fighting a vicious rearguard action to delay things.
So…my point was this: the future is hard to predict, but it’s not hidden in supernatural mists. There are clear trends, and underlying technical and economic fundamentals which make reasonable projections possible.
Yep, Carter was predicting the switch to an all electric world. He knew a lot about science and engineering having worked under Rickover developing the first nuclear submarines.
In fact he just put up a large PV farm on his own land.
“So…my point was this: the future is hard to predict, but it’s not hidden in supernatural mists. There are clear trends, and underlying technical and economic fundamentals which make reasonable projections possible.”
Stop seeing the trends through biased rose colored glasses, the only long term trend we have is increasing and continuing use of fossil fuels. PV and wind have a trend, but what is the probability that exponential trend will continue and for how long? I have not seen any studies on the probability of renewable trends, just projections. That smacks of bias and hopium non-reality.
Have you noticed world wide government capitals being stormed by the people to get off fossil fuels now. Are they ditching their vehicles, switching to EV’s in droves, picketing power plants, screaming about constantly being poisoned by coal burning, super insulating their homes, refusing to work for fossil fuel companies or related industries.
Nope, just a tiny fraction of people are doing anything, mostly talk and trying to profit from renewables. EV’s are more of a status symbol now.
If solar PV and wind were not economically advantageous, they would be relegated to a few rare spots and no measurable change would be happening. Even Tony Seba views the economics as the major drivers for change.
To the corporations, governments and their consumers only a few things matter. Their, comfort, their convenience and how much crap they can stuff in their mouths and pockets. 98 percent could actually care less about global warming or pollution or anything if it costs them some money and inconvenience. I take that from the actual actions, meaning general inaction to move away from fossil fuels because we should.
Take away the economic and convenience advantage, kill the changes. That is modern man. Humans have a long history of killing the inconvenient.
Supernatural mists? Sounds religious. I take it you mean probability distributions and unpredictable non-linear occurrences.
At least we have a large economic advantage going for the transistion, yet still most are not jumping in the boat, merely toe tipping in the waters.
Will the exponential trends continue for very long? When I remove my case of hopium and look at it analytically, I must say no, it will become fairly linear until severe price increases in fossil fuels and shortages happen. Then people will struggle to make changes, just when the excess energy needed to do so has disappeared. Just when other predicaments and problems are sucking away materials, time and energy.
If you don’t like my assessment, that is good. Then do everything now to change the future. There is still a little time left to make some meaningful changes. But hurry, we are further out on the limb every day.
If you don’t like my assessment, that is good. Then do everything now to change the future. There is still a little time left to make some meaningful changes. But hurry, we are further out on the limb every day.
Yeah, but how are we to deal with this kind of shit?! It’s not bad enough that we are going further out on a limb but we also have an administration that is actually sawing it off!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2018/04/11/trump-may-greenlight-an-8-billion-attack-on-competitive-energy-markets/#6d33838c33d8
President Trump may soon grossly distort competitive markets for electricity. Last week, he announced his consideration of a request for “202(c),” by which he means an $8 billion proposal to bail out all merchant coal and nuclear plants in a region that spans across 13 Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic states.
The request comes from FirstEnergy, the Ohio-based utility giant that has sought billions of bailout dollars over the last decade to cover its bad business decisions. Although repeatedly rebuked by federal and state regulators, the company recently asked the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to bail out coal and nuclear units in the PJM-grid operator region by invoking section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. Using this power would require the Department to find that additional compensation to these plants is necessary due to an “emergency” on the grid. The audacious proposal would bail out not only FirstEnergy’s facilities, but more than 80 coal and nuclear units throughout PJM, the largest grid-operator region in the U.S.
.
Fred asks “Yeah, but how are we to deal with this kind of shit?! It’s not bad enough that we are going further out on a limb but we also have an administration that is actually sawing it off!”
People need to be like me, I have cut my use of gasoline by 80 percent, my use of electricity by 50%, my purchase of new materials and new items by a lot (probably down 70%). And this year I will cut down more and live better.
I don’t care what the disabled government does, if we all cut back we won’t be buying the stuff they provide. If the demand falls, building new useless things will stop very quickly and the effort will appear stupid. Let him and his prove they don’t know what they are doing. We can help with that and save lots of money too! All with no government intervention, just personal action.
To put it simply, a saw with no teeth cannot cut the limb.
Although I see no problem with the cartoon, since only one person seems to take the fall. 🙂
OOOhhhh dear, and I thought that it was renewables that required subsidies – or, at least, that’s what the trolls say.
NAOM
Renewable subsidies? Sure we can renew them for whatever is wanted at the moment. 🙂
Throw out facts and realities and merely act on a faction point of view, the new order thinking.
“if the only tool available is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail”
One would think that leaders would be very concerned about information brought to them that shows a possibility of world disaster. Yet, again and again, they treat it like something that can be put off and delayed, downplayed. Once the indicators become obvious to all around, it is generally too late. Sort of like waiting for cancer to debilitate before taking steps to stop it. Too late.
We need better leaders.
Gone fishing,
The guess is based on what we know about oil, natural gas and coal reserves, as well as the cost to produce electricity with coal, natural gas, wind and solar and the price trajectory over the past 10 to 15 years for all of those types of energy.
From 1996 to 2005 fossil fuel consumption grew at an average rate of about 2.4% per year. From 2005 to 2016 the shape of the curve is concave down with a simple 2nd degree polynomial suggesting a peak in 2024.
Note that I don’t expect the trend line of the past 10 years is predictive of the future, we don’t know the future.
Limited fossil fuel resources suggests fossil fuel output will eventually peak and decline, my guess based on current knowledge is about 2025 to 2030.
I expect the decline will be steeper than shown in the simplistic scenario below based on a simple 2nd order polynomial fit to 11 years of output data.
Yes, efficiency is having some effect, has for a long time. I hope your assessment is correct (as long as other non-destructive, non-polluting energy takes it’s place as needed), but it is just hope. My own realistic assessment of the situation is far different than yours and does not have any smooth transistion involved. I also do not believe that fossil fuel extraction technology is static over that period or that we have even accessed a large portion of fossil energy.
So until the probabilities of energy transistion and fossil fuel extraction are scientifically and verifiably assessed, I will not consider the matter closed or even determinable with any certainty.
So far the trends in fossil fuel extraction have been to lower the cost and/or extract extensive new sources that were not previously exploited. People seem to forget that $50 a barrel equates to about 4.74 a barrel in 1950. Yes the price was about 2.77 a barrel back then but our cars are more than twice as efficient. Funny how that works out, so the price per mile is still the same or better. So where is this huge cost increase due to limited supply of fuels?
This is a complex problem, because 3 billion people want higher energy lifestyles, population is still increasing and energy losses due to weather extremes (climate change) are increasing as well as increasing political instability. We have an edge now but the implementation is too slow and may never be completed unless it is done quickly.
Still even with your scenario of 50 more years of burning, we are over the edge climate wise, between now and about 12 to 15 max. Unless one ignores most of the variables.
Hi Gone fishing,
The current price of oil is about $70/b.
Perhaps think the cornucopian thesis of fossil fuels increasing in output forever is “realistic” due to technological progress.
What oil industry insiders often say id that there has been very little progress since 3D seismic has been widely used. The other “breakthroughs” such as LTO and shale gas were just an application of old technology that became profitable due to higher oil and natural gas prices.
The resource is depleting and technology will at best reduce decline rates, and it will be expensive to apply.
It is difficult to apply the standards of physics and chemistry to problems that are largely determined by human social behavior.
Have you ever notices that for any two economists in a discussion there are about 6 different opinions?
A scientifically verifiable probability distribution sounds nice, let me know when you find one in the field of economics or sociology concerning what will happen in the future.
One way to assess a situation where there is great uncertainty is to us a maximum entropy probability distribution.
In the case of World C+C URR, estimates range from 2900 to 4500 Gb. The 2900 Gb estimate is close to cumulative production plus proved reserves, so we could call discovery zero at a URR of 2900 Gb and discovery is 1600 Gb at a URR of 4500 Gb. A negative exponential cumulative probability distribution gives the maximum entropy cumulative probability for the case of a positive mean with minimum information. The only assumption is that there is a positive mean value for discoveries.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_entropy_probability_distribution
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution
In this case I use lambda= 800 Gb and then show URR=2900 Gb plus discoveries on the horizontal axis.
For this example F25 is 3100 Gb for World C+C URR (25% probability it will be 3130 Gb or lower), and F75 is 4000 Gb (25% chance URR will be 4000 Gb or more). F50=3450 Gb.
World coal reserves are over 1.3 billion tons. World proved oil reserves are 1.7 trillion barrels. World gas reserves are 180 trillion cubic meters.
Methane hydrate and other hydrate reserves, larger than all those mentioned above combined.
Economics of late have not been good but are getting better as you say, so the reserves will expand and the exploration/drilling mining expand.
I hope you are right about production and burning, not that it will stop the rising natural forcings of climate but there are many other benefits to be had by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.
I don’t expect the transition to be smooth. The path suggested by the simple models I use are just based on the assumptions given.
There are multiple reasons why the model would be incorrect.
A Global financial crisis
Major World War
Large asteroid strike
etc.
None of those events are easy to predict in advance.
There is also the possibility that climate scientists know very little and that despite the main stream predictions of severe climate problems over the long term if carbon emissions are not kept below 1000 Pg, that those effects might occur in the near term.
A near term (next 50 years) climate crisis is one of those low probability boundary scenarios in my view.
Your “realistic” view is an interesting mix of “optimism” about fossil fuel abundance and pessimism about technology that can replace fossil fuel and reduce energy use through greater efficiency.
The argument is fairly simple, technological advances in a mature industry such as the oil and natural gas industry are likely to be far slower than in a newer industries such as EV batteries, wind power, and PV solar.
People will choose the product they think is better, and for many this will include environmental considerations.
Much of what you say rings true Dennis. I just see too many predicaments and problems converging and reaching limits within the next two decades. The probability of disruption of any and all trends in both positive and negative directions is high. More to the negative side.
Well, we’ve already “baked in” a bunch of disasters due to fossil fuel burning in the last 40 years.
But fossil fuel use is ending now. Because it’s cheaper to use wind, solar and batteries. Just because of the money. It’ll happen *really fast* because things driven by money do, once they cross the tipping point.
Watch this again, I’ve linked it before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU
Unsure a detailed thermodynamic analysis is necessary, if even possible, and in any case, if we take a look at global energy consumption, it appears to still be increasing, according to Nate’s and Rune’s graph, despite the switch to pseudosmartphone or any other ‘tech’.
As usual you totally miss the point! Either because you are deliberately trying to be obtuse or contrarian or you are pushing some agenda/ideology. Yes, energy consumption is still increasing exponentially, but imagine how much more it would be increasing if every person on earth wanted to use copper land lines to communicate. Imagine 10 billion humans using cellphones vs landlines, which scenario do you suppose would require more energy.
To be clear, I’m only using the example of cellphones vs. landlines to make my point. There are thousands of other examples of technology I could use. The more people there are on the planet the more resources and energy they will use. At some point that will stop, either by design or by the countervailing forces of nature. Calling smartphones and technological advances names such as ‘pseudosmartphone pseudotechnology’ really doesn’t add anything of value to the discussion .
Fatal Tesla Crashes and Elitetech
Yes I get your stupid alternate reality ‘imagine if’ point, Fred, and my point from your point that you apparently miss (cue your ‘whoosh’ bird) is that it doesn’t matter if your imagination didn’t pan out and energy is still going up anyway. Thermodynamics, right?
By the way, about your fatal Tesla crash quasi-driver in the previous threads, did you get the date of their fatal Tesla crash and was it the same date as the fatal Tesla crash of my comment’s driver-in-question?
Yes it does. Manufactured-needs-technology isn’t real technology. It’s elitetech for the sheeple.
Baa-aa-aa…
Yes I get your stupid alternate reality ‘imagine if’ point, Fred, and my point from your point that you apparently miss (cue your ‘whoosh’ bird) is that it doesn’t matter if your imagination didn’t pan out and energy is still going up anyway. Thermodynamics, right?
Whatever, dude! Go play whack-a-mole with someone else!
If one scrolls up, they’ll notice that it’s you who replied to my original comment in this thread, as well as elsewhere.
The Russians had a good time meddling in the 2016 election in the USA. It was a clear choice for them to support Trump, who they see as an easily manipulated, mentally light-weight chump. On the other hand Putin had direct experience with H Clinton as a very tough and savvy adversary. She gave him hell as secretary of state over the Ukraine invasion for example.
I now think that China may join the Russians, in much more subtle, sophisticated and effective ways, in working to manipulate our elections to suite their purposes. A chaotic USA, with internal disarray and poor leadership prevents us from being an effective competitor of theirs on the world stage, both economically and diplomatically.
And for those who think that the Democratic party has a great plan/leaders for navigating the future decades, well, I am not so optimistic. Hope I’m wrong.
China doesn’t need to manipulate US elections. It won’t bother. They, unlike Putin, understand some of the principles of the Art of War. When the enemy is destroying himself, let him do it.
Russia really didn’t need to, and shouldn’t have, interfered in the US election; it was an “own goal” for Putin. China will not make the same mistake.
We have something that is called “Dunkelflaute” (no sun, no wind) in central Europe, this can last 8-9 days. Therefore, to think about batteries as major storage is a useless exercise. 🙂
There are two/three useful approaches:
1) Chemical storage (methane, hydrogen …)
2) More transmission lines to Scandinavia (>80 TWh reservoirs)
3) Huge artificial hydro storages (“Ringwallspeicher”); these could be onshore or offshore as parts of the North Sea are quite shallow.
Batteries are useful to store a share of the PV generation overnight, not more.
Why not use the North Africa region also? Lots of sunshine there.
Anyone knows that having less than 20 to 30 days of backup energy even with fossil fuels is a fool’s game. We typically store energy in bulk form to be converted to heat and power.
Also no one but a fossil fuel promoter thinks that the system will function as it does now. There will be times of low and high energy use, as determined by weather and season. Systems will automatically reduce usage with conditions and seasons. Critical systems will have large backup storage.
To apply the current paradigm to future society and energy use is unrealistic. We will operate at different rates and make the most of the excess when it occurs. Nothing will be the same, not industry, society or the environment.
That is the price of survival and everyone will get used to it. Electrical energy will ebb and flow, being leveled somewhat over days and weeks using battery and other storage systems. Storage will be the new big profit making industry.
Nothing will be the same, not industry, society or the environment.
That’s true, kind’ve, but…I wouldn’t exaggerate the impact. Even now, a very significant number of grid customers vary their consumption based on signals from the grid. Industrial/commercial Demand Side Management, including major curtailment, is very common. Residential DSM is an old and tested thing, and it’s very effective.
DSM is cheap, and can be almost transparent to it’s users. It’s not used nearly enough right now because utilities are reimbursed on a cost-plus basis, based on their investment in major facilities. They have absolutely no incentive to create efficiency, or move demand around to handle peaks in demand or interruptions in supply. Their model is “build, baby, build”.
Who knows when DSM will be properly used in the future. But, it’s available and when the cost of handling renewable intermittency in the old-fashioned “build, baby, build” model becomes prohibitive, then we can be pretty sure it will be used.
On the other hand, while storage is more expensive it is cost effective: batteries and hydro work well for daily/diurnal variation, and “wind-gas” will work for seasonal variation. So, I don’t think we will work entirely according to the whims of the wind and sun.
It will be a balancing act, a continual optimization. Which is a pretty normal part of life.
I highly suspect that energy intensive industries will move to the sunny and windy areas of the planet to pursue their profits. The typically industrial nations are further north and will pursue less energy intensive industry.
In essence, the machines will migrate to the cheapest most available energy.
Personally I believe GF is dead on in saying that the future of energy intensive industry is in the sunny and windy parts of the world.
Even if it’s necessary to run such industries on let’s say thirty percent fossil fuel power for a long time to come, the cost savings in fuel alone will be enormous, as fossil fuels deplete.
Using just ten percent or so fossil fuel energy in put would mean way the hell less over building of wind and solar farms and energy storage infrastructure such as batteries or pumped hydro, and it will be a century or so at least before supplying that much fossil fuel to essential industries gets to be a real problem…… other than a climate problem.
These observations bring up a question I’ve been looking at for a while, without finding out much.
How hard will it be to design or redesign various industrial processes to run intermittently on wind and solar power, as these are available in sufficient amounts, instead of continuously, as is commonly done today?
Consider a desalinization plant for instance. Energy is the big expense involved, after the capital cost of construction. Obviously you want to run something that costs so much continuously if at all possible, so as to recover the cost of it more quickly.
And for now, while energy is still relatively cheap around the clock and around the calendar, that is still practical.
But later on, with fossil fuel prices rising with depletion, the calculus will change dramatically, and it will probably be cheaper to overbuild capacity and run it intermittently…….. IF the necessary machinery can be built to run on a stop and go basis without causing too many problems.
( I once had a temporary summer job in a factory with plastic extrusion machines. If the power went off for more than fifteen minutes, it took a week of killer hard work to clear the solidified plastic out of the augers and heads, but at least this didn’t actually DAMAGE the extruders. A facility handling molten metals might have to actually replace some machinery rather than just clear it. ETC. )
What I’m hoping to find is information about running such industries on a stop and go basis.
Any and all links are greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance.
I’m sure it can be done, in most cases anyway, but the cost of the doing may be painful indeed.
The cost of setting up societies to operate on available power is far less than the cost of running out of energy permanently or having another country cut the fuel or power. It is a vast opportunity and a goal to aim at, something most places do not have.
Each region, country, locale can find it’s own mix of solutions. Or they can keep doing what they do until the fuel runs out and not have any resources to deal with the other problems they face.
Imagine how good a country will feel after installing a bunch of coal burners and the price of importing coal doubles while they are still paying off the loans for the coal power plants. Or they connect a pipeline to an outside source for new natural gas plants and the price doubles or the quantity gets reduced (or stops all together).
The sun or wind does not do that, unless there is an asteroid strike or 10 massive volcanos pop off at once.
We already know how to operate at various energy levels, it is in our genes. We just need to transfer that capability to our constructed systems.
For some places it may make sense to run a desal plant fulltime, and only have non-critical transport (for example) charging happen during limited times of day when there is enough energy available. Other places may find it feasible to only run a desal plant during the sunniest time of year when they have both sun and higher irrigation requirements.
From what I have read, current desal plants are very expensive and for most places they would be smart to only build capacity that they really require the full capacity of, unless of course they have tons of extra money hanging around.
Deep water sailor- desal is great!
Can’t think of another application where it makes much sense on a major level.
“Why not use the North Africa region also? Lots of sunshine there.”
OK, for uncritical imports of electricity MENA is good and under discussion.
However, the critical aspect is backup during periods without sun and wind (“Dunkelflaute”), here we see national solutions with a lot of P2G (Fraunhofer) or European constructs like hydropower in Scandinavia.
Nobody wants to use MENA as provider of critical backup capacity.
Understandable in the current situation, but much of Europe is dependent upon Russia for natural gas and oil. Yet they have armies and air forces ready to stop a Russian attack. Strange world, strange bedfellows.
“but much of Europe is dependent upon Russia for natural gas and oil.”
But with electricity there would be a dramatic shift. For oil we have a real global market, it does not count, with NG we have a few weeks/months before the real trouble starts, with electricity we would have an issue within a few hours if the shit hits the fan in one of the MENA countries.
True, very true. But as I have said elsewhere it is standard procedure to have about a month of storage for any energy operation and many industrial processes.
So a country would need at least a month of storage for all critical functions.
Nobody wants to use MENA as provider of critical backup capacity.
You mean they are politically and economically literate?
“You mean they are politically and economically literate?”
You mean the people who oppose backup by MENA countries? They are at least politically realistic and are willing to pay for security. Economy is not the most important thing.
agree
Or just simple and cheap- keep the old power plants in cold standby, and power them up when needed. 1 or 2 weeks a year doesn’t matter that much – and let’s see what we have better tech in 30-50 years. With today weather forecast you know when such a situation comes and can react (fire them up).
I think we have in 30-50 years either working fusion plants or liquid hydrogen in gas tankers, produced in the deserts worldwide with cheap solar electricity.
So no more Dunkelflaute.
I can only recall one long period of time when an extensive very low sunlight and low wind occurred over a large region near me.
We can be prepared to go into emergency mode for those very rare times, with critical backups and the ability to bring on line some burning if absolutely necessary. However, there must be a line never crossed again once left behind, coal burning.
As I am seeing it, as solar builds up the need for peaker plants falls off. With further growth, daytime fossil electricity will fall of but there will be a nighttime need for power. The peaker plants will move over to nighttime peak while it is the baseload plants that will close.
Many critics seem to treat these events as sudden switching steps and may argue that, if the daytime peakers close, there will be no peakers for nighttime. The reality is that it will be a gradual transition with peakers moving from day to night and baseload will be cut.
I think that the peakers are more modern, eg gas turbine, cleaner and cheaper than old coal baseloads so there will be many advantages from this.
NAOM
You’ll need less and less peakers, when battery (or hydro) storage takes over the day / night balancing. And the peakers are another thing than cold standby.
When you have solar build for the tripple maximum load, storage will run the whole night and you don’t need much peakers anymore.
Cold standby is for the situations when there is no wind or solar over days. These situations are seen in weather forecast, and you need more than a few peakers then. Of cause, all peakers will run full power then, too.
And this standby can be old coal plant – they’ ll run only a week a year, perhaps they can be retooled to biofuel if needed. But with only 1 week a year, it’s not much anyhow – and it’s a cheap solution.
Full solar/wind I don’t see for regions with weather patterns like middle Europe – too much variety. Global electric grid or liquid hydrogene comes in mind to transport Energy from more efficient regions.
“When you have solar build for the tripple maximum load.”
With grid available and the goal is to netzero? TIME or capacity factor is the critical factor. Few loads actually need 24×7, Since eChem watt/hrs are perhaps the most toxic, PV “overbuild” is critical. Autonomous requires sufficient PV. The Local Network infrastructure to transmit this message consists of 3 devices and can serve thousands of devices – 14 watts continuous powered by 2 – 300 watt panels. That’s a 40 fold PV STC Rating to load. Write that down. So 7 watts continuous requires a 300 watt class panel at 30 degrees latitude is how the math works out for “HA” High Availability with a Goal to minimize expensive consumption of Toxic eChem. Enough PV is key, If this equipment was typical North American Big Box stuff with regulated AC/DC supplies, you need many times this PV and thousands of dollars for eChem batteries per decade for same service. Was Puerto Rico a freak or a new Normal? Equipment available in North America forces “TGS” Total Grid Slavery. There used to be several catalogs of products for Sustainable Grid independent Living. What the hell happened. Is it the education system or too many lawyers?
Yes, storage is important but I see that as further down the line with the gradual shift of peakers from daytime to nighttime a part of the transition process, an intermediate step. After all, nude solar is cheaper than battery backed solar but battery will take over from peakers as battery capacity rises and cost falls. It won’t be a case of one thing or another or a sudden change over but a transition process that will undergo a slow swing through several scenarios balancing renewables, baseload, peakers and batteries (chemical or otherwise) with the balance point gradually moving with time. Imagine a 4 physical dimension see-saw with the balance point moving through the 5h time dimension as the weights on the 4 ends change.
NAOM
One thing people forget is that transitioning to an all electric society uses far less power than we use now due to large efficiency gains and elimination of many processes.
Yes, that adds a whole new dimension to the sea-saw while efficiency changes and lifestyle changes add more. 4+1 dimensions is more than enough to blow many peoples minds who struggle with 2 or 3.
NAOM
I like that analogy, I know some one dimensional people. 🙂
They are very thin. 🙂
I agree, when all of the mining transport etc for fossil fuels is included with thermal losses. The available exergy (work) of a unit of primary energy might be only 25 to 30% of the “energy” in EJ.
Of course we would need to consider the EROEI of renewables as well and there’s not great data on that.
Considering just the thermal losses for fossil fuels (probably an average of 65%) vs line losses and inverter losses for electricity generation from wind or solar (perhaps 15%.) 100 EJ of fossil fuels would be about 35 EJ of exergy and for wind and solar perhaps 100 EJ energy is 85 EJ of exergy. So 35/85=41% of fossil fuel energy is needed in the form of wind and solar to accomplish the same amount of work. This estimate is likely to be conservative.
As was discussed thoroughly on this site in the past, oil has a loss of 40% energy between the well and the consumer (not considering any wear and tear on machinery just various energy inputs).
So basically, the other energy sources as well as oil itself is subsidizing the production and distribution of oil products.
That also does not take into account losses from the other energy sources (electric, gas, coal, coke, transport fuel), which might add up to significant amount.
The more complex a system the more chances for waste and losses. The more polluting a system, the more cost is transferred to the general population and governments.
Inverter efficiency has reached above 95%, some claiming 99% peak efficiency.
Line losses in distributed systems are much less than from widely based power plants.
Fuel costs are zero. Obtaining fuel and transporting fuel is zero. No drill sites, no hazardous waste, no mines, no refineries. No pipelines, no pumps, no leaks, no oil spills, no pollution.
No large concrete buildings to house generators, no railroads to deliver fuel. No war to maintain oil production for EV’s.
Take all those factors into the accounting when making a comparison. I don’t think there is a comparison.
“Line losses in distributed systems are much less than from widely based power plants. ”
A local restaurant has a large array on its roof. Peak production in the day and peak use in the evening. It would mainly serve to supply power to surrounding daytime businesses while they need power thus reducing overall grid load while the restaurant uses power from the grid, in the evening, when other businesses do not. The overall function of this is to act as a load balancer for the local area.
NAOM
Old days.
RESEARCHERS CONNECT THE DATA TO SHOW AN ACCELERATING TREND FOR MARINE HEATWAVES IN OUR OCEANS
“There was a clear relationship between the rise in global average sea-surface temperatures and the increase in marine heatwaves, much the same as we see increases in extreme heat events related to the increase in global average temperatures,” said co-author Prof Neil Holbrook from IMAS at the University of Tasmania. “With more than 90% of the heat from human caused global warming going into our oceans, it is likely marine heatwaves will continue to increase. The next key stage for our research is to quantify exactly how much they may change.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-hotter-longer-frequentmarine-heatwaves.html#jCp
MARINE HEATWAVES ARE SPAWNING UNPRECEDENTED CLIMATE CHAOS
“It might seem strange given their huge impact but the concept of a marine heatwave is new to science. The term was only coined in 2011. Since then a growing body of work documenting their cause and impact has developed. According to Emanuele Di Lorenzo from the Georgia Institute of Technology, that emerging field of study could not only reveal a hitherto underestimated source of climate-related chaos, it could change our very understanding of the climate.”
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/marine-heatwaves-spawning-unprecedented-climate-chaos/
Attention Astronomy buffs:
TINY DISTORTIONS IN UNIVERSE’S OLDEST LIGHT REVEAL CLEARER PICTURE OF STRANDS IN COSMIC WEB
“Dark matter constitutes the filaments – which researchers learned typically stretch and bend across hundreds of millions of light years – and the so-called halos that host clusters of galaxies are fed by the universal network of filaments. More studies of these filaments could provide new insights about dark energy, another mystery of the universe that drives its accelerating expansion.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-tiny-distortions-universe-oldest-reveal.html#jCp
Anyone surprised?
“Glaciers in Alaska’s Denali National Park are melting faster than at any time in the past four centuries because of rising summer temperatures, a new study finds.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-arctic-mountain-glaciers-unprecedented-years.html#jCp
Everyone should be surprised. This is during a minimum solar input period for the Arctic regions. Surprise! We live in a topsy turvy world now. Anchorage Alaska is 5 degrees F warmer than my place at 41N and will achieve a higher high temp today. Just to remind you Anchorage is still dark, sun has been up for hours here.
Arctic region is averaging +2.7 C anomaly today with regions of +10C.
So do you live at the 40.7*N Latitude? That’s near about where Naples in Italy is, and they have a much warmer climate than that latitude in north America.
Yeah, it’s warmer in London England than around here. We get a lot of continental wind from the west and north. You enjoy the warmer winds from the Med and Atlantic.
Same things happens in the Pacific region. Asian side is much cooler than the northwest coast of US and Canada.
I was just asking because recently I looked at some old comments. In the past you must have changed your posting name from ‘MarbleZeppelin’ to ‘GoneFishing’?
MarbleZeppelin says:
05/18/2015 at 12:49 pm
Here the temperatures are all over the place (latitude 40.7). Highs vary from the 60’s to the 80’s and lows have been ranging from near freezing to the 60’s, oscillating back and forth. One day this month had a high around 80 and a low in the 30’s.
So much for temperate zone stability. Too bad we can’t tap into that energy differential (other than wind).
MarbleZeppelin says:
11/01/2015 at 1:01 pm
Hurricane Sandy showed the interdependency of the system. No power, no fuel. No roads open, no fuel.. No roads open, no tree removal. No tree removal, no power line repair. No power, no pumps to remove crude from the ships and no refinery operation. No power, no stores open, no commerce. No power, no internet, no cable TV. No power, no food deliveries.
Personally, when the power goes out, I have refrigeration, lights, water, hot water, etc. I have my own back up system. It’s the rest of the local world that does not operate very well or at all.
‘MarbleZeppelin’ would make multiple messages a day for hours at a time. Then he got in an argument with Ron Patterson and promised to leave for good.
MarbleZeppelin says:
11/06/2015 at 6:34 pm
Ron, Ha, Ha. I meant personal plans. Save the world? What a concept. From what, it’s own creations? You really do come up with the simplest concepts or are you just being condescending.
I have trained many years in survival, tracking and lots of practical technology. Even so, if the shit hits the fan, I will make my decision then whether it is worth the effort. Nothing like current knowledge.
With the knowledge that I no longer have any family left, lost the last of them over the past two years, it just might be time then to say goodbye. Unless I find a good reason to do otherwise.
Speaking of goodbyes, it’s been a nice run here, lots of interesting people and ideas. Ron does a great job presenting relevant data. I can see I don’t really fit here. I am also getting heavily involved in efficiency and conservation projects so really shouldn’t spend so much time here. It does stimulate thought so I might lurk once in a while.
Goodbye, good luck, to all of you. Off to my delusional land.
That was ‘MarbleZeppelin’s last posting ever. Then only 2 months later ‘GoneFishing’ showed up to make his first post. Clearly as we see here you ‘GoneFishing’ write multiple messages a day also for hours at a time and have the same hobbies and interests.
GoneFishing says:
01/19/2016 at 7:15 pm
Javier, you are either a shill or an idiot. The local atmosphere is often much colder than the ocean surface, so of course heat will move out of the ocean. Atmospheric temperatures range well below the ocean temperatures. The ocean and atmosphere exchange heat in both directions across the planet. They don’t need to come up with a mechanism, because anyone with a tenth of a brain knows this.
Right now the ocean near me is warming the lower atmosphere. I don’t know what part of the planet you come from or what planet, but over much of the earth we have seasons and much of the time the ocean is warmer than the lower atmosphere.
Of course like a programmed machine, you will totally ignore facts and just spew out more unbelievable crap supported by averages that are meaningless to the discussion and meaningless in general. Your ploy pretending that a 0.5 watt/m2 slow change due to orbital and tilt changes is greater than 2 watts/m2 due to GHG effects is not swallowed by anyone of significance.
Your use of slow, small radiation changes to explain current large fast changes is just one more twisted fairy tale.
GoneFishing says:
04/07/2018 at 6:18 pm
During long power outages one can use a car battery to charge the phone if need be. Also a small PV panel can charge several. There are also portable power packs and solar charged power packs.
The phone lines are as susceptible to destruction as the power lines. During the aftermath of Sandy, the only thing working was the cell system. The power, landlines and internet were out for weeks. Had no problem keeping my phones charged. Had big problems getting gasoline for the vehicles and generator.
Yes Caelan, there are multiple predicaments and problems converging in the near future which make any trend susceptible to severe disruptions. That is why I don’t consider current trends as being much of an indicator for future realities. Things rarely go smoothly but limits are being reached that will cause disruptions and major distractions from current trends.
What’s Caelan MacIntyre got to do with any of this?
Caelan is the only one around here who digs up stupid old comments
Same M.O., weird stalker type.
Kelsivictor, if memory serves, GoneFishing recently said they live somewhere along the central east coast of the USA. They weren’t specific as to where exactly.
No, I do not live along the Polish-Russian border.
40.7/41*N, near an ocean, hit by hurricane Sandy is somewhere in the New York City region. I know there are some people who literally live their entire lives on Long Island.
That sounds about right.
It isn’t me and it’s not like no one else can do similar things. I mean, why bother with research, references, libraries, peer review, or history, etc.?
For the most part, I agree with your comments, and generally don’t bother with them, Gonzo.
Nevertheless, the net is, of course, kind of like a giant library, among other, often similar, things.
Just ask Zuckerberg or the NSA.
Hey, technology, right? ^u’
You have changed your comment several times in the last half hour. Rattled to be discovered so soon?
I wrote my piece, nicely edited, and am happy with it. Believe whatever you want and go stalk someone else, Gonzo.
I will add that I find it amusing that someone else appears to be on your case. I can understand how it would be easier if it were only me, but I assure you it isn’t.
Ok Polly, I will accept that.
Thin Strips Of You
Sounds like a threat.
Your ‘strips of text’, my usage of which doesn’t seem to qualify as parroting, incidentally. Ditto with the gish gallop.
Oh, and you haven’t answered a question about one or two university studies being, as you put it, fucked, nor did you appropriately respond to a previous simple informal peer-review.
Unsure what kind of scientist you were, assuming you were, but, based on your approach hereon, along with hiding behind a moniker, I question your salt-worth.
About one of my edits, incidentally, was a point where, if the admin of the WordPress site looked under the hood, they could probably find the IP or whatever of whoever, including you, me or Kelsivictor.
Polly, no more crackers for you.
Good luck with that.
Shipping can reduce it’s fossil fuel use by 70-100%. The only barrier is political:
…one of shipping’s main priorities is to pioneer alternative, low- and zero-carbon fuels to help manage its decarbonisation pathway.
The solutions are diverse – with electricity, hydrogen, ammonia and biofuels all viable options for various segments of the industry. These are supported by a raft of proven efficiency technologies already available on the market, including digital performance management, energy-saving Flettner rotors and air lubrication systems.
This isn’t futuregazing – already we have witnessed the electrification of inland and short-sea shipping routes in Northern Europe; and some of the biggest companies within the industry are implementing high-impact energy-efficiency retrofits. Paired with further development of new fuels it is clear that powerful factors are now combining to build pressure on the IMO from across the supply chain.
This week’s meeting marks a chance for shipping to finally set itself on an ambitious and encompassing decarbonisation strategy. To match Paris, shipping must achieve a 70-100% emissions reduction by 2050. While difficult, a recent OECD International Transport Forum report concluded that with currently and developing fuels and technologies, this goal is by no means impossible to achieve.
What this all makes plain is that low-carbon shipping is not a pipe dream. In many respects, the catalysts for this change are already in place, and are becoming a commercial reality for the sector. However, shipping’s regulators must send a strong, clear policy signal to the world, so that an ambitious pledge can be met with equally ambitious actions.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/04/09/shipping-sector-technology-go-green-just-needs-policy-signal/
It’s hard to even guess at how much manpower and energy is wasted shipping stuff we don’t really even need, and would often be better off without than with.
Consider my hand made rustic furniture. It’s never been boxed, never been in a store. It’s all already past old enough to be collectible, with some of it antique by the usual standard, and the value of it is steadily going up. I could sell it and replace it with damned nice new stuff with fancy brand names on it and have a good bit of cash left over.
Unless the house burns, or somebody just WANTS new stuff, it’s good indefinitely, probably for hundreds of years. Good thick oak and American chestnut is damned durable stuff.
Maybe we ought to have throwaway goods taxes, and they ought to be high enough that only quality goods would sell.
Way back when, I once knew a girl nicknamed George, who gave me her card, which had her number and “errands by George” on it. She made her living mostly by picking up her customers’ groceries. She probably delivered four or five times as many groceries per mile driven as her customers would have.
Something tells me we use enough diesel fuel just hauling beer hundreds of miles to run essential local services such as the fire department.
“It’s hard to even guess at how much manpower and energy is wasted shipping stuff we don’t really even need, and would often be better off without than with. ”
That does describe a good chunk of the modern developed world.
We really need to follow the example of nature. Use the sun for energy, use what is available nearby, recycle everything possible. Adapt ourselves and our tools to changing conditions versus adapting our environment.
Nature made a mistake a long time ago. The formation of lignin allowed tall woody plants to grow, but lignin was indigestible to the biota of the time, so the dead “trees” just laid there, not fully rotting, not being recycled. Buried, heated and compressed over eons they formed coal. Eventually nature was able to develop ways to digest lignin and the coal age stopped. Recycling was back to full swing, but a lot of carbon was buried.
Now we dig it up and correct the mistake made long ago, by burning it and putting that carbon back into the system, just way too fast. We are always in such a hurry. But the mission is being accomplished with side effects.
But now we want to attack the trees and woody plants before they die, to make liquid fuels. Sad, but true. We can’t be trusted with the world.
White Rot Fungi Slowed Coal Formation
The evolution of the ability to break down a plant’s protective lignin largely stopped the geologic burial of carbon that formed present-day coal deposits—and may provide secrets to making biofuels from inedible parts of plants
A toughened crosshatch of carbon-based molecules is all that stands between plants and their total destruction at the hands of an array of microbes and fungi. Called lignin, the compound enables redwoods to tower and woody herbs to resist rot. As a result, lignin is the second-most abundant biological compound on the planet—and the bane of would-be biofuel-makers everywhere, blocking their best efforts to make fuels from the inedible parts of plants. It is also the reason for the vast deposits of coal laid down millions of years ago.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mushroom-evolution-breaks-down-lignin-slows-coal-formation/
This is quite a beautiful fact.
The lack of carbon forced plants to shift from carbon based poisons (like tannins) to nitrogen based poisons including alkaloids like nicotine, caffeine, morphine, cocaine, and all that fun stuff.
That’s why old fashioned plants like pine trees fight insects with gooey, carbon-heavy sap, and modern flowering plants sometimes have deadly nerve poisons.
Very interesting.
https://www.slideshare.net/Sindhukuberappa/chemical-constituents-of-poisonous-plants
Fascinating. Love to learn science like this…
Your point about George also applies to online shopping. One truck can deliver the groceries and big box stuff for 20 or 30 customers at a time. I believe that the critics of online saying that it will increase road miles is wrong and rather it will reduce road miles.
NAOM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-russia-could-steal-the-midterms/
This link will take a few minutes, it’s not for those with a short attention span.
Here’s a key quote from it.
” “But in February 2018, Adm. Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had not been instructed by President Trump or Defense Secretary James Mattis to go after Russian hackers at their point of origin. “Everything, both as the director of the NSA and what I see on the Cyber Command side, leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as something isolated,” Rogers said.””
More than a year ago I nicknamed you Trumpster. At the time, you make fun of me because I tied your manipulated hate for HRC and Russian intervention together. Of which you didn’t even believe that there was a Russian intervention. Today, history shows you as a political motivated propaganda hack. Haven’t you done enough political environmental damage with your prior personal suppressing political trolling activities for one persons lifetime ? You are a political Javier troll that spews fake news. Give it a rest.
I have only one mission and that is to politically cockblock you
Hang in, HB
I need you to remind me to keep at it.
Let’s remember that adults look to their own performance when they lose an election.
More than half of the big D Democrats I know personally are now willing to admit in private that they wish they had supported anybody else other than HRC.
You’re just a little partisan capitalist piglet. Ya said as much yourself, and you’ve posted comments indicating you’re about as low life , as a matter of principle, as a Roy Moore, condemning people just because they happen to live in the south, etc.
I’m making progress. You’re helping.
“You’re just a little partisan capitalist”
Thank you, I have no need for racist, sexist, homophobic, environmental damaging, gun loving and god fearing evangelical Republicans. In addition, I am a strong believer in capitalism with government regulation, opportunity and education.
More Americans voted for HRC than anyone in 2016. Part of being an adult is making a good decision from what one believes are bad choices. Trumpster, you failed that test of being an adult because of your overwhelming manipulated hate. Roy Moore is an example of Republican contempt for humanity.
Give it a rest
They don’t want to do anything because they want Russia’s help again. They have no chance otherwise.
NAOM
The case for insulation.
R21 insulation weighs about 50 pounds per 1000 square feet. That saves about 158 million BTU/year in my area. That translates into preventing 53000 pounds of CO2 being emitted each year for fuel oil and 26300 for propane. That is versus an 1000 square feet of uninsulated plywood wall.
So for 50 pounds of material one can prevent up to 1300 tons of CO2 per 1000 square feet of wall over a 50 year period. Now that is efficiency.
And R21 is too low. In most regions that is a minimum reasonable wall insulation; the ceiling should be at least R60.
Water is already a critical problem in countless places and will soon be in even more places.
But it’s possible to use a hell of a lot less, and still live well.
This short read summarizes what Israel has been able to do in terms of water use efficiency.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/how-to-defeat-drought-israel-south-africa-cape-town-water/
It’s also worth mentioning that a lot of supposedly dry places suffer from flash flooding, which is an excess of water.
Meanwhile an interesting update over at realclimate.org on: Stronger evidence for a weaker Atlantic overturning circulation
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/stronger-evidence-for-a-weaker-atlantic-overturning-circulation/#more-21240
Filed under: Climate impacts Climate Science Instrumental Record Oceans Paleoclimate — stefan @ 11 April 2018
Through two new studies in Nature, the weakening of the Gulf Stream System is back in the scientific headlines. But even before that, interesting new papers have been published – high time for an update on this topic.
Includes a shared link to paper in Nature.
I haven’t been able to open it yet, but yes this should be of great concern, especially to those who reap the benefits of the warmth driven north and to the life cycle of the many sea animals that use the AMOC for transport and food.
With decreasing speed of westerly winds combining with the slowing and wavy increase of the Jetstream, weather is very different now than just a few decades ago. Long stall periods of the Jetstream pattern lock in weather patterns (dry and wet, warm and cool) for up to weeks at time versus a day or two before.
Doctor Jennifer Francis does some good talks on this.
Jetstream discussion at around 31 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtmuBoolHQg
One big advantage to a warmer world is that the atmosphere is thicker. This means that major volcanic eruptions have a harder time injecting the tropopause where it can linger for long periods. Very nasty with mid latitude volcanoes, especially if two or more go off within a narrow time frame.
Got to read it, was having trouble with my router, reset that now.
Interesting how currently the cold spot in the Atlantic is amplifying the southerly wind flow into Europe.
Earth orbital eccentricity
thx
The speed limit is far slower than we think.
https://gizmodo.com/5957697/super-fast-space-travel-would-kill-you-in-minutes
Even at slower speeds, interstellar spacecraft would have to be massive to absorb the radiation out there.