Sassenach wrote:Dan, I had a quick look through those figures and I have to say I'm sceptical. Firstly, correct me if this is a misreading of the data but it looks like they've simply decided to add in an additional cost factor that they've more or less plucked out of the air for fossil fuel sources that do not have carbon capture technology.

Really? In the USDoE table (first on the Wikipedia page) the cost is lower for the "NG: Advanced Combined Cycle" line than it is for the "NG: Advanced CC with CCS" line. The same can be observed for the UK 2010 table on the same page.

Which is the reverse of what you would find if your assertion was true. Perhaps your quick look was inadequate.

Secondly, isn't it making a massive assumption about the reliability of wind power ? Wind power never runs at full capacity.

I know it doesn't. They know it doesn't. Which is why they don't give Wind a capacity factor of 100%. It's more like 30-40% that they used. You seem to be suggesting that they assumed a much higher rate than reality (and in particular for new turbines).

A casual glance at the internet has proven tricky to find the proper hard data on capacity factors for wind turbines

Your first link points to a small snapshot in time, but does not present much on the overall capacity factor of wind - just, as you do, that it's not 100%. Guess what, no method of electrical generation has a capacity factor of 100%.

Your second link may be accurate in general terms, but the UK has a better capacity factor than the EU average, and only the latter is shown. If you are criticising UK policy, we need UK figures.

The point about backup is key for me. If we're going to need 80% backup capacity for wind turbines then why do we even have the turbines in the first place ? Now ok, he does seem to be quoting studies here that date from 2003-4 and it may well be the case that wind power has become much more efficient in the interim (in fact I'd be surprised if it hasn't), but even so I very much dount they've gotten backup capacity requirements down below 50%. I fail to see how this is a sensible use of resources.

Well, I am not sure about the 100% figure on account of how it's contradicted by the actual figures in the article (and in your quote) for the UK.

First of all we are seeing improvements in storage capacity that means you don't need to generate electricity in real time all the time. Solar power has exactly the same issues but you seem less hostile to it.

Secondly, all electrical generation needs a backup. A coal strike, a bust gas pipeline, a nuclear accident... It is not efficient, but for security we actually need redundancy built into the system more than we do pure efficiency.

Thirdly, there is an issue with use of resources you seem to be missing with the 'waste' line. A non-renewable source like fossil fuels can only be used once. So while we are finding new ways to extract gas and oil, in the long term it does not seem to be responsible to burn it in preference to other means of generating power that don't have that issue. To dash for gas as a means of marking time in the hope of a better way a generation or two away seems like a waste too.

Really? In the USDoE table (first on the Wikipedia page) the cost is lower for the "NG: Advanced Combined Cycle" line than it is for the "NG: Advanced CC with CCS" line. The same can be observed for the UK 2010 table on the same page.

Which is the reverse of what you would find if your assertion was true. Perhaps your quick look was inadequate.

Not really. All it means is that the capital costs for those without CCS have been arbitrarily inflated to take into account government-imposed fees for carbon emissions, but that even taking this into account the costs are still much lower than those which do employ CCS. The 2nd article you linked to went much further btw, and factored in all kinds of unquantifiable effects related to climate change.

I know it doesn't. They know it doesn't. Which is why they don't give Wind a capacity factor of 100%. It's more like 30-40% that they used. You seem to be suggesting that they assumed a much higher rate than reality (and in particular for new turbines).

Actually, I didn't catch the bit where they spelled out the capacity factor (it's a long article). I think I made that quite clear when I specifically asked you to point out if I had it wrong. Would you care to point out the exact figure they used. 'It's more like' doesn't really cut it either.

Setting that aside though, 30-40% is not a realistic figure. The EU average is roughly 20%. That's a big difference.

Your first link points to a small snapshot in time, but does not present much on the overall capacity factor of wind - just, as you do, that it's not 100%. Guess what, no method of electrical generation has a capacity factor of 100%.

Your second link may be accurate in general terms, but the UK has a better capacity factor than the EU average, and only the latter is shown. If you are criticising UK policy, we need UK figures.

The best I can determine from looking around various sites this evening is that the capacity factor for the UK is about 24%, possibly a fraction higher. Better than the EU average but still nowhere near enough, especially when you consider that even at the 30-40% figure you quoted wind is still not competitive with gas.

Well, I am not sure about the 100% figure on account of how it's contradicted by the actual figures in the article (and in your quote) for the UK.

I did express a certain scepticism about the source myself.

First of all we are seeing improvements in storage capacity that means you don't need to generate electricity in real time all the time. Solar power has exactly the same issues but you seem less hostile to it.

Secondly, all electrical generation needs a backup. A coal strike, a bust gas pipeline, a nuclear accident... It is not efficient, but for security we actually need redundancy built into the system more than we do pure efficiency.

Thirdly, there is an issue with use of resources you seem to be missing with the 'waste' line. A non-renewable source like fossil fuels can only be used once. So while we are finding new ways to extract gas and oil, in the long term it does not seem to be responsible to burn it in preference to other means of generating power that don't have that issue. To dash for gas as a means of marking time in the hope of a better way a generation or two away seems like a waste too.

I may have been a bit hasty about solar power tbh. It was based on some predictions that I'd read about how it was very close to parity, but since doing this bit of extra research I haven't really seen any evidence of that, although i've been mainly looking at wind.

Of course we need redundancy, but the level of backup needed for wind power is significantly higher than for gas, and entails both extra expense and continued use of fossil fuels.

As to the final point, I'm not saying we should just dash for gas and to hell with the long term consequences. What I'm saying is that the current renewables are not good enough and in all probability never will be. We should make use ofm the abundant gas that's now available to keep porices lower while at the same time investing more heavily in R&D to find a better technology.

As a final point btw, if you're that confident that wind is already competitive with gas then presumably you can explain why it is that wind is heavily subsidised and gas is not ?

More discussion of climate change...http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3957766

They gots some splaining to do!
a few things I find a bit funny, when the warming does not follow their predictions, it's because of natural variations in climate yet the same natural variations have nothing to do with warming, the (fairly short) warming trend MUST be due to man and simply can't be a variation, that is until it conflicts with their possibly faulty "settled science".

and to blame volcanic eruptions, Yes they can cool things down but have we had any more activity of late? We have had no major eruptions in a while that I am aware of, if the activity is the same, then how can you put blame here? I did a quick search and didn't read of such increased activity so this makes no sense to me, and one thing I did find, when Pinatubo went off, it made a huge difference dropping the average temp a whole degree. So what are we talking about here with no major eruptions??

Scientific papers show an overwhelming consensus regarding climate change...http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ans-causes
97.1 percent of papers found that human activity caused climate change, the position of 2.2 percent was unclear, and 0.7 percent denied that climate change was caused by human activity... For every scientist who published a peer-reviewed paper who opposed the position that human activity caused climate change...there were 138 scientists in support...

freeman3 wrote:Scientific papers show an overwhelming consensus regarding climate change...http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ans-causes
97.1 percent of papers found that human activity caused climate change, the position of 2.2 percent was unclear, and 0.7 percent denied that climate change was caused by human activity... For every scientist who published a peer-reviewed paper who opposed the position that human activity caused climate change...there were 138 scientists in support...

How do these scientists make a living?

If they need grants and/or funding from a government, what would you expect?

Here's a funny thing: our government says the tepid economic growth last quarter was due to an extremely cold winter.

freeman

. For every scientist who published a peer-reviewed paper who opposed the position that human activity caused climate change...there were 138 scientists in support...

So you're saying there's controversy.....

(Paraphrasing from Dumb and Dumber's famous, "So you're saying there's a chance...")

I think we should assume that the vast majority of scientists are correct that there is human caused climate change. I think the real scientific debate is the extent of it which largely depends on whether the feedback effects are positive (e.g. more warming causes more warming by releasing permafrost carbon to the environment) or negative (more warming leads to changing cloud structures that absorb sunlight). I'm using positive and negative as scientific terms.

Once we have greater confidence on that aspect of scientific consensus (extent) we have to look at the economics of various solutions. Are we better off accepting some global warming as not a huge problem, combatting it with regulation, or cap and trade, or carbon taxes, or accelerated funding of scientific research on alternative energy and carbon sequestration? That's a much more complicated discussion where there is limited consensus amongst social scientists.

ray

Once we have greater confidence on that aspect of scientific consensus (extent) we have to look at the economics of various solutions. Are we better off accepting some global warming as not a huge problem, combatting it with regulation, or cap and trade, or carbon taxes, or accelerated funding of scientific research on alternative energy and carbon sequestration? That's a much more complicated discussion where there is limited consensus amongst social scientists

.

I think you're exaggerating the extent to which there is a debate about the variables affecting warming. For instance, there is no debate that the methane gases contained in permafrost are twelve times as effective at increasing energy in the atmosphere as CO2. Its a measurable and observed physical reality.

The problem with the debate on what to do, is that people have to accept that the consequences of doing nothing include things like a 2 foot sea rise before 2100. Now if some one accepts this a strong liklihood then the costs of mitigating measures are put into context.
The problem now, is that people like Marco Rubio are still in total denial. And somehow a large percentage of Americans believe, (and that's believe as in without supporting evidence, entirely on faith) that the science is wrong. And put their faith in the misguided leadership of politicians like Rubio.
Coming from a state that is 6 feet above sea level, you'd think he'd be prepared to actually lead on the issue, rather than pander to the hard core fundamentalists..

Ray Jay wrote:I think we should assume that the vast majority of scientists are correct that there is human caused climate change. I think the real scientific debate is the extent of it which largely depends on whether the feedback effects are positive (e.g. more warming causes more warming by releasing permafrost carbon to the environment) or negative (more warming leads to changing cloud structures that absorb sunlight). I'm using positive and negative as scientific terms.

Clouds absorbing sunlight would not be positive. If they reflected more light, that would be negative. On the other hand, clouds may also reflect or absorb more heat energy reflected from the surface rather than letting it escape.

But yes, there is a range of opinion as to the impacts of such feedback mechanisms.

Once we have greater confidence on that aspect of scientific consensus (extent) we have to look at the economics of various solutions. Are we better off accepting some global warming as not a huge problem, combatting it with regulation, or cap and trade, or carbon taxes, or accelerated funding of scientific research on alternative energy and carbon sequestration? That's a much more complicated discussion where there is limited consensus amongst social scientists.

Not just the economics, but the other social impacts of various choices (acting in various ways or not acting). Not being too crude, but we should look at the impact on quality of life, and in terms of lives lost as well. It would not be unreasonable to look at the impact on other species as well.

Some of the options you outline may stand on their own as good ideas - for example, alternative energy, especially if it is renewable in nature, would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which would benefit us in terms of all kinds of pollution, not just in terms of greenhouse gases.

And we should take a global view. I am sure that people living in the temperate north would like milder winters and warmer summers. But there are billions living in tropical and near-tropical climes as well.

rickyp wrote:The problem with the debate on what to do, is that people have to accept that the consequences of doing nothing include things like a 2 foot sea rise before 2100.

Sure, Al Gore.

The actual sea level rise over the last eighteen years is 1.85 inches, which works out to 10.4 inches per century. This is similar to the 20th century's rise of 8 inches, but much less than the average rise of 4 feet per century for the last 10,000 years as glaciers left by the last ice age continue to melt.

Here's the problem: the hype has been so over the top that sane people start wondering about "settled science."

Gravity is settled science. Climate change is prediction. It's proved to be less than precise so far.

The problem now, is that people like Marco Rubio are still in total denial. And somehow a large percentage of Americans believe, (and that's believe as in without supporting evidence, entirely on faith) that the science is wrong. And put their faith in the misguided leadership of politicians like Rubio.

No, one problem is that China, India, and other countries are continuing to increase their CO2 output while ours are at (I believe) 30-year lows. The other problem is the cost: which is going to be significant.

Coming from a state that is 6 feet above sea level, you'd think he'd be prepared to actually lead on the issue, rather than pander to the hard core fundamentalists..

The "fundamentalists" in this case are the Gore-bots. The skeptics are your problem. They must be "converted" and shown how much they must pay for their "sins."

fate

The actual sea level rise over the last eighteen years is 1.85 inches, which works out to 10.4 inches per century.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The huge West Antarctic ice sheet is starting a glacially slow collapse in an unstoppable way, two new studies show. Alarmed scientists say that means even more sea level rise than they figured.
"It's bad news. It's a game changer," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who wasn't part of either study. "We thought we had a while to wait and see. We've started down a process that we always said was the biggest worry and biggest risk from West Antarctica."

The Rignot study sees eventually 4 feet (1.2 meters) of sea level rise from the melt. But it could trigger neighboring ice sheet loss that could mean a total of 10 to 12 feet of sea level rise, the study in Science said, and Rignot agreed.

The recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change don't include melt from West Antarctic or Greenland in their projections and this would mean far more sea level rise, said Sridhar Anandakrishnan, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. That means sea level rise by the year 2100 is likely to be about three feet, he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/1 ... 10679.html

rickyp wrote:fate

The actual sea level rise over the last eighteen years is 1.85 inches, which works out to 10.4 inches per century.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The huge West Antarctic ice sheet is starting a glacially slow collapse in an unstoppable way, two new studies show. Alarmed scientists say that means even more sea level rise than they figured.
"It's bad news. It's a game changer," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who wasn't part of either study. "We thought we had a while to wait and see. We've started down a process that we always said was the biggest worry and biggest risk from West Antarctica."

The Rignot study sees eventually 4 feet (1.2 meters) of sea level rise from the melt. But it could trigger neighboring ice sheet loss that could mean a total of 10 to 12 feet of sea level rise, the study in Science said, and Rignot agreed.

The recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change don't include melt from West Antarctic or Greenland in their projections and this would mean far more sea level rise, said Sridhar Anandakrishnan, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. That means sea level rise by the year 2100 is likely to be about three feet, he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/1 ... 10679.html

Interesting:

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

And, the climatologists know EVERYTHING apparently:

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

We're supposed to act on this "consensus" and go into panic mode, yet the "experts" are baffled that their projections are . . . wrong.

You panic. I'll keep on seeking the truth. You know, science and all that.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I think we should assume that the vast majority of scientists are correct that there is human caused climate change. I think the real scientific debate is the extent of it which largely depends on whether the feedback effects are positive (e.g. more warming causes more warming by releasing permafrost carbon to the environment) or negative (more warming leads to changing cloud structures that absorb sunlight). I'm using positive and negative as scientific terms.

Clouds absorbing sunlight would not be positive. If they reflected more light, that would be negative. On the other hand, clouds may also reflect or absorb more heat energy reflected from the surface rather than letting it escape.

In fact, increased cloud cover is often seen as a positive feedback, and increased water vapour (which is what would cause more clouds) is one of the main positive feedback mechanisms, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas itself.

Here is a Met office page discussing some of the various feedbacks and the extent to which we understand them. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-cha ... /feedbacks

RJ points out that there may be positive benefits from global warming...which is true but any positive benefits get outweighed by negative ones if the temperature rises more than a few degrees.
The crucial step is agreement that the earth is warming due to human activity (meaning burning of fossil fuels). That is why I posted the ratio of 138:1 of scientific papers in support of that proposition
So you can analyze it like this:

(1) The Earth is growing warmer,
(2) The Earth is growing warmer due to high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere

Scientific consensus


(3) Carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing largely due to burning of fossil fuels

This point does not seem to be controversial.

(4) Carbon dioxide concentrations will increase unless something significant is done with regard to carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels

Again, not a controversial point

(5) therefore, from above, the earth's temperature will continue to rise, but it is just unclear how much

It could be a modest increase in temperature and the effects are mild and the feedback effects don't impact that much ...or there could be a tipping point in carbon dioxide concentration where there are catastrophic effects on weather and ocean levels...
Once it is conceded that the earth's temperature is rising due to the burning of fuels...it is an awfully big gamble to assume that the effects are mild. Something as complex as the earth's temperature is going to have many different things impacting it and there is going to be a lot of conflicting data...but the key issue is whether higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause, all other things being equal, higher temperatures on earth. Once that is established then to do nothing is to simply hope that the timer on the ticking bomb is a very long one...and somehow in the future we will figure out how to defuse it...