The previous posting, examined the study “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” published in the Science magazine, and discussed the major obstacles the warmers face in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the voters to undertake decarbonization. And do it rapidly. You may not think thirty years is rapid, but convincing 8 billion people to wipe out the present infrastructure and substitute a new one using as yet unproven methods in 30 years, is moving at a breathtaking speed.
The above noted study, is not the only one that has looked at a way to satisfy the Paris Agreement of holding the global temperature to max.2 ºC rise, with a goal of 1.5ºC rise. A study by 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS) led by Jacobson, Delucci , et at. is, on the surface (number of pages of detailed discussion), more elaborate than the previous posting. This WWS roadmap calls for an 80% reduction of fossil fuels by 2030! Only 13 years away.
The WWS study is an all-sector roadmap that is said to show how 139 nations could jointly hold the temperature rise to no more than 2ºC.
Friends of Science critique the WWS study with a response titled “WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050” . Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge says: “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality”.
That’s what guides this critique. The critique illustrates the enormous number of new renewable facilities needed, the time necessary to put these facilities in to operation and the amount of space they require. It is awesome.
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Batteries, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Electric Vehicles, Electricity from Coal, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy, skeptic science knowledge, solar cells, Windpower
I do not think that the developed nations of the world are ready to endorse the actions they have signed onto when they authorized the Paris Agreement (PA). They liked the applause they were receiving from the media and the environmentalists. But they have not responded in-kind to their commitments for reducing CO2 emissions or contributions to the fund that helps the underdeveloped nations. See here and here. Vox posting on 4 October 2016 said “No country on Earth is taking the 2ºC climate target seriously”. The Climateactiontracker.org posted this quote: “Right now, with the policies governments have in place, we are heading to a warming of 3.6C said Prof Kornelis Blok of Ecofys.”The developed nations realize that it is time for them to “put up or shut up”. The “put up” part is bedeviled by the fact that most of them are finding that their renewable energy installations, eg solar and wind, are raising the cost of energy to a point where many can no longer afford it. Further, they are learning that the renewables make their power systems unstable and thus vulnerable to loss of power to supply the customers and industries.
Maybe, just maybe they are becoming aware of the actions they need to undertake to keep the Global temperature rise at no more than the target of 1.5C. The 24 March 2017 Science magazine published a study titled: “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization”.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, Oil and Gas Exploration, Renewable Energy, solar cells, Windpower
I am reblogging Adam Piggot’s posting “Dear Climate Alarmists—We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.
The author lays out his complaints about the way the warmers treat the data and as well as how they have treated him. He believes the catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unraveling and the skeptics will be vindicated. So what do you think about the following?
It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?
I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.
But money talks and bulls— walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Alternative Energy, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Electricity from Coal, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Fuel Standard, Sea Level
This posting uses an article from the Cosmopolitan magazine. Not a place where you would expect to find something about global warming. The title of the piece is “8 Signs You’re Not the Environmentalist You Think You Are” by Yvette d’Entremont. It is not too profound but it has a lot of honest values that most would be environmentalist never are exposed to. I have extracted just pieces of the author’s reasons why they have been misled. If you read all of her article, she makes some more good points
The following are the eight signs:
1. You buy only organic.
Organic is definitely not better for you, and it uses older, dirtier farming techniques that are, across the board, not as environmentally friendly. Contrary to rumors, organic farming uses pesticides, in some cases equally toxic pesticides that need to be applied more frequently.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Coal, Electric Vehicles, Electricity from Coal, Environment, Nuclear Energy, Personal Automobiles, Renewable Energy, WWF
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) announced that the Watt Bar Unit 2 nuclear generation unit is now online at full power, providing commercial electrical energy. It is the first new nuclear power generation unit in 20 years. Good for them. TVA has 6 other Nukes providing power.
TVA president and CEO Bill Johnson said:
“TVA’s mission is to make life better in the Valley by providing reliable, low-cost energy, protecting our area’s natural resources and working to attract business and growth – all priorities simultaneously supported by the completion of Watts Bar Unit 2..”
A Westinghouse pressurized water reactor is expected to generate 1,150 megawatts (summer net capability). The capital cost of the complete generation unit was $4.7 billion.
A posting by Michael Shellenberger, “Clean Energy is on the Decline — Here’s Why, and What We Can Do About It” discusses the demise of nuclear power plants. He notes that while low natural gas prices have undercut the economics of nuclear plants, the real problem they face is the bias against nukes. He notes than many State regulations refuse to class nukes as “renewable” energy thus not getting subsidized as do solar and wind energy. These same state regulations require a mix of solar and wind generated energy be part of the mix sold by utilities but specifically do not include nuclear power as part of the required mix. Why he asks does nuclear, an energy source that emits no carbon dioxide (CO2), get excluded. And further, nukes are base-load plants. Meaning when put on-line they produce power whether the sun shines or the wind blows. And an added benefit, nukes produce enormous amounts of power while occupying very little space.
“Consider that in the U.S., utilities have either closed or announced premature closures of seven plants in three years. At least eight more are at risk of early closure in the next two years. In 2011, Germany announced it would close all of its nuclear plants. Swedish utility Vattenfall announced late last year that it would be forced to close several reactors prematurely.”
The irony of this, for example in Germany, is that the nukes are being replaced by brown coal fueled power plants. Brown coal is probably the biggest emitter of CO2 per KWh of any normal power source.
“Everywhere the underlying reason is the same: anti-nuclear forces, in tandem with rent-seeking economic interests, have captured government policies. On one extreme lies Germany, which decided to speed up the closure of its nuclear plants following Fukushima. In Sweden the government imposed a special tax on nuclear. In the U.S., solar and wind receive 140 and 17 times higher levels of subsidy than nuclear. And states across the nation have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, that mandate rising wind and solar, and that exclude nuclear.”
The ExxonMobil Report contains a wealth of information. This posting will look at the status of renewable energy in the context of the world forecasts. While there are a number of postings that contend that renewables will be a dominate player, logic says that will not be true. One recent posting declares that within ten years the world could be supplied exclusively by renewable. I would take that bet on the other side.
First some background from the ExxonMobil Report.
The world population will grow from 7.2 billion in 2014 to 9 billion in 2040. India will replace China as the world’s most populated nation at 1.6 billion people. The globes energy demand will increase by 25% from 2014 to 2040. The report believes without their forecasted improvements in energy use, demand would be double their 2040 forecast shown in the report’s 2040 forecast.
The chart below is their forecast of world energy demand 2014 to 2040: (click on charts to enlarge)
The dashed line is the demand without the efficiency improvement forecast in the Report.