Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[2020hindsight]

whichever way you look at it Wayne, Aus and USA are pretty damned selfish yes?

 

[ghotib]

The IPCC reports discuss the limitations and uncertainties in their science, and they're on the Web and freely available.

This link is to a list of PDF documents from the most recent (2007) report. I think one of the most useful documents is the FAQ (4th link in the list), which includes questions and answers about the climate models and human influence effects we've talked about in this thread.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

This is a higher level link to lists of documents from all three working groups of the IPCC. It looks like the third group (Mitigation of Climate Change) is the most directly related to the Kyoto Protocol and its future.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_ar4pubs.html

I think it becomes clear as soon as you read a couple of these documents that their conclusions can't just be dismissed as guesswork, special interests, incomplete, or whatever. The conclusions can and should continue to be tested, but there's more than enough certainty for urgent action.

Ghoti

 

[Scuba]

whichever way you look at it Wayne, Aus and USA are pretty damned selfish yes?

2020, I looked only at the map, is it my screen or did the U.A.E. (Dubai) get the red?

I wouldn't be at all surprised after visiting there in 2000 before the Olympics... I remember seeing Burg Al Arab as we were driving there from about 20 Ks away, the talk around the sheesha as we drank beer was about how gaudy the lighting was and that at the time there were 3 chopper pilots checked out to land on the cantilever but only 2 had the b..s to do it....

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeah, that's another debate entirely. I was going to reply earlier to a post of yours on the same matter.

The problem amongst green movements is the debate between what I deem to be "practical environmentalists" and "conservationist environmentalists". It's what makes the greens party here so inconsistent, because they are largely a conservationist party. Whereas in Europe for instance, greens parties are dominated by what I would call the practical environmentalists.

I've had many arguments with fellow greenies about the china hydro schemes. From my point of view, they really don't have a choice. And I think I'm correct in that point of view. When 3/4 of the marathon runners die next year, it should become obvious. Of course it's a totally different view point of you are totally conservation biased. I certainly am in many cases i.e. Barrow Island or Gorgon, Ludlow Forrest, green belting Perth. But it is a matter of priorities. If reducing CO2 emissions is the priority, conservation is always secondary. Obviously, I would be classing myself as a practical environmentalist.

From my perspective, I would love to see Tasmania become the power generation hub of Australia. It has everything renewable power generation needs. Lots of water, wind and NW Tassie looks good for hot rocks even. This is an idea the conservationists have, and will, hold things up.

In short, in Australia, I would support more hydro - all things being equal. But it appears there may only be a handful of rivers still suitable. Certainly there aren't any left here in WA. So on a cost by cost basis, I think in Australia at least, the money would be better spent elsewhere. And apart from exceptional circumstances, I don't generally have a problem with hydro worldwide.

I'm pretty much the same. I would say I'm actually somewhat more hard line than most when it comes to sustainability. Never had any car larger than 4 cylinder, been recycling and using fluoro lights as long as I can remember (before kerb side collection and when energy saving globes weren't sold in supermarkets or hardware stores). Same with a lot of things.

But anyone who's read my posts on ASF would know that I am absolutely pro-dams for power. And the reason is simple. Hydro is the only large scale, proven technology we have that can balance the power system without using fossil fuels or nuclear.

Wind is intermittent. So is solar. So is tidal, wave and so on. Add any of those to a thermal (coal, gas etc) power system and all you'll do is save a bit of fuel. They don't add significant firm peak capacity when it's needed and for this reason we still need to build just as many power stations. But, and here's the nasty bit, those coal and gas-fired plants will be less efficient at widely varying output in a grid with a lot of intermittent generation.

So at best, adding solar, wind etc to the grid enables us to save a modest amount of fuel. But we'll never get anywhere near "clean" energy doing that. All things considered, we'll be lucky to get a 25% overall cut in emissions intensity, something that will be offset before we can achieve it by rising demand.

Not so with hydro however. Build a wind farm in Tas and integrate its operation with the existing hydro plants. What that turbine becomes now is an actual alternative to building another type of power station. That massively improves the economics of wind, solar etc since just saving a bit of coal isn't saving much money. But avoiding building a new power station saves a fortune.

Obviously there are limits to this. We'll need more hydro to balance more wind etc but the two work very nicely together (likewise solar etc).

And another benefit is efficiency. A hydro turbine is nearly perfect in terms of efficiency. Very little waste heat is produced (even with a 100 year old unit simple air cooling with the power station windows open is sufficient and new units are much more efficient than that.) And more to the point, hydro turbines can handle very rapid changes in load efficiently.

If necessary, you can ramp hydro up, down, up again and then completely off all in a matter of minutes. Actually, it can be done in seconds if it's really necessary. Output can be all over the place to balance the wind, solar etc.

Try doing that with coal and, well, good luck! At best you'll end up with a massive waste of coal and thus no real benefit from the solar, wind etc.

So if we're ever going to have a predominantly renewable grid, as opposed to a predominantly coal-fired one with a bit of renewable tacked on, we'll need hydro for storage. That's no secret, indeed it's one of the better known things about hydro power, and those who take the staunch "No Dams" stance know full well it's fossil fuels forever under their plan.

Technically, there's no reason why we can't have a 100% renewable grid (maybe keep a few coal plants as cheap backup in case of unforeseen breakdowns etc) if we combine the right technologies. Solar, geothermal, hydro and a bit of wind for the energy component. Geothermal for the baseload capacity, hydro (pumped and natural) for the intermediate and peaking capacity. All very viable technically.

But take out the hydro bit and there goes large scale reliance on the intermittent sources.

So the point is about storage rather than actual generation. Sure, we've got more undeveloped hydro in Australia than most realise but that alone won't be anywhere near enough. But fully integrate that with the other renewables and use it to firm the supply and then we're talking about serious power and something the coal industry won't like.

Ever wondered why coal companies don't seem worried about wind etc? Quite simply, it's not a real threat to their business whilst we don't have large scale storage. So the coal companies will quite likely fight dams (they've been involved in that one before, albeit in a low key manner), but not wind or solar.

If you make the energy 20% cleaner then we're never going to get a 50% cut in emissions, especially not with a constant growth economy. Make it virtually emissions free and then we'll see some serious results.

All that said, the bushwalking side of me ain't keen on dams. Not in the slightest. But I'd rather a few more lakes and a shift to predominantly renewable energy than a cooked planet. But, and I can't stress this strongly enough, it has to be dams integrated with other renewables for it to work in Australia. Dams alone won't come anywhere near to being enough.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't have a problem with nuclear m8 - as they say, "negligible" co2 - mountains of power - plenty of countries using it already (france 75% etc ) - but everyone wants to scaremonger that one for all it's worth

Worldwide, nuclear and hydro are on a comparable scale and ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively in terms of total generation. Coal is 1st, gas 4th and oil 5th. All the others, are, well, "others" and not really too significant.

As for scaremongering, I think you'll find the same people who ironically oppose climate change are largely responsible for that one.

 

[2020hindsight]

2020, I looked only at the map, is it my screen or did the U.A.E. (Dubai) get the red?

I wouldn't be at all surprised after visiting there in 2000 before the Olympics... I remember seeing Burg Al Arab as we were driving there from about 20 Ks away, the talk around the sheesha as we drank beer was about how gaudy the lighting was and that at the time there were 3 chopper pilots checked out to land on the cantilever but only 2 had the b..s to do it....

scuba, yep - bright red around there

Snow skiing in the desert as they say.
Then again - it gets to 50 degC

And it was (only, lol) 45degC in Tennant Ck the other day - and the swimming pool was packed shoulder to shoulder with kids cooling off

 

[2020hindsight]

Further to previous...
check out "the poor countries of Africa"

About 30% of the total list ( 5 jpeg photos) use less than one tenth the co2equivalent that Australia uses.

(look at the eighth column which counts 1 down to 185 - and the co2e in the righthandmost column -
we use 25.6tonnes of co2e without land use change
Only 119 countries use more than 10% of that



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GHG_per_capita_2000_no_LUC.svg
CAIT have some good stuff

 

[Smurf1976]

Walked into a shopping centre today. Parked the car (car park is outside not underground etc) and just walked in as anyone else would do.

And there it was. A great big plasma screen that tells me... wait for it... what the weather outside is doing. Nope, not the weather straight from the Bureau but just outside the shops.

Now, given that I'd just walked in from outside I didn't really need to know what the weather was doing. In the unlikely event that I had forgotten, I could simply walk 10 metres back out the door and see for myself what it's like outside.

But someone decided that we need to use a few hundred Watts for what is effectively a thermometer. Hmm...

Meanwhile, my thermometer at home records both maximum and minimum temperature both inside and outside. I got it about 15 years ago and haven't needed to change the battery yet. Obviously it uses a lot less energy than that plasma screen and thus is just recording the temperature rather than trying to increase it.

Oh well, I guess it beats the idea of a plasma screen with a camera outside as a "window".

 

[2020hindsight]

A great big plasma screen that tells me... wait for it... what the weather outside is doing. Nope, not the weather straight from the Bureau but just outside the shops.

like the Irish weather forecaster, balanced on his window sill, one hand in , one out...

"on the one hand it seems to be dry, but on the other hand it feels like it might rain"....

 

[chops_a_must]

Totally agree Smurf.

The only comment I will make, is about wind. There are exceptions in terms of its consistency. WA is a great example of this. I am yet to be in Freo in the afternoon in my twenty something years of being, where there hasn't been a strong and unceasing breeze. And the Freo doctor comes in at exactly the right time for peak power generation, especially in summer when it is needed most.

It's the same in Geraldton and all the way up the coast. The trees in Gero grow horizontally for crise sakes lol! Wayne knows that only too well. I've posted pics of them before, and I would assume it was the same in Fremantle with the trees before they were cleared as well.

But WA is probably the best example of an exception with wind...

 

[Happy]

As Smurf mentioned before, spare power can be used to pump water back to high side of hydro power station.
Wind can do the same, pump water back up directly of produce electricity to run electric pump.
Done on massive scale, despite of 20% or 25% efficiency will pump enough water back up to make huge difference.

Of course scale is important.

 

[Smurf1976]

As Smurf mentioned before, spare power can be used to pump water back to high side of hydro power station.
Wind can do the same, pump water back up directly of produce electricity to run electric pump.
Done on massive scale, despite of 20% or 25% efficiency will pump enough water back up to make huge difference.

Of course scale is important.

Totally agreed though I must point out that we're talking about 70% efficiency for large scale pumped storage, not 20 - 25%.

 

[ghotib]

Smurf, it seems like the discussion is all about methods of generating power for the grid. Have you seen any attempts to quantify small-scale, localised power generation (and storage of course) to reduce the load on the grid. Things like wind generation for city buildings, domestic solar+wind. Solar panels for street lights are getting quite commonplace now - does that provide some sort of indicator of what's possible?

Ghoti

 

[2020hindsight]

Should be compulsory viewing for the 10,000 delegates in Bali ...
(all as posted elsewhere)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232770&highlight=idiot#post232770

planet of the apes

PS there will be those who point out that the Planet of the Apes is the result of nuclear war.
and then why would I post this under global warming - and still advocate nuclear power for Australia -
lol - fair challenge ...


..just that
a) if the world doesn't go nuclear power, and make some really dramatic changes, then, as I heard some Prof say a while back, the effects of global warming will dwarf the likes of Chernyobel.
b) as for Aus holding back for reasons of "nuclear security" - the rest of the world has nuclear - whether we do or not makes not the slightest difference to any accessibility to nuclear by "bad guys", and also...
c) we happily export Uranium, - by what sort of logic do we then claim some sort of moral high ground or consistency on this "access" question
d) I guess you have the nimby question.... but we'll always have that - even for wind turbines. (possibly not for solar granted)

 

[2020hindsight]

PS I guess you could call it a dilemna (nuclear potentially the only saviour but at risk of blowing us up)

- just that I recall that Prof saying "Chernyobel was a walk in the park compared to what's ahead in the global warming stakes" o

PS I'll be fascinated to see what the Bali conference says about nuclear power options - maybe it will just leave that up to the individual countries.

 

[Wysiwyg]

A neighbour informed me about this org. and although i haven`t checked every single post i apologies if anyone has already mentioned this org. ,Green Cross, founded by none other than former soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev.
The name apparently is inline with the Red Cross but on an ecological and environmental level.Practical help as opposed to jumping on the bandwagoning or soapbox is what they appear to be about.

Only a new group in Australia and here is the Green Cross website.

 

[Mofra]

But anyone who's read my posts on ASF would know that I am absolutely pro-dams for power. And the reason is simple. Hydro is the only large scale, proven technology we have that can balance the power system without using fossil fuels or nuclear.

Hydro is fantastic in theory, but what of reports that often coal actually produces less of a carbon footprint, as with hydro schemes there is the unfortunate carbon release of rotting vegetation?

 

[2020hindsight]

Only a new group in Australia and here is the Green Cross website.

Thanks for this Wys ....

Thank you to Premier Anna Bligh and Lord Mayor Campbell Newman who have supported and provided the start-up funding for Green Cross Australia

.
Not sure about Anna Bligh's long term green credentials -

I mean, Bob Carr (ex NSW Premier) was seriously green deep down. Anna Bligh ...mmmm maybe - guess I'll owe her an apology if she turns out to be genuine, but the Qld treatment of the Traveston Dam question (average depth about 2metres or less even when full) when other options half the plan area and a quarter the disruption to farmland were available is a bit of a worry

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, it seems like the discussion is all about methods of generating power for the grid. Have you seen any attempts to quantify small-scale, localised power generation (and storage of course) to reduce the load on the grid. Things like wind generation for city buildings, domestic solar+wind. Solar panels for street lights are getting quite commonplace now - does that provide some sort of indicator of what's possible?

Ghoti

Lots of things are possible.

I know of one project that requires about 750 separate points of supply, each to supply a 30 Watt load that's on no more than 5 hours per day. I can't elaborate on what the project is (confidential info) but suffice to say it will be solar or possibly wind powered since that is cheaper than running cables etc for mains power.

That said, the above project will produce a LOT more greenhouse gas using solar than if it used even brown coal-fired grid power. All those solar panels inefficiently used (have to be sized for Winter conditions, excess power in Summer will simply be wasted), all those batteries to maintain etc. The grid is a lot less polluting, but more expensive in this case.

Worth noting that even Hydro Tas has solar panels set up for the monitoring euipment on various canals, dams etc. Kind of funny to be finding solar panels in a hydro scheme, but they have rather a lot of them. It's just not economic running a power line from the power station back to the canal / dam just to run a few Watts worth of monitoring and communications equipment. There are some larger scale ones too, for example the outlet at Lake Augusta has a lot of solar panels literally on top of the dam (well, on top of the building on top of the dam).

A lot of things can be done, but fundamentally the aim is to reduce the use of resources. That's the only reason we're having this debate - the grid hasn't stopped working but it impacts the environment.

And this is the bit many don't like. Renewables are, in general, very high capital cost and very low running cost. Hydro and solar are both pretty extreme in that regard. Wind has significantly higher ongoing costs but it's still pretty capital intensive.

So the way to (1) drive down costs and (2) minimise resource use is to use ALL the power available from any renewable source once it's built. If you only use half the available power then your costs and resource use per unit of power actually used double. And that puts and end to both the economics and environmental advantages of going renewable in the first place.

There is also integration to consider. In short, 1 + 1 = a lot more than 2 when you integrate renewable power sources (applies to coal too but on a lesser scale).

Another point is about the energy intensity of loads. Sure, you could run a house with solar. But you're not going to run an aluminium smelter that way. Given that business is about three quarters (and rising) of total demand, simply shifting residential use to solar etc doesn't get us off the coal track in the long term.

So overall, we're absolutely better off connecting all generation to the grid IMO. Cheaper and more efficient use of resources.

And of course if we're going to have the grid then it's an awful lot easier to just build a 200 MW solar power station than to have 200,000 x 1kW systems on roofs. A LOT easier and a LOT cheaper.

Hence my view that we'll be sticking with the grid in the long term. Some niche applications for off-grid systems certainly, but the grid will still be there.

IMO the overall argument for disconnecting from the grid is like saying we should replace cars with helicopters and thus not need roads anymore. Looks good until you consider just how inefficient a helicopter actually is. Same with remote power supplies. Both have their uses, but it's more efficient to use the grid / roads when possible.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hydro is fantastic in theory, but what of reports that often coal actually produces less of a carbon footprint, as with hydro schemes there is the unfortunate carbon release of rotting vegetation?

I'll dig out the info if I can find it.

But in short it depends on the timeframe and whether or not it's a man-made lake or a natural lake enlarged. Also the location - tropical etc.

Depending on what the vegetation is, it could be removed first and used as timber etc thus solving the problem.

Also have to consider that in a storage system such as the one I have described, hydro is only a minority of the actual generation. It's just that it provides 100% of the storage thus makes the rest work. So even if hydro was equal to coal in terms of emissions, it would still be worth building for this application.