Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[ghotib]

Lots of things are possible.

<SNIP>

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.

It's quantifying the part about a LOT easier and a LOT cheaper to build one big station than a lot of small ones on roofs (or wherever) that interests me. When I said "reduce the load on the grid", I didn't mean go off the grid (though personally I'd love to do that just for the challenge of it). I'm thinking of small scale generation that sometimes feeds the grid.

200,000 roofs is not such a big proportion of a big city, and the properties are all already connected to the grid. Does it make sense to apply some of the infrastructure funds to subsidising power generation on some of those roofs so they can feed the grid? Does storage - battery or whatever - have to be at the same scale as generation, or is it practical to have generation by each building but storage for neighbourhoods? If the grid is smart enough, is there a point where there enough small scale generators to actually reduce the need for storage?

Seems to me that a huge advantage of small scale generation like this would be that it could start quickly and build up steadily - no 5, 10, or 15 year wait to start replacing coal, and also a gradual reduction in the need for coal with more choices about when and how to phase it out (if that's what happens). But again, that needs to be quantified.

I get the impression that you're seeing renewables as either replacing the grid. or requiring that the grid be replaced. I don't see that. We do need to replace fossil fuels as the source of energy to feed the grid. I don't see why that means replacing the grid itself. That's like saying that replacing a mainframes with distributed network requires you to replace the Internet.

Cheers,

Ghoti

 

[Aussiejeff]

...Does it make sense to apply some of the infrastructure funds to subsidising power generation on some of those roofs so they can feed the grid?...


Cheers,

Ghoti

Hi Ghoti. IMHO, the answer should be a resounding YES!

As far as I am aware, a number of countries are already PAYING people for the excess electricity that they can feed into "the grid". In fact I'm sure I've seen a few TV programs where home or business owners in some of these more enlightened countries actually are making enough income from "re-selling" their extra generated power back to the grid to completely pay for their annual power bill or even make a profit!

I think it is patently ridiculous that Ozzies are not given the same sort of REAL incentive to get started into providing this alternative source to a system that sometimes struggles to provide consistent base load power. Sure, the Fed Government gives you a measly few thousand bucks subsidy if you want to purchase some photo-voltaic cells for your home or business (no where near enough at current solar cell prices to be a real incentive). Unfortunately, having shelled out bigtime from your own pockets, the electricity authorities will gleefully take ANY extra power you might generate for NOTHING. So, there is no incentive in Australia to install a big enough system to actually generate much more power than you might personally need.

I totally agree with you that by providing better funding in this area (by way of increased subsidies for the panels and a FAIR REBATE for any extra power generated back into the grid) this form of power generation could become wide spread enough to significantly reduce the amount of coal, gas etc currently needed to power the big power stations. Given that the power authorities are always complaining about how electricity demand is at a maximum on those bright, sunny, stinking hot mid-summer days, I think it is a no-brainer that financially encouraging SIGNIFICANTLY more home/business owners to GENERATE THEIR OWN POWER and even FEED THE EXCESS INTO THE GRID TO REDUCE BASE LOAD DEMAND during peak periods would actually be a very positive thing to do!

Imagine the kudos we would get from other countries if we had such policies!

I'm sure the Fed government could find a few $AUBillion for this over the next 5 years if they really tried. How much are they going to spend on iffy clean coal technology?




Cheers,

AJ

 

[numbercruncher]

I think this Quote from the UNs climate chief in bali sums it up .....

The most stark warning came from the UN's climate chief, Yvo de Boer, who told the delegates: "We must make the leap forward or be condemned to the Planet Of The Apes."

He quoted Abraham Lincoln, who was president of the US during the Civil War: "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."

Have this feeling that green tech etc companys are going to be the next mega bubble

 

[--B--]

the climate chief hyping up climate change??

hardly surprising....

 

[2020hindsight]

the climate chief hyping up climate change??

hardly surprising....

-B- yep
he's obviously some crackpot
we should follow you instead

remind me - are you for or against some sort of intervention on behalf of critters (and/or for man).
Is it a question of degree or degrees?
like 1 degree warming = serious action
2 degrees warming = drastic action etc

 

[--B--]

now you're talking some sense 2020!

 

[--B--]

remind me - are you for or against some sort of intervention on behalf of critters (and/or for man).
Is it a question of degree or degrees?
like 1 degree warming = serious action
2 degrees warming = drastic action etc

im for scientific proof that human caused climate change or global warming is a reality.

 

[Aussiejeff]

im for scientific proof that human caused climate change or global warming is a reality.

Here's some stats from the Australian Bureau Of Meteorology for you to mull over...

Visit their site for some interesting trend data. Especially the time series stuff... http://www.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_chg/index.shtml

I think the only conclusion you can really come to is that there CURRENTLY IS a trend for climate warming that appears to have kicked up more significantly from the 1950's. Of that there is no argument (just look at all the Bureau's data!). The main point of contention seems to be whether the primary cause is the earth's underlying climate cycles - that have been causing huge climate shifts between ice ages and non-ice ages (now) over the past millions of years - or whether it all is happening beacuse of man made pollution.

Palaeontologist Dr Chris Scotese's World Temp Chart shows that the planet has only just begun to warm up again from a colder period. There is almost a +10 degree range we are probably shifting into! That in itself is a bit of a concern given the current rate of increase, as it probably means the temperature will continue to inexorably rise - almost regardless of what humanity tries to do to stop or limit it.


Cheers,

AJ

 

[--B--]

The main point of contention seems to be whether the primary cause is the earth's underlying climate cycles - that have been causing huge climate shifts between ice ages and non-ice ages (now) over the past millions of years - or whether it all is happening beacuse of man made pollution.

this is precisely the main point of contention and is central to the GW debate.

if humans are indeed not the cause of the apparent warming cycle we are experiencing then it stands to reason that the measures taken by man to "fix" the climate are pointless and unnecessary.

 

[2020hindsight]

Attenborough
here's a quick summary

well this bloke's convinced anyway.

-B- next question is "why are you saying 'don't take the cautious route', why are you saying " just plunge on ahead"?

or are you saying that ?
or what are you saying
today that is

 

[billhill]

Just a thought for those few who don't see the need to act on global warming. How do you think humanity should act in this situation.

An Asteroid is heading towards earth. Most in the scientific community think there is an 50% chance it will hit the earth although the consensus is not 100%. Scientists are also telling us we have 5 years to act. Scientist are in broad agreement that if it did hit earth it could wipe out 50% of species.

How should we act. Ignore the problem or enact precautions to prevent any chance of it hitting even though it may not on its own accord.

Is there that much difference between this situation and what we face in global warming.

 

[Rafa]

this is precisely the main point of contention and is central to the GW debate.

if humans are indeed not the cause of the apparent warming cycle we are experiencing then it stands to reason that the measures taken by man to "fix" the climate are pointless and unnecessary.

what about doing something about pollution in general, not because of Gloabal warming...

I, myself am in the sceptics category, having seen the whole 'worlds gonna end cause of Y2K bug' unfold in the IT sector... (its all very very good for business)

BUT

surely if we can produce power using wind, solar, geothermal (zero emission, not just zero CO2) instead of burning coal, then why not? surely if we can use pedal power, or public transport is convineint enought to use to get to work... then why not?

to me, this is a technology question... we have progressed in every other area of society in leaps and bounds (10 to 100 fold, even more)... except when it comes to things that make energy... (be it the car engine, or power station) where we have improved 1 or 2 fold.... one has to ask oneself... why is that? Is it really that impossible?

 

[--B--]

i dont disagree with anything you have just said Rafa.

i have absolutely no problem with any initiatives undertaken to reduce pollution and advance our energy technology

 

[2020hindsight]

then it stands to reason that the measures taken by man to "fix" the climate are pointless and unnecessary.

i have absolutely no problem with any initiatives undertaken to reduce pollution and advance our energy technology

tell you what -B-
your arguments are extremely hard to follow

 

[--B--]

tell you what -B-
your arguments are extremely hard to follow

youre obviously not reading my posts slowly enough 2020.

the first quote, which youve snipped, clearly referred to measures taken to 'fix' the climate because of man made global warming.

the second refers to the reduction of pollution and advanced in technology.

co2 is not pollution 2020. its plant food.

 

[billhill]

co2 is not pollution 2020. its plant food.

Anything is pollution if released in excessive and dammaging amounts.

 

[--B--]

Anything is pollution if released in excessive and dammaging amounts.

both of which are debatable in the case of co2.

 

[Rafa]

co2 is not pollution 2020. its plant food.

CO2 is just one component of pollution... if all we want to do is stop CO2 then the easy answer is nuclear (ironically, kyoto has always been called the nuclear protocol)

But we don't want nuclear, cause it results in other pollution, namely radiation.

The focus has to be on pollution in general, co2, methane (a bigger GW gas that CO2), heck even microscopic particles emitted from power plants, smelters, car / truck exaust pipes that are blamed for all the respiratory problems we have... let alone all the cancers!

CO2 is just one small part of the whole pollution debate... focusing just on that may make global temperatures fall, but we'll all be dead from radiation or some form of cancer anyway

 

[white_goodman]

I had a massive lecture recently at uni which addressed this question and it can be seen that global warming is not present and if any spikes in temperature occur it is not induced by man made actions...

co-incidental that when we first developed the technology to measure the o zone layer we found a hole over antarctica.. whos to say there wasnt one there for 1000 years

Mt Erebus in antarctica attributes 1/3rd of all carbon emmissions WORLD over

the major issue is really global cooling and its effects on agriculture, as evidence proves such a trend..

i could go over my lecture notes but ill leave you with a nice lecture to mull over...

 

[--B--]

Mt Erebus in antarctica attributes 1/3rd of all carbon emmissions WORLD over

indeed.

its extraordinary the amount of people who blindly believe in AGW (and strike down those who question the science) who are completely unaware that the human component of carbon emissions is only between 3-6% of total global carbon emissions.