Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 365588 times)

bluesky

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1550 on: August 28, 2018, 07:50:22 PM »
France has the lowest CO2 per KW/h of any major economy in the developed world.  Exclusively due to France's Nuclear power capability.  Something Nicolas Hulot wanted to reduce by 50%.

Hulot is the kind of "environmentalist" who gives Climate Change a bad name.

The French Nuclear capability is absolutely perfect for EV overnight charging as it takes a lot of time to vary Nuclear power station output.

Hulot is a fanatic who self destructed over hunting laws.  By abandoning his post he walked away from actions on the Paris Accord which will ensure the long term survival of this wildlife he claims to love so much.

This is not the message the climate lobby needs.  It needs pragmatic and "grounded" people who can influence and drive solutions to the CO2 issue.  At this level of Government there is no place for crusading when that crusading will increase CO2 emissions. Germany is living this right now.

It seems really surreal that someone on ASIF could label Nicolas Hulot as a "fanatic".... and I will not add to the polemic further, please listen to a translated version of his interview this morning, it resonates to the common view on the ASIF blog, so saying that Nicolas Hulot is a fanatic is like saying that the mainstream ideas developed and supported on the ASIF are fanatic ideas…

Hulot did not resign on the hunting law, he already advised in June that he would make a decision by the end of the summer whether he would stay in the government or not. In his interview this morning he talked for a long time about his disagreement with the agricultural minister and the missed opportunity of re engineering agriculture from a highly intensive with high use of pesticides (one of the highest in the world, and pesticides consumption in France continues to increase year after years) to a sustainable agriculture in accordance with food security, health of the consumers and the farmers, (we could feel the arm of Monsanto/ Bayer behind), and with higher carbon intake, better biodiversity, less energy use and lower greenhouse gas emission, he explained that at length.
 I am not surprised he has resigned, I am surprised that he stayed more than a year in a government which lists sustainability, climate change, renewable energy, sustainable farming, and governing independently without the lobbyist pressure at the bottom of its actual but unofficial agenda...
« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 08:19:23 PM by bluesky »

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1551 on: August 28, 2018, 10:51:50 PM »
It seems really surreal that someone on ASIF could label Nicolas Hulot as a "fanatic"....

OK let me put it another way.

A marked lack of pragmatism.

Anyone who believes that you can remove 50% of your nuclear power and replace it with wind and solar (even with the sun that France has), when that Nuclear power delivers 76% of the power in the country without emitting CO2; has a marked lack of pragmatism.  Or has taken leave of his senses.

I know people don't like Nuclear power.  Personally I don't like the body count for failing to remove CO2 emissions.

Anyone who can lead the Paris Accord and then have a strong agenda to remove CO2 neutral power generation, is not thinking.  Forget correctly.

That, to me, is fanaticism.  It is the environmental fanaticism which leads to 100 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted by the UK for recycling glass.  Compared to just chucking it in landfill and making new glass.  Because it is "environmentally incorrect" not to recycle it.

Humans, as a race, really are digging their own grave.

So let us be polite.  A marked lack of pragmatism.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

bluesky

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1552 on: August 29, 2018, 12:19:13 AM »
It seems really surreal that someone on ASIF could label Nicolas Hulot as a "fanatic"....

OK let me put it another way.

A marked lack of pragmatism.

Anyone who believes that you can remove 50% of your nuclear power and replace it with wind and solar (even with the sun that France has), when that Nuclear power delivers 76% of the power in the country without emitting CO2; has a marked lack of pragmatism.  Or has taken leave of his senses.

I know people don't like Nuclear power.  Personally I don't like the body count for failing to remove CO2 emissions.

Anyone who can lead the Paris Accord and then have a strong agenda to remove CO2 neutral power generation, is not thinking.  Forget correctly.

That, to me, is fanaticism.  It is the environmental fanaticism which leads to 100 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted by the UK for recycling glass.  Compared to just chucking it in landfill and making new glass.  Because it is "environmentally incorrect" not to recycle it.

Humans, as a race, really are digging their own grave.

So let us be polite.  A marked lack of pragmatism.

It seems
1/ you have not read my Reply #1561, where I address some (not all, quite a few books were written) of the flaws of French nuclear power plants
2/ you still have not investigated further who is Nicolas Hulot, what he  is standing for and the fundamental reasons of his resignation, it requires to go beyond the very short summary of some of the international media (not all) and to delve a little bit into French politics
3/ You forget that nuclear is  not CO2 neutral considering the high emission of uranium mining and transportation, which is generally forgotten in the emission count.

I would advise you to acquire a translation of the book of the very well respected former French environmental minister (in a conservative government) Corine Lepage "la vérité sur le nucléaire"
And once you have read it, it will be time to start the discussion again… You will see that: 1/ French nuclear energy is extremely costly as many expenses have not been taken into account 2/replacing progressively most of it by renewable will save substantial amount of money and can be implemented quickly and smoothly, turning to real sustainable energy and reducing further French CO2 emission while eliminating the safety/environmental risk in case of large nuclear power plant accident, that even the official, state sponsored French nuclear safety authority, recognised that the risk still prevails. That is a lack of pragmatism no to recognise this undeniable fact.
3/you would be so kind as to read about French companies extraction of Uranium in Niger and other third world countries, how the uranium extraction is highly armful for  health of  the population and the environment
4/ Besides nuclear energy is very centralised and rely on a few 10th of power plant sites, which are more vulnerable to strong sun flare storm (like the one in Canada in March 1989), than intelligent micro grid with many renewable energy producers scattered over the country

Also, some issues currently in August with the heatwave, a testimony that climate change is not compatible with nuclear, you cannot cool down a reactor when the river is too hot, this is happening with higher frequency as heat waves in France have substantially increase in frequency and intensity during the past 15 years:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-edf-europe-heat-wave-a8477776.html
You cannot cool down a reactor also when there is a prolonged draught, of which frequency is to increase with climate change

While the flooding of Blayais' nuclear plant in 1999 will be worse and potentially very damageable during the next intense winter storm with sea level rise due to speed up, other plants on coast will face the same risk (Paluel, Gravelines and others…)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inondation_de_la_centrale_nucléaire_du_Blayais_en_1999

French nuclear power plant are notoriously not safe against terrorist attacks:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenpeace-activists-crash-drone-french-nuclear-plant-134507827.html

Parliament enquiry on nuclear plants find great security and safety flaws:
https://www.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-power-plants-pose-a-grave-security-risk-lawmakers/a-44546734


« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 11:46:30 AM by bluesky »

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1967
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1553 on: August 29, 2018, 03:48:09 AM »
@bluesky

thanks for the input but generally to "respect" anyone who reached the upper echelon of politics, especially but not only in france, this is considering the system and what it takes to get there, is something i have difficulties with.

if anyone is mentioned as respected who is part of the system and/or financially dependent on said system, this includes a major part of scientist in state services, immediately is raising the question:

respected by whom ?

mostly by their fellow conformists carrier hungry pals ?

even looking back in history, really new and worthy input often if not mostly came from those
who were not respected at all during their lifetime, only later when they were long dead (no further thread to the establishment)

this is a bit short, i know but then TLTR is also not welcome, hence this is for everyone who wants to consider and thing to the end themselves.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

bluesky

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1554 on: August 29, 2018, 09:44:14 AM »
@bluesky

thanks for the input but generally to "respect" anyone who reached the upper echelon of politics, especially but not only in france, this is considering the system and what it takes to get there, is something i have difficulties with.

if anyone is mentioned as respected who is part of the system and/or financially dependent on said system, this includes a major part of scientist in state services, immediately is raising the question:

respected by whom ?

mostly by their fellow conformists carrier hungry pals ?

even looking back in history, really new and worthy input often if not mostly came from those
who were not respected at all during their lifetime, only later when they were long dead (no further thread to the establishment)

this is a bit short, i know but then TLTR is also not welcome, hence this is for everyone who wants to consider and thing to the end themselves.

Thank you for your reply, I do somewhat agree with your comment that being part of the "system", may stained "respectability", barely for some rare exception.
I am not supporting Lepage and I am not part of her political spectrum.
Corinne Lepage, was environment minister back in the mid 90ies, and since then she has turned down any ministerial and official political office, apart from beeing very temporarilly the vice president of a political party from which she quickly resigned and distance herself, and an MEP, where I think she had been quite diligent.
When she was an environment minister , an impossible job in France, she fought  hardly and (almost)successfully against the very powerfull nuclear lobby in order to decommission the surgenerator  SuperPhenix, refusing to sign off "imposed" law by her colleague ministers, SuperPhenix was one of the most dangerous typer of nuclear plant, that revealed to be a technological and  financial disaster and was finally decommissioned for ever one or two years after. I am not supporting her politically, but she wrote very informative books on nuclear energy, environment, and other subject, worth reading. You can respect someone with which you don't share all the views… She recently declared, in a polite way that the current Macron government was doing green washing, and had no intention at all to change the system the right way, and she considers more useful being outside of any governmental office trying to make thing evolve in accordance with the current environmental and climate change challenge, welcoming that Hulot finally resigned from a job that was giving fake environmental credential to the French government.
Before becoming an environment minister, she was already well known as a lawyer defending high profile environmental cases, e.g. she successfully  defended the Britany councils affected by the very extensive and damaging 1978's Amoco Cadiz oil spill, at a time it was not easy to win this kind of court case.
Lepage would agree with most of what is on this forum, that we should profoundly change our way of life, way to run economy, reduce our consumption and footprint to face the current challenge, as Hulot said yesterday very vocally during his resignation interview.
 This is not a bad thing to get  more known and somewhat respected people (again does not mean that I personally support them) onboard and vocal on this side, maybe this will help to narrow down the knowledge gap with the wider society, maybe more citizen would make the walk to change their way of life and the society at the same time... let's hope despite the huge challenge ahead.

Apologies, if I write TLTR, but I'd rather write long and argumentative article with rational basis, than short affirmation with no rational (not talking about you)
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 11:45:21 AM by bluesky »

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1555 on: September 02, 2018, 08:34:32 PM »
It's official (sort of) -  1.5 degrees is toast. To me it looks like 2 degrees is toast as well - given the need to increase the share of renewables in the energy mix by 2% a year while the average annual increase in the last twenty years was less than 0.2%.

A lot in the study about -ve emissions (BECCS and all that stuff). Even with that the Point of No Return is merely delayed.

Two sources:-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/global-warming-point-of-no-return-temperature-2018-8

Scientists calculated a 'point of no return' for dealing with climate change — and time is running out
Quote
The new study calculates that if the world's governments don't initiate a transition to clean energy sources by 2035 — meaning that the share of renewables starts to grow by at least 2% each year — we'll almost certainly pass that point of no return. ......
........Based on that model, the new study's authors figured out a potential "point of no return": the year 2035, unless the share of renewables were to start growing by 2% a year before then. That's an ambitious number, considering that from the late 1990s to 2017 (in about 20 years), the percentage of energy from renewables only grew a total of 3.6%.

and from the study itself at
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/9/1085/2018/esd-9-1085-2018.pdf

Table 3. Safe Carbon Budget (in GtC since 2015) as a function of
threshold and safety probability β.
β                      0.5  0.67   0.9   0.95  Noise-free
Tmax = 1.5 K    247  198   107   69     233
Tmax = 2 K       492  424   298  245    469

(Note by me: The Carbon Countdown clock gives a carbon budget (high estimate) for 1.5 degrees of 108GT)

Quote
We have shown the constraints put on future emissions by
restricting GMST increase below 1.5 or 2 K, and the crucial
importance of the safety probability. Further (scientific and
political) debate is essential on what are the right values for
both temperature threshold and probability. Our findings are
sobering in light of the bold ambition in the Paris Agreement,
and add to the sense of urgency to act quickly before the PNR
has been crossed
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1967
    • View Profile
    • Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multiple Sklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgia Modular Mobile Computing iOS Software OSX Android Custom Rom Rooted
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1556 on: September 02, 2018, 09:25:46 PM »
@bluesky

thanks for the input but generally to "respect" anyone who reached the upper echelon of politics, especially but not only in france, this is considering the system and what it takes to get there, is something i have difficulties with.

if anyone is mentioned as respected who is part of the system and/or financially dependent on said system, this includes a major part of scientist in state services, immediately is raising the question:

respected by whom ?

mostly by their fellow conformists carrier hungry pals ?

even looking back in history, really new and worthy input often if not mostly came from those
who were not respected at all during their lifetime, only later when they were long dead (no further thread to the establishment)

this is a bit short, i know but then TLTR is also not welcome, hence this is for everyone who wants to consider and thing to the end themselves.

Thank you for your reply, I do somewhat agree with your comment that being part of the "system", may stained "respectability", barely for some rare exception.
I am not supporting Lepage and I am not part of her political spectrum.
Corinne Lepage, was environment minister back in the mid 90ies, and since then she has turned down any ministerial and official political office, apart from beeing very temporarilly the vice president of a political party from which she quickly resigned and distance herself, and an MEP, where I think she had been quite diligent.
When she was an environment minister , an impossible job in France, she fought  hardly and (almost)successfully against the very powerfull nuclear lobby in order to decommission the surgenerator  SuperPhenix, refusing to sign off "imposed" law by her colleague ministers, SuperPhenix was one of the most dangerous typer of nuclear plant, that revealed to be a technological and  financial disaster and was finally decommissioned for ever one or two years after. I am not supporting her politically, but she wrote very informative books on nuclear energy, environment, and other subject, worth reading. You can respect someone with which you don't share all the views… She recently declared, in a polite way that the current Macron government was doing green washing, and had no intention at all to change the system the right way, and she considers more useful being outside of any governmental office trying to make thing evolve in accordance with the current environmental and climate change challenge, welcoming that Hulot finally resigned from a job that was giving fake environmental credential to the French government.
Before becoming an environment minister, she was already well known as a lawyer defending high profile environmental cases, e.g. she successfully  defended the Britany councils affected by the very extensive and damaging 1978's Amoco Cadiz oil spill, at a time it was not easy to win this kind of court case.
Lepage would agree with most of what is on this forum, that we should profoundly change our way of life, way to run economy, reduce our consumption and footprint to face the current challenge, as Hulot said yesterday very vocally during his resignation interview.
 This is not a bad thing to get  more known and somewhat respected people (again does not mean that I personally support them) onboard and vocal on this side, maybe this will help to narrow down the knowledge gap with the wider society, maybe more citizen would make the walk to change their way of life and the society at the same time... let's hope despite the huge challenge ahead.

Apologies, if I write TLTR, but I'd rather write long and argumentative article with rational basis, than short affirmation with no rational (not talking about you)

i myself have not problems with detailed posts which are a bit longer, it's just that at times i as well try to cover as many aspects as possible and the more one writes the higher the chance to get into petty bickering over wording, examples used or such.

that said i thank you for your detailed feedback and i hope i was able to point out that i have nothing agains a specific person, including the person you are talking about.

a general suspicion does not always have to be confirmed, i just know very well what exactly it takes to survive in the sharks basin of politics and related institutions and while some folks may simply got the drill how to manage all that without prostituting themselves (not (only) physically)
while it's really rare.

on the person in question i have nothing more to contribute than your feedback is duly noted and
respected as you obviously know the person well or better, thanks again.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1557 on: September 04, 2018, 12:25:30 AM »
Lepage would agree with most of what is on this forum, that we should profoundly change our way of life, way to run economy, reduce our consumption and footprint to face the current challenge, as Hulot said yesterday very vocally during his resignation interview.

You see there I am in total disagreement.  I believe we need to generate MORE power, twice as much or even 4 times as much, with CO2 neutral or negative production and USE that power to dig ourselves out of the mess we have got ourselves into.

Society, today, is such that telling us to revert to an earlier phase in our lives is going to get the speaker exactly nowhere but consigned to the margin of history.

We use fossil fuels in so many ways that the only possible way out of that is to transition, wholesale to a massive increase in CO2 neutral power.

Failing to understand that and continuing to promote 20th century failed environmental policies, which limit our ability to transition to a CO2 neutral or negative infrastructure, is going to be catastrophic for the liveable biosphere of this planet and is going to take a large chunk of the animal kingdom down with the Humans it impacts.

A person with good intentions, doing totally the wrong thing, is not a good thing.  It is a bad thing.

Telling people to reduce their energy footprint lets the governments off the hook.  We vote for these governments and we give them the power to do the things for us that we cannot do ourselves.  Namely produce a CO2 neutral power infrastructure with enough power for our needs.

So we vote for them, we pay for them and then we're supposed to let them tell us to fix the problem they are paid to fix by reducing our own consumption?

For good or ill we live in a consumer society.  The only way to get us out of this mess is to give us something clean to consume.  Even if it costs us a bit more.  Obama, finally, understood that.  It is not hard to understand.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13832
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1558 on: September 04, 2018, 03:24:35 PM »
Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus)
9/4/18, 8:57 AM
Quote
Every nation in the world is meeting today in Bangkok to decide on the rulebook that will govern the Paris climate agreement—the main global effort to fight the biggest problem in history.

It's baffling to me why this process doesn't even make the news -- and hasn't for decades. https://mobile.twitter.com/unfccc/status/1036876560731529217
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/1036961392258179072
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

bluesky

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1559 on: September 06, 2018, 01:40:41 AM »
Lepage would agree with most of what is on this forum, that we should profoundly change our way of life, way to run economy, reduce our consumption and footprint to face the current challenge, as Hulot said yesterday very vocally during his resignation interview.

You see there I am in total disagreement.  I believe we need to generate MORE power, twice as much or even 4 times as much, with CO2 neutral or negative production and USE that power to dig ourselves out of the mess we have got ourselves into.

Society, today, is such that telling us to revert to an earlier phase in our lives is going to get the speaker exactly nowhere but consigned to the margin of history.

We use fossil fuels in so many ways that the only possible way out of that is to transition, wholesale to a massive increase in CO2 neutral power.

Failing to understand that and continuing to promote 20th century failed environmental policies, which limit our ability to transition to a CO2 neutral or negative infrastructure, is going to be catastrophic for the liveable biosphere of this planet and is going to take a large chunk of the animal kingdom down with the Humans it impacts.

A person with good intentions, doing totally the wrong thing, is not a good thing.  It is a bad thing.

Telling people to reduce their energy footprint lets the governments off the hook.  We vote for these governments and we give them the power to do the things for us that we cannot do ourselves.  Namely produce a CO2 neutral power infrastructure with enough power for our needs.

So we vote for them, we pay for them and then we're supposed to let them tell us to fix the problem they are paid to fix by reducing our own consumption?

For good or ill we live in a consumer society.  The only way to get us out of this mess is to give us something clean to consume.  Even if it costs us a bit more.  Obama, finally, understood that.  It is not hard to understand.

Producing far more energy simply means indirectly consuming far more, this year the overshooting day was on the 1st of August, versus end of the year in early 70ies, overshooting the Western world with even more energy will back the overshooting day even earlier in the year, this is not sustainable… only the developing countries should be allowed to increase their energy output and consumption to get people out of poverty, while we should reduce significantly ours. But this is probably debated on other thread.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13832
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1560 on: September 06, 2018, 03:55:17 AM »
"EIA has great data this morning:
1) 2017 carbon emissions down 0.9%;
2) 2017 emissions 14% below 2005 levels;
3) Total carbon emissions from gas higher than coal;
4) Petroleum top emitter, responsible for 46% of total emissions.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/johnrhanger/status/1037323456226967552

U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell slightly in 2017 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36953

(Cross-posted from Cars thread)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1561 on: September 06, 2018, 05:23:21 AM »
U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell slightly in 2017 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Two questions.
1) Now that the Trump admin. has completed their takeover of the DoE, EIA and EPA is there any reason to trust their numbers? I don't really trust the indivudal states to have the technical ability or the legal mandate to objectively report on their own. Do we have any confirming statistics from a international body?
2) It seems counter intuitive but how can a country keep setting fossil fuel production records, currently over 10.6 mbd, and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions? Did we divert this extra production to chemical and plastic production and therefore cap our emissions to less than the absolute numbers would indicate?
Guess we will have to wait a few years and see if the numbers check out. If it's anything like economic numbers (GDP,CPI) there are always revisions.

Update from another source (Houston Chronicle) adds this:
Quote
Less demand for electricity is also playing a role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the government reported.

Electricity sales last year were the lowest they've been since the economic recession in 2009. The government attributed last year's lower sales to milder weather. Cooler summers don't require as much energy for air conditioning and warmer winters lowers the need for heating.
Really? Was this last year exceptionally mild in the continental US? Wildfires, drought, floods, algae blooms and lots of record high temps seems like alternative facts eh?

Observation: I would think the electric utilities would be running ads offering 'EV' discounts to pump up the demand. There are lots of worries about EVs overloading the grid but that must be way off in the future. I noticed General Electric had their power generation division downgraded again today.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 06:19:00 AM by jacksmith4tx »
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13832
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1562 on: September 06, 2018, 06:45:07 PM »
Quote
2) It seems counter intuitive but how can a country keep setting fossil fuel production records, currently over 10.6 mbd, and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions?

Less coal, more natural gas, judging by the graph.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1563 on: September 06, 2018, 07:27:44 PM »
Quote
2) It seems counter intuitive but how can a country keep setting fossil fuel production records, currently over 10.6 mbd, and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions?

Less coal, more natural gas, judging by the graph.

Plus, the US is importing less crude as fracking production increases.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1564 on: September 06, 2018, 10:22:20 PM »
Quote
2) It seems counter intuitive but how can a country keep setting fossil fuel production records, currently over 10.6 mbd, and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions?

Less coal, more natural gas, judging by the graph.

This is a factor too.  I've known about it for a while but not looked it up any time recently.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 371
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1565 on: September 07, 2018, 12:14:25 AM »
"EIA has great data this morning:
1) 2017 carbon emissions down 0.9%;
2) 2017 emissions 14% below 2005 levels;
3) Total carbon emissions from gas higher than coal;
4) Petroleum top emitter, responsible for 46% of total emissions.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/johnrhanger/status/1037323456226967552

Are methane leaks properly estimated and counted ?
"Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion" So not really much progress in the power sector. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204

Are "imported" emissions counted?
"One-quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the manufacture of products destined for export – and are not accounted for in most nations’ climate policies." https://buyclean.org/media/2016/12/buyclean-execsummary-082718.pdf

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

NevB

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1566 on: September 08, 2018, 02:54:19 AM »
There is news this morning (so far only on a Murdoch publication which I refuse to read or link) that Australia's new PM plans to renege on our pathetically weak Paris agreement.

The present PM is a dim witted Hillsong member that has asked us to pray for the present drought to end and was installed by far right Christians and the coal lobby.

In a practical sense this will make little difference as we will most likely meet our shamefully week target from the renewable projects already being constructed. This government is also highly likely to be annihilated in the election due early next year.

Australia's influence once was remarkably strong for such a small population but now we are nothing but outcasts and obstructionists I suspect one day a price will be paid.     

What this does do to our great shame is help legitimise Trump's action. I hope this won't encourage other nations to follow.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1567 on: September 08, 2018, 01:12:51 PM »
https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm

That Carbon Clock tells us that another deadline for 1.5 Degrees Celsius is passing us by today (just as Antarctic Sea Ice tests new record low extents).

The Carbon Clock also tells us that the most optimistic carbon budget for 1.5 degrees temperature rise gives us 32 months of BAU emissions.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 821
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1568 on: September 08, 2018, 08:26:47 PM »
"EIA has great data this morning:
1) 2017 carbon emissions down 0.9%;
2) 2017 emissions 14% below 2005 levels;
3) Total carbon emissions from gas higher than coal;
4) Petroleum top emitter, responsible for 46% of total emissions.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/johnrhanger/status/1037323456226967552

Meaningless without a proper accounting for fugitive methane emissions from natural gas production, transportation and usage. That would destroy the case for natural gas as a bridge fuel, and the "pretty picture" that .gov in the US is trying to sell.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13832
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1569 on: September 11, 2018, 01:54:06 AM »
The state of California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

California governor commits to 100 percent clean energy
Quote
The law requires utilities to source 60 percent of their power from renewable energy by the end of 2030, up from a prior goal of 50 percent. By 2045, all of the state's electricity must come from renewable or other zero-carbon sources.

In 2017, 32 percent of California's retail electricity sales were served by renewable energy facilities, according to the California Energy Commission.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-cleanenergy/california-law-will-wean-power-sector-off-fossil-fuels-by-2045-idUSKCN1LQ28J

Cross-posted to the Renewables thread.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13832
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1570 on: September 14, 2018, 02:32:06 AM »
U.S. on Track to Meet Some Paris Climate Goals, Report Says
Quote
The U.S. is on track to meet about two-thirds of its carbon-emissions goals under the Paris climate accord -- even without the support of President Donald Trump.

Cities, states, businesses and market forces are poised to trim carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, according to a report presented Thursday by California Governor Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP. That compares with the 26 percent to 28 percent U.S. commitment under the Paris agreement. Trump said in 2017 that he intended to withdraw the U.S. from the accord. But the country can get within “striking distance” of the target by doing things like increasing renewable energy mandates and retiring coal power plants, the report said.

“We are getting it done, but we still have a very tall mountain to climb,” Brown said said at the Global Climate Action Summit, which he and Bloomberg are co-chairing in San Francisco. The report was produced by the University of Maryland and the Rocky Mountain Institute. It was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-doesn-t-need-trump-to-tackle-carbon-goals-report-shows
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1571 on: September 22, 2018, 07:47:45 AM »
https://www.sciencealert.com/un-draft-report-says-we-must-transition-economy-to-tackle-climate-change
http://bios.fi/en/economic-transition-governance-a-scientific-background-document-to-the-un-global-sustainable-development-report-2019/
Adding the pdf below.

Read if you wish. Quoting the first part from the pdf.
Quote
GOVERNANCE OF ECONOMIC TRANSITION
We live in an era of turmoil and profound change in the energetic and material underpinnings of economies. The era of cheap energy is coming to an end (Murphy 2014, Lambert et al. 2014, Hall et al. 2014, Hall et al. 2009, Hirsch et al. 2005). Because economies are for the first time in human history shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient, production of usable energy (exergy) will require more, not less, effort on the part of societies to power both basic and non-basic human activities. Sink costs are also rising; economies have used up the capacity of planetary ecosystems to handle the waste generated by energy and material use. Climate change is the most pronounced sink cost.

What will happen during the oncoming years and decades when we enter the era of energy transition, combined with emission cuts, and start to witness more severe effects of climate change? That is the big question. What kind of economic understanding and governance models do we need, now that economies are undergoing dramatic rather than incremental change? While economists typically emphasize carbon pricing as a policy tool for tackling climate change, natural scientists and multidisciplinary environmental research groups argue for more profound political engagement and proactive governance of economic transition (Chapin et al. 2011, Steffen et al. 2018) – something akin to a global Marshall Plan (Aronoff 2017, Gore 1992). This difference in perspective is in part due to relatively recent advancements in environmental research, which have revealed a faster-than-expected decline in natural ecosystems and take into account the whole range of human-induced pressures, and not merely climate emissions (Barnosky et al. 2014).

New economic thinking for the turbulent years ahead
Decades of academic work in ecological economics have gone into integrating energetic and material stocks, flows, and boundaries into economic thinking (van den Bergh 2001, Røpke 2005). Although some progress can be seen on the economic-theoretical level, the economic models which inform political decision-making in rich countries almost completely disregard the energetic and material dimensions of the economy (Hall and Klitgaard 2011).
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1572 on: September 22, 2018, 10:49:58 AM »

Quote
GOVERNANCE OF ECONOMIC TRANSITION

The era of cheap energy is coming to an end

Because economies are for the first time in human history shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient, production of usable energy (exergy) will require more, not less, effort on the part of societies to power both basic and non-basic human activities. .

Hullo Sleepy.

I am not sure about either of these statements from the paper referred to you .

"The era of cheap energy is coming to an end". The papers referred to as justification for this statement are from 2009 and 2014, (using data from 2, 3 ? years before). The world has moved on

Electricity from onshore wind-power just about everywhere, and solar power in many locations is now cheaper than all other means of electrical production. EVs use far less energy per unit of distance travelled than ICE vehicles. That's about 2/3rds of total energy use?

"economies shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient,"

The EIEO of a solar panel installation (from construction through 20 years of use to recycling) must be better than a conventional power station. The same for wind.

Since I dispute the basic assumptions of the paper, the paper has zero value? Rather it may be the case that energy and most transport (being electricity powered) will be cheaper. It is that is therefore likely to increase demand on other resources being consumed beyond the planet's ability to supply.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1573 on: September 22, 2018, 05:36:32 PM »

The EIEO of a solar panel installation (from construction through 20 years of use to recycling) must be better than a conventional power station. The same for wind.

Since I dispute the basic assumptions of the paper, the paper has zero value? Rather it may be the case that energy and most transport (being electricity powered) will be cheaper. It is that is therefore likely to increase demand on other resources being consumed beyond the planet's ability to supply.

I am very interested in this EIEO issue as it relates to PV panels. I was listening to a podcast from the founder of a company that has been in the solar panel business since 2003 as he discussed the coming crisis of recycling all the solar panels that will be reaching their service life. He has started a new business focused exclusively trying to make recycling of PV panels economically viable. He was not optimistic. Given current technology and material prices, recycling used PV is not economical. It's only going to get worse as tens of thousands of tons of obsolete panels flood into the waste stream in the coming years. A few companies have created a total life cycle program in an attempt to address the issue but by his calculations it's only a tiny fraction of the installed base of PV panels.
I have read research that offered some solutions but without a some kind of national or global policy to deal with the problem we are not putting the right price on PV renewable energy.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X18300576
Quote
Abstract

With the enormous growth in the development and utilization of solar-energy resources, the proliferation of waste solar panels has become problematic. While current research into solar panels has focused on how to improve the efficiency of the production capacity, the dismantling and recycling of end-of-life (EOL) panels are seldom considered, as can be seen, for instance, in the lack of dedicated solar-panel recycling plants. EOL solar-panel recycling can effectively save natural resources and reduce the cost of production. To address the environmental conservation and resource recycling issues posed by the huge amount of waste solar panels regarding environmental conservation and resource recycling, the status of the management and recycling technologies for waste solar panels are systemically reviewed and discussed in this article. This review can provide a quantitative basis to support the recycling of PV panels, and suggests future directions for public policy makers. At present, from the technical aspect, the research on solar panel recovery is facing many problems, and we need to further develop an economically feasible and non-toxic technology. The research on solar photovoltaic panels’ management at the end of life is just beginning in many countries, and there is a need for further improvement and expansion of producer responsibility.

Another article from business magazine Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#7afd92e121cc
Quote
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1574 on: September 23, 2018, 09:03:16 AM »
Hullo Sleepy.

I am not sure about either of these statements from the paper referred to you .
Correct. :)
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1575 on: September 23, 2018, 09:09:24 AM »
Related to rethinking our economic system, Anders Wijkman at Swiss ECS, from the 19th.
The root cause is the way we organized the economy. We don't distinguish between quality and quantity. Everything that is production, is looked upon as good. But of course this is a ridicoulous concept today.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1576 on: September 23, 2018, 11:50:36 AM »
Wishing but not expecting the report below was false.

Climate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board
‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations


Quote
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C and its summary for policymakers were commissioned by governments following the UN meeting in Paris in 2015, when it was agreed to act to limit increases in global average temperature to less than 2C above pre-industrial levels and to try keep that increase nearer to 1.5C.

...... it is the report’s summary for policymakers that is causing concern. This is the document politicians will use as a key climate guide when making changes to legislation. Reviewers of earlier drafts say it is being altered to make the dangers of climate change seem less alarming. As a result, they say,, policymakers could seriously underestimate the risks of global warming. Cuts made to the final draft of the summary include:

• Any mention that temperature rises of above 1.5C could lead to increased migrations and conflict;

• All discussion of the danger of the Gulf Stream being disrupted by cold water flowing from the Arctic where more and more sea-ice is melting;

• Warnings about the dangers that 1.5–2C temperature rises could trigger irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet and raise sea levels by 1–2 metres over the next two centuries.

Other cuts from the summary include the sentence: “Poverty and disadvantage have increased with recent warming (about 1C) and are expected to increase in many populations as average global temperatures increase from 1C to 1.5C and beyond.”

The original summary also stated “at 2C warming, there is a potential for significant population displacement concentrated in the tropics”. Again this is not mentioned in the report for policymakers. “The scientists who produce reports like these try to summarise the latest knowledge, but they have a reputation for being conservative about the worst risks of climate change,” Ward said. “This time they have outdone themselves in pulling their punches, however.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/23/scientists-changing-global-warming-report-please-polluters
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1577 on: September 24, 2018, 07:03:45 AM »
Another from the "We Don't Have Time" series (posted earlier in this thread).

A message to all adults out there who are busy defending an obsolete lifestyle.



« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 07:10:38 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1578 on: September 27, 2018, 12:26:43 PM »
It seems that (at the moment) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which will be unveiled in South Korea next month, will say 1.5 degrees of warning is technically possible but extremely improbable.. and would require vast volumes of CO2 to be captured.

Will the report be doctored before unveiling?

World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid warming beyond 1.5C target
Key UN report says limiting temperature rise would require enormous, immediate transformation in human activity

Quote
The world’s governments are “nowhere near on track” to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.

A massive, immediate transformation in the way the world’s population generates energy, uses transportation and grows food will be required to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C and the forthcoming analysis is set to lay bare how remote this possibility is.

“It’s extraordinarily challenging to get to the 1.5C target and we are nowhere near on track to doing that,” said Drew Shindell, a Duke University climate scientist and a co-author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which will be unveiled in South Korea next month.

“While it’s technically possible, it’s extremely improbable, absent a real sea change in the way we evaluate risk. We are nowhere near that.”......

.......Shindell wouldn’t share exact details of the IPCC report, but he said that the more ambitious 1.5C goal would require a precipitous drop in greenhouse emissions triggered by a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, particularly coal, mass deployment of solar and wind energy and the eradication of emissions from cars, trucks and airplanes.

Even then, emerging technology will be required on a global scale to capture emissions at the source and bury them in the ground or remove carbon directly from the air.

“The penetration rate of new technology historically takes a long time,” Shindell said. “It’s not simple to change these things. There aren’t good examples in history of such rapid, far reaching transitions.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1579 on: September 30, 2018, 08:51:30 AM »
2018 Q4 starts tomorrow, the first time in human history when we are about to consume 100 million barrels of oil per day, according to earlier forecasts from IEA. The exact amount doesn't matter much, it still tells a lot about how effective our mitigation efforts are.

Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13832
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1580 on: September 30, 2018, 05:35:30 PM »
Most Dow 30 companies care about climate change; Microsoft is a global leader
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-30-companies-really-care-climate-change-microsoft-global-leader-123632186.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1581 on: October 01, 2018, 12:03:51 AM »
Thank god that America's Greatest Capitalists care about Climate Change.


Many will be relieved to know that Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Boeing, Caterpillar and their fellow Corporatists will be doing more than their fair share in fighting this existential battle.


With these Gigantic Guardians of Good at our back we'll surely prevail.


A short prayer of thanks to our corporate masters might be appropriate at this time. ::)
Terry

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1582 on: October 01, 2018, 07:10:45 AM »
Old sleepy men don't need lullabies...

But guess I was wrong above.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/why-oil-forecasts-keep-getting-it-wrong/ar-AAADt7d
Quote
Demand, in fact, has far exceeded expectations. Buoyed by robust economic growth, markets last month consumed 100 million barrels per day of oil, 400,000 more than were produced.

"The supply side, if anything, has outperformed expectations: In the last year, U.S. shale production growth has been 1.7 million barrels per day – that by itself should be enough to tank oil prices," says Steven Kopits, managing director of Princeton Energy Advisors. "Demand is very strong. And we don't have any real time metrics for global demand."

Quote
But one thing continuing to guide predictions will be the dwindling gap between the amount of oil being produced and the undiminished pace of consumption.

"There's been no economic slowdown, and no one's got spare barrels sitting around that can replace the million barrels or so that are going to go off the market," McTeague says. "One million barrels per day is a big number – it's substantial. To use the British expression, Mind the gap."

What a wonderful green world, buzy mitigating. Mitigating oil production that is, at least Russia seems to have spare capacity. They will happy to fill that gap.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,861.msg174021.html#msg174021

Anyone heard about AGW and that Paris Climate Agreement?
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1583 on: October 01, 2018, 08:01:14 AM »
Guess some have.
https://blog.ted.com/we-the-future-talks-from-ted-skoll-foundation-and-united-nations-foundation/
Quote
A quest for planetary balance. In 2015, we saw two fantastic global breakthroughs for humanity, says sustainability expert Johan Rockström — the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. But are the two compatible, and can be they be pursued at the same time? Rockström suggests there are inherent contradictions between the two that could lead to irreversible planetary instability. Along with a team of scientists, he created a way to combine the SDGs within the nine planetary boundaries (things like ocean acidification and ozone depletion); it’s a completely new model of possibility — the Earth-3 model — to track trends and simulate future change. Right now, we’re not delivering on our promises to future generations, he says, but the window of success is still open. “We need some radical thinking,” Rockström says. “We can build a safe and just world: we just have to really, really get on with it.”

A small basement window.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1584 on: October 01, 2018, 04:54:29 PM »
New study finds incredibly high carbon pollution costs – especially for the US and India
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costs-especially-for-the-us-and-india
Links to the papers in the link.

Quote
The social cost of carbon is much higher yet

A new study led by UC San Diego’s Katharine Ricke published in Nature Climate Change found that not only is the global social cost of carbon dramatically higher than the federal estimate – probably between $177 and $805 per ton, most likely $417 – but that the cost to America is around $50 per ton.  That’s the second-highest in the world behind India’s $90, and is also higher than the current federal estimate for the global social cost of carbon.

That’s a remarkable conclusion worth repeating.  Ricke’s team found that the cost of carbon pollution to just the United States is probably higher than its government’s current estimate of costs to the entire world.  And the actual global cost is more than 10 times higher than the federal estimate.  And yet Republican politicians think that estimate should be much lower.
Quote
So, America is the country with the largest historical carbon emissions (and thus the most culpability for climate change), is among the countries that would benefit most from slowing global warming, and yet is the only country whose government rejects the Paris climate agreement.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1585 on: October 02, 2018, 11:40:01 PM »
The logic is - since we are stuffed, no point in doing anything. Beyond madness but due to be official USA environmental policy. I started to read it but the neurons between my ears went haywire.

Full statement is at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.dece1b5f666b

Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
Quote
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4499
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1586 on: October 03, 2018, 11:24:22 AM »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1587 on: October 03, 2018, 03:27:31 PM »
To get a reality check, we should go back and check the goals of Kyo to Copenhagen and Paris.

We should then check how much we reduced. Or even slowed, CO2 growth over that time.

It is also useful to validate that the Obama administration fully engaged in Kyoto, Copenhagen and, for a short while, Paris.

Accords are fine but we need global Action on CO2.  Selling green credits to wealthy countries won't cut it.

Not only was CO2 continuing to rise before Trump took over, it was continuing to rise at the fastest pace in the direct sensing record.

Whilst I believe Trump is wrong, we have to prove that these Accords actually mean something.  The UK has pretty much met the targets, Germany is going to miss for the hilarious reason that the Greens have forced the shutdown of the German Nuclear reactors.

Most of the Eastern EU is going to miss them as they ramp up production to get out of the last of the financial crisis.

As for Russia and China??

If we want to fight Trump on the climate we have to show that what we agreed to do is winning.  In fact it is losing.

In order to really get a grip of things we need to outline a realistic scenario where the developed AND developing nations transition to carbon neutral at the same time.

We also have to stop talking about renewable, in the short term and start talking about carbon neutral.

Of course everything I have just said will fall on deaf ears and when we write the next, already failed, accord, the annual decadal cadence for CO2 rise will be 2.5ppm.

I have not, quite, given up on resolving the CO2 issue, but it is getting pretty close and environmentalists shouting about their GREEN credentials whilst we burn more coal to offset their actions is driving me away faster.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1588 on: October 04, 2018, 08:34:46 AM »
Nice post Neil. We might have another couple of years before I give up. And yes, we need to stop talking about renewables as a saviour and focus on getting carbon neutral. If top ten percent of emitters got down to the level of the average European we would cut 1/3 of the emissions world wide.

One little thing though, while I do not live in, or understand Germany fully, I don't think it's that easy either. Germany's electricity generations by Fraunhofer:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
Also adding an old post by Folke Kelm containing a link to their historical coal subsidies and some comments around their nuclear plants. "Drift" is Swedish and he means operation. There's also a follow up comment by SATire worth reading, while lacking direct links to facts I think both of them sound reasonable.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1021.msg66729.html#msg66729

First Dog on The Moon asks is the Paris Accord is Kaput?
It was kaput when it was signed. Here's an image and comment I made back then.
Quote
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who is chairing the summit, promised a new text on Saturday morning at 08:00 GMT - and suggested it would be the final version, to be ratified at lunchtime.

The end.


While the personal perspective of mitigation for us westerners is in the bathroom mirror every morning, this might be a more interesting read for the larger perspective:
The Circular Economy - a Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation
http://materialeconomics.com/latest-updates/the-circular-economy
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1589 on: October 04, 2018, 06:22:44 PM »
One little thing though, while I do not live in, or understand Germany fully, I don't think it's that easy either.

Let me explain.  Germany, over more than a decade, put €500bn into renewables.  They shut down their Nuclear reactors, under pressure from the Greens and started having to burn Coal to cope.

Had Germany spent €250bn on Hinckley Point C type reactors, they would have introduced around 35GW of always on baseload power, which could then be augmented by wind and solar, from additional initiatives once the baseload was assured.  35GW nuclear nameplate power delivers half of the average GW used by Germany on any day.

If they had then invested the other €250bn in investments that only return 1% over inflation, they would, after 40 years, have a fund of €350bn (equivalent at today’s value), to work on either extension to 80 years or decommissioning activities for the expired reactors.

Instead what do we have?  The ideologically pure, failed, renewables that see Germany “clean” of Nuclear but dumping their “dirty” CO2 on the rest of the world.  Germany generates some 40% of its power via Coal.

This is the kind of environmental thinking which is damaging to the fight to reduce climate change.  The fight against climate change has absolutely Nothing to do with Green and Everything to do with CO2 Neutral existence.

The Faustian bargain forced by the German Greens has ensured that we are one step closer to losing that fight.

Yet all I hear is how wonderful the German government has been in driving “green” initiatives.  I guess it is true in some ways, extra CO2 will drive more verdant flora in the temperate zones…..

Contrast the UK.  WHinckley Point C goes online in 2025/26, depending on construction issues and when it goes live, all coal power stations in the UK will finally be shut down.  When that happens, the UK will be beyond the commitments made for Paris as it is already mooted that the UK is already there or thereabouts.

The plans for the UK to replace the entire remaining reactors with new HP-C type stations are still under way.  Three more should about do it.

Unless the greens get their way!!

Carbon Neutral is the way.  Green is a nice to have.  After all, if we fail to control CO2, we will kill more species off than any amount of safe nuclear reactors.  Including a significant portion of the human race.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 844
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1590 on: October 04, 2018, 08:45:52 PM »
I think that in 2005 or 2010 when Germany made some of its renewable decisions, nuclear probably was the more economical choice (though the 2011 decision was driven by fear, not by "green ambition" per se).
However, in 2018 things might be different. Hinkley Point C lead time from decision to power generation is almost 15 years. Renewable projects start producing in <5 years (guesstimate). I think this is a big difference at the late stage we are in. In addition, renewable costs have come down sharply in the last few years. Even when including some grid storage and natgas backup for 5% of the year, I'm not sure nuclear wins in terms of total lifetime cost vs. power produced. This needs some hard apples-to-apples numbers.
Small note: nuclear is not always on. Its capacity factor is normally around 90%.
Quote
Germany, over more than a decade, put €500bn into renewables.
It finally occurs to me to ask for a source for this number, though I've seen it many times before. Specifically I wonder if this cost includes the high tariffs paid by German consumers to subsidize solar and wind. If so, then the Hinkley cost should include that too, changing the equation dramatically as HPC cost £20B for its 3.2 GW (assuming no further overruns) but consumers will pay an extra £50B for its above-market feed-in tariff.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1591 on: October 04, 2018, 10:25:34 PM »
Specifically I wonder if this cost includes the high tariffs paid by German consumers to subsidize solar and wind.

No, it is direct subsidies from the Government.

Quote
The German government has spent about €500 billion on electricity subsidies to date.

It is also interesting to see the projected EU costs for the 2050 renewable project.

Quote
Minimum additional total system cost of 15 percent in the “green” scenario.
Com-
pared with the “lean” scenario with its total system cost of roughly EUR 5,700 billion
until 2050, achieving the “green” scenario would increase the total system cost of the
European power sector by about 15 percent to EUR 6,600 billion. The increase is driven
by achieving the two targets in the “green” scenario: achieving low emissions would
add EUR 500 billion to 600 billion (“clean” scenario) and meeting the renewables target
in parallel would add a further EUR 300 billion to 400 billion.

A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon we're talking REAL money.

Never mind the interesting stuff in the grid transmission paragraphs.

Quote
Cost-optimal 80 percent renewables generation requires five times larger trans
-
mission grid capacities by 2050.
 Generating 80 percent of European power from
renewables at optimal cost in 2050 (“green” scenario) requires a steep buildup of trans
-
mission capacities, reaching a larger than fivefold increase in trans-regional transmission
capacities in 2050 compared with today. As optimal locations for wind and solar power
are at the outer areas of Europe (coastal for wind and southern for solar) rather than at
the center, renewable power needs to be transmitted to Central European demand
centers via massively increased transmission grid capacities.

Yes, well, Green and all that....
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1592 on: October 05, 2018, 08:35:30 AM »
Thank you for your reply Neil.

I think that in 2005 or 2010 when Germany made some of its renewable decisions, nuclear probably was the more economical choice (though the 2011 decision was driven by fear, not by "green ambition" per se).
However, in 2018 things might be different. Hinkley Point C lead time from decision to power generation is almost 15 years. Renewable projects start producing in <5 years (guesstimate). I think this is a big difference at the late stage we are in.
I'll agree with that oren, Merkel was also a bit fortunate, the last scentence with the available time frame is my main concern as well.
-
Played with the chart from energy-charts.de above. Childish but it also provides some food for thought.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1593 on: October 05, 2018, 09:24:25 AM »
Played with the chart from energy-charts.de above. Childish but it also provides some food for thought.

That chart is interesting because the literature I was reading had coal a lot higher than that.

However it does beg the question as to how the gap will be closed.

The other issue I have with that chart is that it appears to be installed capacity, not actual generation capability.  Germany, just like the UK, experiences near 0 wind days.

I recall the three day weeks in the UK in the 1970's when the miners strikes shut down the coal power stations and we only had manufacturing 3 days a week.  I remember the homes without power too.  In those days it was not that much of a hardship to live without TV, using battery radio and using paraffin lamps for light.  I wonder how the people of today would take that....
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4346
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1594 on: October 05, 2018, 09:59:05 AM »
"I remember the homes without power too.  In those days it was not that much of a hardship to live without TV, using battery radio and using paraffin lamps for light.  I wonder how the people of today would take that...."

Heeheehee. Think Amish.

Like the old Amish guy said, "I dont have a TV, bcoz if I had a TV i would watch it."

And there's work to be done, was the unspoken implication.

sidd

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1595 on: October 05, 2018, 10:56:22 AM »
Neil, you are correct and yes, the link I posted above referred to installed power. Should have noted that again and maybe also removed gas and replaced it with nuclear, á la 2009.

About closing the gap, how much energy do we need, playing with a short timeframe and not building more than necessary?
If it was a personal paycheck; we know how much we can spend, using it wisely and keeping some headroom would be the obvious choice for most.
But energy is perceived as an abundant supply that must work 24/7. That spoiled attitude began in the 70's here, with our commercial nuclear plants and cheap electricity.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 811
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1596 on: October 05, 2018, 02:46:49 PM »
Small note: nuclear is not always on. Its capacity factor is normally around 90%.

Maybe small, but it is a criticality important and profound 'note'.

The 10% is for maintenance and fuelling.  The more nuclear you have the more you can stagger it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16924
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 342
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1597 on: October 05, 2018, 03:26:54 PM »
The linked article (& attached image) show where the IEA thinks that crude oil use will be going by 2030; and cites that growing use of petrochemicals will be an important source of GHG emissions that is typically overlooked by policymakers:

Title: "Where oil is going"

https://www.axios.com/where-oil-is-going-pretrochemicals-demand-8f2fe40e-5bd6-4923-8230-087294954959.html

Extract: "Rising use of petrochemicals that make plastics and other products will be the largest source of crude oil demand growth in coming decades, the International Energy Agency said in a new report.

The big picture: "Petrochemicals ... are set to account for more than a third of the growth in oil demand to 2030, and nearly half to 2050, ahead of trucks, aviation and shipping," the report shows.

Why it matters: The IEA report calls the topic a "blind spot" in energy policy debates.
Petrochemicals are fundamental and helpful parts of the global economy, but also pose major pollution problems and represent a growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1598 on: October 05, 2018, 03:42:10 PM »
Small note: nuclear is not always on. Its capacity factor is normally around 90%.

Maybe small, but it is a criticality important and profound 'note'.
Those who don't comply are shut down, like Oskarshamn-1 last year:
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=534
Energy Availability Factor: 62.2%. Our best, Forsmark-3 is at 85.2%.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1599 on: October 08, 2018, 04:16:43 AM »
SR15 is out, have fun...
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Live conference going on here:
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.