Solving climate crisis will require a total transformation of global energy

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by skepticalmike, May 19, 2021.

  1. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The cost to transition the world to net zero emissions by the year 2050 is approximately 1 to 2 trillion dollars per year.

    Climate change: Net zero emissions could cost $2 trillion a year, ETC report says - CNN

    Achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is possible but will cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion a year, according to a new report, which warns that the cost of unmitigated climate change will be much higher.

    The Energy Transitions Commission, a coalition of senior executives from 45 energy producers, financial institutions and environmental groups, said Wednesday that it is "technically and economically possible" to achieve net zero emissions by the middle of the century at an annual cost of about 1% to 1.5% of global GDP.
    Limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the Paris Climate Agreement, will require net zero emissions by around 2050.


    The required additional investments are "easily affordable," given current global savings and sustained low interest rates, and are dwarfed by the amount of public spending dedicated to stimulating the economy after the coronavirus pandemic, the ETC added.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  2. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The approximate 5 trillion dollar price tag to transition the U.S. electric utility industry away from fossil fuels would not be the entire cost to transition
    the U.S. to a net zero carbon emission economy. That cost would be significantly higher. Eventually, electric vehicles would replace internal combustion engines and
    that would eliminate around 25% of U.S. carbon emissions. If it costs the world 50 trillion dollars to get to "net zero GHG emissions by 2050, it should cost the
    U.S. only around 11% of that since we emit around 11% of the total GHG emissions. I am skeptical of that low 5.5 trillion dollar price tag but I find it
    more reasonable than the 433 trillion dollar figure to convert the U.S. grid to wind, solar, and batteries. I didn't bother to read that article posted by Jack
    Hayes because we do not need to replace hydroelectric power or nuclear energy with wind and solar and why propose something that isn't necessary
    and extremely expensive unless the intention is to scare people away from renewable energy?
    .

    Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

    [​IMG]


    Total Emissions in 2019 = 6,558 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to independent rounding.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting, since the costs calculated in the analyses linked in #384 and 385 are many, many times higher.
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course you didn't, and please spell my name correctly.
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    78,473
    Likes Received:
    63,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Hmmm might be explained by the influence of petrodollars from the “friends of science”
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet you had no problem with the Koch connection to the study linked in #396.
    But moving on, only one of the three papers linked in #384 and 385 had a "Friends of Science" connection.
    The other two, linked here again for your convenience, were: (1) “How Many km2 of Solar Panels in Spain and how much battery backup would it take to power Germany,” by Lars Schernikau and William Smith, posted January 30, 2021 (revised April 23, 2021) at SSRN; and (2) “On the Ability of Wind and Solar Electric Generation to Power Modern Civilization,” by Wallace Manheimer, published October 7, 2021 in the Journal of Energy Research and Reviews.
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,376
    Likes Received:
    9,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cool...good to know.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The more wind power that's installed, the more warming is accelerated.

    New Study: Adding Wind Farms Leads To 1°C Per Decade Nighttime Land Surface Temperature Warming
    By Kenneth Richard on 20. January 2022

    Share this...
    Wind turbines do not reduce surface warming. They enhance it.
    Wind power expansion is thought to be “green,” reducing CO2 emissions and consequent surface warming.

    But a new study (Qin et al., 2022) affirms the warming “saved” by emissions mitigation is easily exceeded by the direct surface warming from turbine-atmosphere interactions.

    In assessing of the climate effects of 319 wind farms, the authors have determined wind power-warming can amount to as much as 0.10°C per year (1°C per decade) in nighttime temperature increases. They point out that other studies have also shown wind turbines cause nighttime warming of 0.3°C to 0.7°C per decade in states like Illinois and Texas.

    The wind farm-induced surface warming can climatically be detected as far as 10 kilometers from the wind farm site.

    So by dramatically expanding the use of wind power to cover larger and larger portions of the land surface area in the coming decades, “green” energy wind power policies may actually be having the opposite of their intended effect.[​IMG]

    Image Source: Qin et al., 2022
    . . . .
     
  10. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The "No Tricks Zone" article exaggerates the decadal nighttime land surface warming by using a worse case number of 1 degree C/decade.
    I assume that the decadal trend would not be linear and would level off and that is what the Miller and Keith article shows. The leveling
    off occurs in the year 2080. Nearby non-wind farm surface temperatures
    were subtracted from the wind farm LST (land surface temperatures) to find the LST due to wind farm effects only.

    The new study finds that the highest decadal change was 0.72 degrees C for the summer in Texas. The average nighttime decadal change
    for the 3 states in the Table on pages 15 and 16 averaged throughout the year is close to 0.25 degrees C/decade. The daytime decadal
    change is close to zero for all locations. The effect is local up to a distance of only 10 km.

    The article from the journal, Joule, indicates that the average surface temperature of the continental U.S. would rise by an additional 0.24 degrees C
    if 100 % of our electrical energy was derived from wind power. We are not going to get anywhere near 100% of our energy from wind power and a
    25% figure would be more reasonable. That would give us something like a 0.06 degree C LST rise but the effects of anthropogenic global warming
    between now and the year 2020 could easily be 1.5 degrees C. or more in
    60 years. Land warms about 50% more than the combined land/sea surface mean. The global mean temperature has been rising around 0.18 degree C per decade and that is the combined land/sea surface temperature. Land surface
    temperature has been rising about 0.27 degree C per decade.


    See pages 15 and 16 of the study below.
    pdf (iop.org)
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2022
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet . . . .
    This new analysis is consistent with a 2018 study (Miller and Keith) asserting “wind’s warming can exceed avoided warming from reduced emissions for a century.”

    Miller and Keith assessed the only way the expansion of wind power could actually net reduce surface warming instead of adding to it is “if global emissions [are] reduced to zero by 2080” (shown in green, below). Of course, with several Asian countries adding 600 coal plants in the coming decade, achieving “zero emissions” 50 or 60 years from now is hardly realistic.

    The authors also suggested the net warming climate impacts (0.24°C in their study and up to 1°C to 2°C in others) induced by wind power can be detected up to 12 kilometers away from the wind farm sites. Thus, while the climate impacts may not be global in scope, the expected wind farm expansion in the coming decades due to “green” CO2-mitigation policies may serve to dramatically increase regional – and not just local – surface temperatures.

    [​IMG]

    Image Source: Miller and Keith, 2018
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  13. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I need to correct an error in post #410, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. It should read, "That would give us something like a 0.06 degree C LST rise but the effects of anthropogenic global warming between now and the year 2080 could easily be 1.5 degrees C. or more."
     
  14. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is from the "No Tricks Zone" article: "The authors also suggested the net warming climate impacts (0.24°C in their study and up to 1°C to 2°C in others) induced by wind power can be detected up to 12 kilometers away from the wind farm sites. Thus, while the climate impacts may not be global in scope, the expected wind farm expansion in the coming decades due to “green” CO2-mitigation policies may serve to dramatically increase regional – and not just local – surface temperatures."

    The "No Tricks Zone" is conflating a net warming impact of 0.24 degrees C. over the continental U.S. if 100% of our electricity is generated by wind power
    with a local increase of 1 or 2 degrees C that might exist in a few tiny regions of the continental U.S. for nighttime temperatures in the summer. There is no
    evidence that the expected wind farm expansion in the U.S. over the next 60 years will cause anymore that an average 0.06 degrees C. of LST in the continental U.S.
    I am assuming a maximum of 25% of the U.S. electricity total coming from wind power. The graph from Keith and Miller shows that the continental U.S.
    will experience a 0.85 degree C. average temperature rise by the year 2100 if global emissions reduce to net zero by 2080. That is a fairly optimistic
    scenario and the wind farm effect on the LST is 7.0% of the anthropogenic effect. It is also worth noting that the continental U.S. takes up about 2% of
    the surface area of the globe so any temperature rise within the U.S. will have little, if any, effect on the global energy balance or the GMST. The atmosphere
    above the wind farms cools and while it is true that wind farms warms the surface in most locations, that is counterbalanced by cooling in the atmosphere.
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but that's just a straw man of your own creation.
     
  16. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It is no straw man. The "No Tricks Zone" is creating confusion by saying, (0.24°C in their study and up to 1°C to 2°C in others).
    The first number is 0.24 degrees C, that is a U.S. continental average temperature increase under an unrealistic scenario of 100% wind farms as a source of U.S. electricity. The second number 1 degrees C
    is a local effect occurring at nighttime and in the summer. I don't know what study the degree 2 C. figure comes from but if it exists, it is also a very local effect.
    Is this a deliberate distortion of the data? Their title is also a gross distortion of the truth, "New Study: Adding Wind Farms
    Leads to 1 Degree C. per Decade Nighttime Temperature LST Warming". No location in that study showed 1 degree C/decade
    of LST warming. The average location showed something closer to 0.25 or 0.30 degree C./decade of LST warming at nighttime. No warming occurred during the daytime for most locations.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2022
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only confusion is yours. NTZ could not have been clearer.
    "The authors also suggested the net warming climate impacts (0.24°C in their study and up to 1°C to 2°C in others) induced by wind power can be detected up to 12 kilometers away from the wind farm sites. Thus, while the climate impacts may not be global in scope, the expected wind farm expansion in the coming decades due to “green” CO2-mitigation policies may serve to dramatically increase regional – and not just local – surface temperatures."
    In #409:
    "In assessing of the climate effects of 319 wind farms, the authors have determined wind power-warming can amount to as much as 0.10°C per year (1°C per decade) in nighttime temperature increases. They point out that other studies have also shown wind turbines cause nighttime warming of 0.3°C to 0.7°C per decade in states like Illinois and Texas."
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2022
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Nowhere in the paper, "Impacts of 319 wind farms on surface temperature and vegetation in the United States by Qin et al., 2022", do the authors state that nighttime
    warming will lead to 1 degree C. of warming per decade. That is inferred by the results of the study which found a rate of 0.10 degree C. per year
    during the 10 year study. I didn't find any discussion of how this study could extrapolate a consistent linear trend into the future. The "No Tricks Zone"
    author multiplied the 10 years by the average annual rate and made a forecast of 1.0 degree C. per decade. As I understand the study, the number
    of wind turbines remained constant over the study. What mechanisms would cause a linear trend of 1.0 degrees C. into the future? Notice the large
    error bars of +/- 0.45 degrees C.

    " The averaged ΔLST at night of all samples was a significant warming effect of 0.10±0.45°C (p<0.01)."

    These studies discussed by "The No Tricks Zone" do not make a case against building more wind turbines. They just point out significant climate
    impacts caused by wind turbines with most of the negative impacts occurring in sparsely populated regions. Wind turbines can enhance surface
    warming in some regions for a few decades but in the long run wind turbines will reduce surface warming everywhere.

    Climatic Impacts of Wind Power - ScienceDirect Keith and Miller paper

    "Wind beats fossil fuels under any reasonable measure of long-term environmental impacts per unit of energy generated."
    "Our 0.46 TWe benchmark scenario is ∼18 times the 2016 US wind power generation rate.21 We intend it as a plausible scale of wind power generation if wind power plays a major role in decarbonizing the energy system in the latter half of this century."
    "The benchmark scenario's warming of 0.24°C over the Continental US and 0.54°C over the wind farm region are small-to-large depending on the baseline. Climatic impacts are small if compared with US temperature projections— historical and ongoing global emissions are projected to cause the Continental US to be 0.24°C warmer than today by the year 2030."


    Here are statements by the No Tricks Zone that are misleading:

    Wind turbines do not reduce surface warming. They enhance it.

    Wind power expansion is thought to be “green,” reducing CO2 emissions and consequent surface warming.

    But a new study (Qin et al., 2022) affirms the warming “saved” by emissions mitigation is easily exceeded by the direct surface warming from turbine-atmosphere
    interactions.

    So by dramatically expanding the use of wind power to cover larger and larger portions of the land surface area in the coming decades, “green” energy wind power policies may actually be having the opposite of their intended effect.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So far all you've done is restate the points made by NTZ, based on the peer-reviewed research they cite. I see absolutely no reason not to accept the idea that 0.1 warming per year would plausibly yield 1.0 warming per decade. There's nothing misleading.
     
  20. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Wind and solar energy could meet 80% of U.S. electricity demand. The cost should not be an obstacle - no more than 2 trillion dollars for batteries and transmission
    lines.

    I don't trust self-appointed experts writing technical papers on a blog and getting funding from the fossil fuel industry or those who make ridiculous claims like the cost would be 433 trillion dollars to replace fossil fuel generation with wind and solar power plus batteries.

    Wind and solar power could meet four-fifths of U.S. electricity demand, study finds | UCI News | UCI

    Irvine, Calif., Feb. 27, 2018 – The United States could reliably meet about 80 percent of its electricity demand with solar and wind power generation, according to scientists at the University of California, Irvine; the California Institute of Technology; and the Carnegie Institution for Science.

    However, meeting 100 percent of electricity demand with only solar and wind energy would require storing several weeks’ worth of electricity to compensate for the natural variability of these two resources, the researchers said.

    The team analyzed 36 years of hourly U.S. weather data (1980 to 2015) to understand the fundamental geophysical barriers to supplying electricity with only solar and wind energy.

    “We looked at the variability of solar and wind energy over both time and space and compared that to U.S. electricity demand,” Davis said. “What we found is that we could reliably get around 80 percent of our electricity from these sources by building either a continental-scale transmission network or facilities that could store 12 hours’ worth of the nation’s electricity demand.”

    The researchers said that such expansion of transmission or storage capabilities would mean very substantial – but not inconceivable – investments. They estimated that the cost of the new transmission lines required, for example, could be hundreds of billions of dollars. In comparison, storing that much electricity with today’s cheapest batteries would likely cost more than a trillion dollars, although prices are falling.

    But beyond the 80 percent mark, the amount of energy storage required to overcome seasonal and weather variabilities increases rapidly. “Our work indicates that low-carbon-emission power sources will be needed to complement what we can harvest from the wind and sun until storage and transmission capabilities are up to the job,” said co-author Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science. “Options could include nuclear and hydroelectric power generation, as well as managing demand.”

    Support for this study was provided by the National Science Foundation.

    The original research can be found here: (PDF) Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States (researchgate.net)
     
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmm. These papers weren't written on a blog, and there's no fossil fuel involvement (although the Koch connection didn't stop you from citing research you liked). So why don't you stop dodging and address the data?
    Innked here again for your convenience: (1) “How Many km2 of Solar Panels in Spain and how much battery backup would it take to power Germany,” by Lars Schernikau and William Smith, posted January 30, 2021 (revised April 23, 2021) at SSRN; and (2) “On the Ability of Wind and Solar Electric Generation to Power Modern Civilization,” by Wallace Manheimer, published October 7, 2021 in the Journal of Energy Research and Reviews.
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  23. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    These authors are biased in favor of burning coal over natural gas and renewable energy. Dr. Schernikau has connections to the coal industry.
    The article states that photovoltaic cell have to replace every 15 years: "To keep the Solar Park functioning just for Germany, PV panels would need to be replaced every 15 years," Solar panels are usually guaranteed for 25-30 years and can last longer than 30 years. They are recyclable.

    I have found other misinformation spread by these 2 authors as well.

    It seems that all of your favorite sources are unreliable.

    Here is another article by the 2 authors Dr. Lars Scherrikau and William Smith. 'Climate Impacts' of Fossil Fuels in Today’s Energy Systems by Dr. Lars Schernikau, William Smith :: SSRN

    "Coal and gas together account for 50% of primary energy and 60% of electricity. Therefore, the authors examine the global warming potential for both fuels. The surprising conclusion is that surfaced-mined coal appears “better for the climate” than the average natural gas and all coal appears beneficial over LNG. Therefore, current CO2-only reduction policies and CO2 taxes are leading to misguided consequences and the switch from coal to gas, especially LNG, will not have the desired impact of reducing predicted future global warming, quite the contrary." - I didn't know that coal was better for the environment than natural gas

    "The potential effects of a warming climate system should not be discounted or played down. However, the undisputed benefits of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere because of its photosynthetic and growth effects (fertilization) on plants need to be considered in energy policy decisions as well."
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't think you'd like them. Disagreement is not misinformation. The performance of photovoltaic cells degrades over time, making replacement after 15 years often the most efficient solution.

    Solar Panel Degradation and The Lifespan of Solar Panels
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    11,784
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And now the renewables advocates are cornered.
    What Solution Do Renewable Energy Advocates Offer For The Problem Of Storage?
    January 22, 2022/ Francis Menton

    • Most comments at this site tend to have a perspective generally consistent with my own. But sometimes a post will attract comments from people with a very different point of view. That occurred on a post earlier this week titled “Two More Contributions On The impossibility Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar, And Batteries.”

    • The import of all of these studies is that as renewables come to dominate the mix of electricity generation, and particularly as their share of generation goes above 50% and on towards 100%, and fossil fuel backup gets phased out, then the cost of necessary storage becomes far and away the dominant cost of the overall system. Therefore, any meaningful proposal to replace fossil fuel generation with renewables must grapple with this issue.

    • So what is the solution that the dissenting commenters offer for the problem of increasing need for expensive storage? They don’t offer any at all. Instead, they appear to think that the whole problem can be assumed away or ignored.
    READ MORE
     

Share This Page