# Solar Dominance Coming....



## woodgeek (Jan 23, 2021)

Consultants Wood Mackenzie have an interesting report on the Solar market over the next 10 and 20 years.









						How falling costs will secure solar’s dominance in power
					

Renewables are the proven zero-carbon technology where much of the capital funding the energy transition will be invested. Learn more.




					www.woodmac.com
				




Abstract:
_Renewables are the proven zero-carbon technology where much of the capital funding the energy transition will be invested. Over the next 20 years, Wood Mackenzie expects more than 4 terawatts (TW) of wind and solar power to come on stream globally, taking renewables’ share of the world’s power capacity to 30% from 10% today. Of this new capacity, some 2.6 TW will be solar._

That is over 250W of PV for every human on Earth in 2040.  I think these kinds of predictions tend to be too conservative on timelines.  This would only represent a tripling of solar power capacity relative to today.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 23, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> Consultants Wood Mackenzie have an interesting report on the Solar market over the next 10 and 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Watch the batteries.  That's the last weak link.  Once that's sorted out, and it is close, say goodbye to burning dinosaur.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 24, 2021)

I think about the business model of near "zero cost of production" for a product. Tough for any legacy production of similar products to survive.

This is the bigger issue local and regional governments will need to workout. The fact that the stinky power plant is employing 62 well paid full time workers, and pays 36% of the annual tax revenues of the county, including 64% of the school budget. The plant will be closing soon and replaced by a field of solar panels and a half dozen wind turbines, with zero full time employees, and a 10 year tax abatement that will produce one twelfth of the total tax revenue, projected over 30 years.

That's the other portion of "human" analysis. I'm 100% "in" on shuttering the fossil production fleet of electric  generators. I want the health benefits of less pollution. I'm also looking for solutions for the local impacts that sometimes destroy families or entire communities due to the revenue & tax displacement. It's gonna be a bumpy road.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 24, 2021)

CaptSpiff said:


> I think about the business model of near "zero cost of production" for a product. Tough for any legacy production of similar products to survive.
> 
> This is the bigger issue local and regional governments will need to workout. The fact that the stinky power plant is employing 62 well paid full time workers, and pays 36% of the annual tax revenues of the county, including 64% of the school budget. The plant will be closing soon and replaced by a field of solar panels and a half dozen wind turbines, with zero full time employees, and a 10 year tax abatement that will produce one twelfth of the total tax revenue, projected over 30 years.
> 
> That's the other portion of "human" analysis. I'm 100% "in" on shuttering the fossil production fleet of electric  generators. I want the health benefits of less pollution. I'm also looking for solutions for the local impacts that sometimes destroy families or entire communities due to the revenue & tax displacement. It's gonna be a bumpy road.



Wind turbines do need maintenance, so while there are no full time employees necessarily in the county, there are companies with full time employees, either the mfg, or another if the maintenance is outsourced upon purchase. (My brother works for a wind turbine company.)

Of course this does not solve the issue you raise.


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 24, 2021)

I also agree a tripling of solar output in the next 20 years is low. I think the US is about to see a nation wide boom on renewables development, driven by lower costs but also in a large part by government subsidies and penalties on the use of fossil fuels. Our Carbon tax increase was announced shortly after our PM's discussion with the (at the time) President-Elect. I doubt ours would have increased so substantially unless the US was planning something similar.

As for jobs, I believe the US must set up a manufacturing facility for the silicon wafers within its borders. Solar PV will be a long-term source of energy, it only makes sense to employ as many Americans as possible in the manufacture of these products. As China continues to gain wealth and wages rise so will costs to manufacture there, making this argument stronger.

I'm not sure what others are seeing in their area for battery storage, but we just had our first 2 units go online (Lithium Ion) in the province in the last year, with at least 2 more planned for this year. The footprint these things take up is tiny, I would think an old coal powerplant site could house in the GWh's of capacity.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 24, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> I also agree a tripling of solar output in the next 20 years is low. I think the US is about to see a nation wide boom on renewables development, driven by lower costs but also in a large part by government subsidies and penalties on the use of fossil fuels. Our Carbon tax increase was announced shortly after our PM's discussion with the (at the time) President-Elect. I doubt ours would have increased so substantially unless the US was planning something similar.
> 
> As for jobs, I believe the US must set up a manufacturing facility for the silicon wafers within its borders. Solar PV will be a long-term source of energy, it only makes sense to employ as many Americans as possible in the manufacture of these products. As China continues to gain wealth and wages rise so will costs to manufacture there, making this argument stronger.
> 
> I'm not sure what others are seeing in their area for battery storage, but we just had our first 2 units go online (Lithium Ion) in the province in the last year, with at least 2 more planned for this year. The footprint these things take up is tiny, I would think an old coal powerplant site could house in the GWh's of capacity.



I'm not sure Li ion is the go to technology for large scale storage; cheaper alternatives are around for when space and weight is not an issue. Li ion is good for portable, high energy density needs.

On a small scale (household), storage here on Long Island is not really a thing. My solar system was installed by a company trying to expand from Hawaii, and was pushing for storage as well. However, with our next metering, the grid is our "storage", so they did not succeed and left LI... Poor business landscape planning.

I do have a polluting fossil fuel generator that will run my fridge, a light, a fan in case it's needed....


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 24, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> I'm not sure Li ion is the go to technology for large scale storage; cheaper alternatives are around for when space and weight is not an issue. Li ion is good for portable, high energy density needs.
> 
> On a small scale (household), storage here on Long Island is not really a thing. My solar system was installed by a company trying to expand from Hawaii, and was pushing for storage as well. However, with our next metering, the grid is our "storage", so they did not succeed and left LI... Poor business landscape planning.
> 
> I do have a polluting fossil fuel generator that will run my fridge, a light, a fan in case it's needed....



Li-Ion very well may not be the best, but at the present time is the most developed and commercially available.

There is a price where battery storage makes sense in my house, I pay transmission and distribution fees on all power bought, but don't receive these back when I sell to the grid. A small battery would minimize this. Now if I could actually get my hands on these $100/kwh Li-Ion batteries everyone talks about I'd be set. Right now for me a Tesla Powerwall 2 is about $850/kwh, plus install.


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 24, 2021)

But on the site of an old powerplant (your example) lead acid is far, far more economical. And proven. And reliable. As compared to many, many other battery chemistries, Li ion is by far not the most developed... 

In your home it's a different story; I'd not need Li ion as I have enough space (and the transmission fee thing is non-existent as my meter simply runs backwards). But that does not hold for everybody.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 24, 2021)

The US has built multiple Silicon wafer plants over the years and few if any remain. The plants are potentially environmentally polluting and the cost to do that clean up is big part of the plant cost. Most production went to the third world as those countries just skip the environmental equipment. As long as there is one country that is willing to take  long term damage for short term dollars the production will go to that place. Evergreen in Massachuseets had their string ribbon technology that had far less environmental impact, they basically lost money on every panel they sold as the chinese just dropped their wafer prices down until they were cheaper.


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 24, 2021)

stoveliker said:


> But on the site of an old powerplant (your example) lead acid is far, far more economical. And proven. And reliable. As compared to many, many other battery chemistries, Li ion is by far not the most developed...
> 
> In your home it's a different story; I'd not need Li ion as I have enough space (and the transmission fee thing is non-existent as my meter simply runs backwards). But that does not hold for everybody.



In terms of complete turn key systems for grid scale use it sure appears Li-Ion is the most developed and available at the present time.

I unfortunately don't believe lead-acid is superior. When considering that they must not be discharged below 50% DoD to attain any appreciable lifespan. For a large battery bank in a house or cottage where a couple days storage is needed and power draw per hour is below 10% of total capacity maybe. For a fast reacting high output grid scale battery absolutely not, a lead acid battery cannot efficiently discharge in an hour or two like a Li-Ion can, which is a must for grid stability and maximizing profits for the owner of the battery. Efficiency comes into concern, lead acid tops out at about 85% round trip efficiency, Li-Ion is >90%.


----------



## ABMax24 (Jan 24, 2021)

peakbagger said:


> The US has built multiple Silicon wafer plants over the years and few if any remain. The plants are potentially environmentally polluting and the cost to do that clean up is big part of the plant cost. Most production went to the third world as those countries just skip the environmental equipment. As long as there is one country that is willing to take  long term damage for short term dollars the production will go to that place. Evergreen in Massachuseets had their string ribbon technology that had far less environmental impact, they basically lost money on every panel they sold as the chinese just dropped their wafer prices down until they were cheaper.



I get that. At some point though there needs to be a discussion, what's better? To worry only about product cost and continually ship jobs offshore, or either restrict the import of these products, or subsidize the local production of the product? With the understanding that the extra revenue generated from various taxes makes back the subsidy, while also removing some workers from social assistance by providing gainful employment.

I don't think solar PV or battery storage is going be replaced any time soon by another superior technology. IMO it makes sense to cost the tax-payer a few bucks today to invest in it's future prosperity. To me it's also a factor in energy security, what happens in the event of a trade war or worse with China?


----------



## stoveliker (Jan 24, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> In terms of complete turn key systems for grid scale use it sure appears Li-Ion is the most developed and available at the present time.
> 
> I unfortunately don't believe lead-acid is superior. When considering that they must not be discharged below 50% DoD to attain any appreciable lifespan. For a large battery bank in a house or cottage where a couple days storage is needed and power draw per hour is below 10% of total capacity maybe. For a fast reacting high output grid scale battery absolutely not, a lead acid battery cannot efficiently discharge in an hour or two like a Li-Ion can, which is a must for grid stability and maximizing profits for the owner of the battery. Efficiency comes into concern, lead acid tops out at about 85% round trip efficiency, Li-Ion is >90%.



You are correct; my ideas were based on outdated info. I found a good summary (for dummies like me) here:
https://www.nrel.gov › docsPDF
Grid-Scale Battery Storage: Frequently Asked Questions - NREL

(If that link copy paste works).

Lead acid can discharge fast though, but at lower capacity. Cars need a lot of juice to start. But given the decreased cost, the other aspects (which used to be mitigated by simply installing more capacity) of Li ion make them be better now.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 24, 2021)

I had two projects that got big grants for Zinc flow batteries, by the time we got to the next stage, the company was effectively out of business. There is new zinc technology Eos that just went public through a SPAC. Lithium is not the future for fixed storage most bets are on batteries that use more common material.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jan 24, 2021)

CaptSpiff said:


> That's the other portion of "human" analysis. I'm 100% "in" on shuttering the fossil production fleet of electric  generators. I want the health benefits of less pollution. I'm also looking for solutions for the local impacts that sometimes destroy families or entire communities due to the revenue & tax displacement. It's gonna be a bumpy road.


Expect your property tax to go up to make up the diff. Ours goes up at least 4-5% a year, every year.


----------



## andym (Jan 24, 2021)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Expect your property tax to go up to make up the diff. Ours goes up at least 4-5% a year, every year.


Yeah, nobody is going to suggest cutting the school budget by 64%! Though arguably it could be done......


----------



## ben94122 (Jan 26, 2021)

Do you guys know anything about capacitors being developed to store large amounts of energy with newer dielectric materials?  I can't google anything at the moment.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 27, 2021)

Supercapacitors and ultracapacitors are a great short term way of storing and discharging lots of power for short periods. There is at least one firm whose name I can not remember that was developing this for oil and gas drilling. Oil and gas drilling outfits usually run off lots of diesels idling so that when they do need to power that the power is available. This puts out a lot of emissions and costs money. The supercapacitors are charged up when the demand is not there and then can rapidly discharge to deal with surges in power demand instead of a row of idling diesels. They are designed for minutes of storage not hours or days. They are better compared to as flywheels then as a battery replacement. They do wear out and degrade. 

Almost every solar power inverter used large capacitors to convert DC to AC but the large capacitors have been replaced with rapid switching electronics. It makes the units smaller, more reliable and able to handle more power in less space.

Fuel cell cars use super capacitors to deal with surges in power demand. A fuel cell has crappy "throttle response" its really designed to put out steady load, so it charges a supercapacitor to deal with increases in demand and discharges the power quickly while the fuel cell catches up.

They could factor into the future power grid to deal with rapid load changes on the grid but they will not replace batteries unless there is major technological jump in storage density and storage duration. They also can be integrated into microgrids although lithium batteries seem to have fast enough response  function without them. If flow batteries become more popular, supercapacitors may reappear as flow batteries has similar response issues to fuel cells.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 27, 2021)

Color me skeptical. I do not see the evidence that CO2 generated by man is causing harm now or will  cause harm in the future.








						Everything Climate
					

The data and the theories




					everythingclimate.org
				



I find solar and wind fascinating technologies, but do not see the evidence that they can provide the world's power needs in 10, 20 or 100 years. We have since the industrial revolution learned how to harness coal, oil and natural gas to enrich the lives of 7+ billion people and in modern democratically run countries we have learned to do this with minimal impact on the environment.
Building solar and wind generating facilities requires quantities of materials that are orders of magnitude greater than continuing to refine our use of coal, oil and gas to provide safe reliable energy. Many of these rare earth materials come from countries using child labor and have little to no environmental controls. The land area required to site these facilities is staggering. And you can only cost effectively capture so much energy from the sun or wind regardless of advancements in technology. Chemically storing that energy runs into the same issues - materials, space and cost.
CO2 is a life giving gas. At levels around 150, plants can't function. We were at 180 at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
At over 400, the planet is greening and agricultural output is increasing.
IMHO Climate Change will go down in history as one of the biggest hoaxes perpetuated on mankind.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 27, 2021)

andym said:


> Yeah, nobody is going to suggest cutting the school budget by 64%! Though arguably it could be done......


I'll keep it short cause I don't like crosstalk on a thread: In NYS we do it thru Pilots (payments in lieu of taxes), voted in place in the State Capital as a 10-15yr reducing revenue stream. The school district goes hat in hand and now has to manage only a max 6.4% reduction a yr. All paid by other state residents. Thank you.


----------



## begreen (Jan 28, 2021)

This report released yesterday from the US Department of Energy states that not only is a zero-emissions objective achievable, it is also surprisingly affordable. It provides a detailed roadmap of how the U.S. energy and industrial system can become a source of negative CO2 emissions by 2050. What is important is that it sets commonsense goals for 2030 that do not call for replacing everything, all at once. Instead, it relies on end-of-life replacements with low carbon alternatives. 

*"The next 10 years*
An important finding of this study is that the actions required in the next 10 years are similar regardless of long-term differences between pathways. In the near term, we need to increase generation and transmission of renewable energy, make sure all new infrastructure, such as cars and buildings, are low carbon, and maintain current natural gas capacity for now for reliability.

“This is a very important finding. We don’t need to have a big battle now over questions like the near-term construction of nuclear power plants, because new nuclear is not required in the next ten years to be on a net-zero emissions path. Instead we should make policy to drive the steps that we know are required now, while accelerating R&D and further developing our options for the choices we must make starting in the 2030s,” said study lead author Jim Williams, associate professor of Energy Systems Management at USF and a Berkeley Lab affiliate scientist."









						Getting to Net Zero – and Even Net Negative – is Surprisingly Feasible, and Affordable
					

New analysis provides detailed blueprint for the U.S. to become carbon neutral by 2050




					newscenter.lbl.gov


----------



## begreen (Jan 28, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> CO2 is a life giving gas. At levels around 150, plants can't function. We were at 180 at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
> At over 400, the planet is greening and agricultural output is increasing.


Tired old strawman argument. Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed. It completely sidesteps the effects of high CO2 levels, like ocean acidification and glacial melt.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 28, 2021)

begreen said:


> Tired old strawman argument. Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed. It completely sidesteps the effects of high CO2 levels, like ocean acidification and glacial melt.


On ocean acidification this is interesting https://everythingclimate.org/ocean-acidification/


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 28, 2021)

begreen said:


> Tired old strawman argument. Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed. It completely sidesteps the effects of high CO2 levels, like ocean acidification and glacial melt.


And there is this on glacial melt https://everythingclimate.org/topics/antarctic-ice-melt/


----------



## begreen (Jan 28, 2021)

Homebrew websites like this abound. That particular one seems to lack any bonafide.
Here's another that states clearly who is behind it.








						The Climate Reality Project
					

Get the tools, training, and network to fight climate change and together build the world we want.




					climaterealityproject.org


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 28, 2021)

andym said:


> Yeah, nobody is going to suggest cutting the school budget by 64%! Though arguably it could be done......


I think there are plenty of educators that would disagree.


----------



## andym (Jan 28, 2021)

SpaceBus said:


> I think there are plenty of educators that would disagree.


Thats why I said arguably. I was thinking primarily of tax payer funded sports, tech gadgets for every student, etc. It is off subject though.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 29, 2021)

Its a very funny thing.  

There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!





__





						Wayback Machine
					






					web.archive.org
				




Nor is there any information on the internet for who is behind it or funding it or authored it.   Why not?


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 29, 2021)

begreen said:


> Tired old strawman argument. Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed. It completely sidesteps the effects of high CO2 levels, like ocean acidification and glacial melt.


'Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed.' You are correct and we are doing a very good job feeding most of those billions with modern agricultural practices and plants that do better with higher CO2 levels.
Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed.


woodgeek said:


> Its a very funny thing.
> 
> There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!
> 
> ...


It's a new site put up by wattsupwiththat.com








						Moving Forward – A New WUWT Reference/Resource Site
					

A few weeks ago, I stated WUWT would be moving to a “war footing” due to the election of Biden and the inevitable headlong rush into the “climate crisis” mania that seems to…




					wattsupwiththat.com


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 29, 2021)

Thanks for the tip.

From WUWT:

_You might ask: why do we have a second website done this way?

It’s simple – I wanted a site that was entirely a factual website, without discussions that could be used as a reference. I also wanted a website that has the word “climate” in it as opposed to WUWT, which has no such word. This might be helpful in search engines. It’s certainly helpful in discussions, since climate alarmists put on blinders, shut their minds, open their mouths and scream “climate deniers” anytime WUWT is mentioned. EC doesn’t have that baggage. Finally, speaking of search engines, EC will have SEO separate from WUWT._

Hahaha.  EC doesn't have 'that baggage' that WUWT has.





__





						Watts Up With That? - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I guess Mr. Watts is trying to break out, after hitting his high water mark a decade ago, when he doxxed a bunch of scientists with help from Russian hackers.  Now new and improved without the pesky comment section, or any mention on the EC site of its 'heritage'.

It's not 2011 anymore.  I will seek wisdom elsewhere.


----------



## begreen (Jan 29, 2021)

Here is a new study documenting the rate of ice loss on the planet. The facts just keep piling up. 








						Earth Loses 1.2 Trillion Tons of Ice Per Year, a Nearly 60% Increase From 1994
					

A pair of studies paint a worrying picture of accelerating ice loss around the world, with serious consequences for projections of sea level rise




					www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Jan 30, 2021)

More facts.








						Antarctic Ice Melt
					

Icecaps in the Antarctica with icebergs melting in the sea Photo by  Sarah Atoui licensed from 123rf.com Pro: Antarctic Ice Melt is Dangerous Climate Change is causing accelerated ice los…




					everythingclimate.org
				











						Greenland Ice Loss Will Cause Dangerous Sea Level Rise
					

Greenland’s Ice Sheet – The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.2 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point.  Credit: NASA’s Scientific Visualization St…




					everythingclimate.org


----------



## Solarguy3500 (Jan 30, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> We have since the industrial revolution learned how to harness coal, oil and natural gas to enrich the lives of 7+ billion people and in modern democratically run countries we have learned to do this with minimal impact on the environment.



I guess if you just ignore all the environmental disasters, billions of dollars of damage and lives lost  from increasingly devastating weather events, and chronic health problems caused by fossil fuel use, you can make a statement like that.








						Lac-Megantic: The runaway train that destroyed a town
					

Nearly five years after a rail disaster, a small Canadian town still grapples with the aftermath.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## begreen (Feb 2, 2021)

When reality hits the road.








						Sea levels are rising faster than the most pessimistic of forecasts
					

Insured property worth trillions of dollars could face even greater danger from floods, superstorms and tidal surges, researchers say.




					www.adn.com


----------



## CaptSpiff (Feb 2, 2021)

begreen said:


> When reality hits the road.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you provide a non-subscription site, or summerize the contents of the article.
Apparently linking to the site (first time ever I think) results in ADN concluding I've exceeded my free visits.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Feb 2, 2021)

CaptSpiff said:


> Can you provide a non-subscription site, or summerize the contents of the article.
> Apparently linking to the site (first time ever I think) results in ADN concluding I've exceeded my free visits.



I was able to cut and paste the text.
It's at the bottom
Share on Facebook
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Share on Twitter
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Share via Email
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Share on Tumblr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Share on Reddit
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Share on LinkedIn
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Share on Google Plus
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Print article
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











Climate change is causing oceans to rise more quickly than scientists’ most pessimistic forecasts, resulting in earlier flood risks to coastal economies already struggling to adapt.
The revised estimates published Tuesday in Ocean Science affect the two-fifths of the Earth’s population who live near coastlines. Insured property worth trillions of dollars could face even greater danger from floods, superstorms and tidal surges. The research suggests that countries will have to rein in their greenhouse gas emissions even more than expected to keep sea levels in check.
“It means our carbon budget is even more depleted,” said Aslak Grinsted, a geophysicist at the University of Copenhagen who co-authored the research. Economies need to slash an additional 200 billion metric tons of carbon - equivalent to about five years of global emissions - to remain within the thresholds set by previous forecasts, he said.
The researchers built on the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s models, many of which only consider the last 150 years, by incorporating data going back several centuries. The new observations show about a half-meter of sea rise by the end of the century can now be expected with just a 0.5 degree Celsius rise in temperatures. Oceans could rise more than 1 meter at 2 degrees Celsius, a trajectory that will be easily passed under current climate policies.
“The models we are basing our predictions of sea-level rise on presently are not sensitive enough,” Grinsted said. “To put it plainly, they don’t hit the mark when we compare them to the rate of sea-level rise we see when comparing future scenarios with observations going back in time.”
The conclusions follow last month’s warning that rising temperatures have melted 28 trillion metric tons of ice - equivalent to a 100 meter thick sheet of ice covering the entire U.K. - making the worst-case climate scenarios more likely. The new methodology for tracking sea level change could help insurance companies, real estate developers and city planners erecting tidal-defense systems.

“The scenarios we see before us now regarding sea-level rise are too conservative - the sea looks, using our method, to rise more than what is believed using the present method,” Grinsted said, adding that his team at the Niels Bohr Institute is in touch with the IPCC about incorporating its results in next year’s sixth Assessment Report.


----------



## PA Mountain Man (Feb 2, 2021)

And this is the study the ADN article is referencing.








						The transient sensitivity of sea level rise
					

<p><strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> Recent assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) imply that global mean sea level is unlikely to rise more than about 1.1 m within this century but will increase further beyond 2100. Even within the most...




					os.copernicus.org
				



Interesting work with data and models.
I probably won't see the next 79 years to know if their work was accurate.


----------



## begreen (Feb 3, 2021)

CaptSpiff said:


> Can you provide a non-subscription site, or summerize the contents of the article.
> Apparently linking to the site (first time ever I think) results in ADN concluding I've exceeded my free visits.


That's odd. I have not been bumped there.


----------



## Solarguy3500 (Feb 9, 2021)

PA Mountain Man said:


> More facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actual, real facts not pseudoscience disguised as research by someone with a political axe to grind:








						Fossil fuel air pollution causes almost 1 in 5 deaths globally each year | CNN
					

More than 8 million people around the world die each year as a result of breathing polluted air that contains particles from fossil fuels, a new study has found.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 13, 2021)

A nice long-read below on the current state of climate POLICY.   The climate science debate has long ENDED.  Climate denial is DEAD, even in the US. 

[Careful PAMM... you don't want to be in the 'flat earth' society.]

The 'business as usual' climate projection is no longer the 'burn everything' curve, 4+ degrees of warming and an unliveable planet by 2100.  It is now a really chitty 2100 with a warming between 1.5 and 2.x degrees, versus our current 1.2°C.  Vive la Paris Accord.



			https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after-pandemic.html
		


Lots of good stuff in there:
— The cost of electricity decarbonization is now lower than the savings from public health costs from reduced FF pollution.  Zero or negative net cost.
— The worry about climate 'free riders' polluting to get cheap power while others bankrupt themselves for the climate... nope!
— The flipside of how hard it is to get to 1.5°C relative to 2.0°C, is that slow or too little action for several decades more before mitigation still leaves us in the low 2's of warming, not 5.

These 3 points IMO quash all the worries and turmoil and bad politics of Copenhagen.  Its a Paris world.


----------



## RockCastile (Feb 13, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> Climate denial is DEAD, even in the US.


If only that were so. (btw: appreciating the links you provide here, I'm learning things)


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 13, 2021)

I think you are going to see another big technology shift similar to computers. All the technology has been developed in the background its just the will to put it in place. The countries that embrace i will be the winners. Sad to say the US has handed a lot of the tech offshore.


----------



## mcdougy (Feb 14, 2021)

peakbagger said:


> I think you are going to see another big technology shift similar to computers. All the technology has been developed in the background its just the will to put it in place. The countries that embrace i will be the winners. Sad to say the US has handed a lot of the tech offshore.


What tech are you referring too?
 Uranaium, solar,wind,hydrogen?


----------



## peakbagger (Feb 14, 2021)

mcdougy said:


> What tech are you referring too?
> Uranaium, solar,wind,hydrogen?


Nuclear , yup, no longer any US nuke companies, the Westinghouse AP 1000 was copied and improved upon by the Chinese.  The Russians have the other nuke tech. France has a market but pretty well sticks to keeping their own units running. The big research on thorium reactors developed at Oak Ridge is now all offshore in China. Solar, yup thats mostly offshore. Wind tech went offshore.  Hydrogen is probably the only one that still has a lot of US research behind it for now. The mostly foreign offshore wind producers have figured out that offshore hydrogen production is the path forward so expect its going to be developed offshore given the US's lag in offshore wind.  Early stage battery tech is still US but odds are once its developed, third world countries will get their hands on it.   

The tech really is not  rocket science, its just takes a government decision  to focus on building it domestically.


----------

