# An Interesting Take On Climate Change



## BrotherBart (Nov 15, 2014)

"The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.

This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...y-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming


----------



## semipro (Nov 15, 2014)

Its interesting that insurance companies, the military, departments of transportation and others, all _not _well known for "progressiveness" on such issues are taking GCC very seriously while many of our so called "leaders" prefer instead to stall while the science is "worked out". 
.


----------



## begreen (Nov 15, 2014)

Climate change is going to be costly as insurance companies found out with hurricane Sandy. It is also going to be disruptive which will stress some populations and possibly make them aggressors seeking food and water relief. This brings in the military. Eventually we are going to see complete nations on the move, perhaps starting with the Maldives, and coastal areas abandoned, moving populations inland.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 16, 2014)

Some of the largest corporations also are revising their business models based on a risk/benefit analysis, something which any good business pays attention to, and some of these are simply stating the fact that climate change is in progress and human action is a substantial cause.

Locally, the army training base at Camp Ripley in central MN is moving forward on biomass heating and PV, not primarily for cost savings reasons but to ensure energy security for the base.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 16, 2014)

thanks for the post. interesting read , enjoyed reading thru the comment section especially when the author stuck around for the whole thing. they usually give up but this guy is obviously different.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 16, 2014)

My favorite quote was: _“I tell people, this is cutting-edge 19th-Century science that we’re now refining.”

EXACTLY. _ The basic science of the greenhouse effect (that it warms the earth ~50° more than it would be otherwise) was worked out during the age of steam.

If our man Inhofe doesn't believe AGW is a problem, I say he calls in this brass crew, and they duke it out until either they convince him, or he convinces them.  

Done.


----------



## dougstove (Nov 16, 2014)

begreen said:


> ...Eventually we are going to see complete nations on the move, perhaps starting with the Maldives, and coastal areas abandoned, moving populations inland.



But when will governments stop subsidizing untenable coastal and floodplain development?
My little town (~7500 people) is planning to borrow millions to re-develop a rundown street that is already below high tide mark, when there is vacant high ground nearby.
In Canada over-land flooding is not covered by insurance.  But municipal governments (...Calgary) sell inappropriate land to developers, who sell houses and buildings.  The occupants then get government bailouts when the floods come.
These bail outs are presented as emergency responses to unpredictable humanitarian disasters.
But cumulatively, they allow people to make unsustainable choices.
If someone wants to live in a stilt house in a marsh, or on a houseboat, great.  But take responsibility for the consequences.


----------



## Where2 (Nov 16, 2014)

begreen said:


> Climate change is going to be costly as insurance companies found out with hurricane Sandy.


Sandy wasn't the beginning, any property insurer who was in Florida in 1992 got a wake up call thanks to Hurricane Andrew. Within a few years of 1992, no insurer would cover the peril of windstorm damage for any property east of I-95 in Dade, Broward or Palm Beach Counties. (look at a map, that's a huge number of properties) The state of Florida had to set up a government based insurance system to insure all these properties because the government derives significant funding from having these properties continue to be able to be bought and sold using conventional financing which involves hazard insurance protecting the lender. Without hazard insurance, lenders would stop lending, and entire cities lying east of the arbitrarily cast division line of an interstate would go bust.



dougstove said:


> But when will governments stop subsidizing untenable coastal and floodplain development?


As far as I can tell: not in my lifetime. The latest thing that is getting scarce in these coastal developments is fresh water. It seems like even the lack of a basic human necessity like fresh water is not enough to slow down the marching force of coastal development. The latest concept is ration the resource amongst the existing inhabitants to increase the availability to new inhabitants whose homes have not been built yet. Then build more...


----------



## Mt Bob (Nov 16, 2014)

Not going to get into the "man made global warming" debate,but the gov/military also has contingency plans if mars invades.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 17, 2014)

... Matians invading? where? They have had lots of experience with climate change.
Do they look different than the scary humans who deny climate change?


----------



## Mt Bob (Nov 17, 2014)

jebatty said:


> ... Matians invading? where? They have had lots of experience with climate change.
> Do they look different than the scary humans who deny climate change?


 Was not going to reply,as what I said in my other post,but you just irked me.At the cost of being thrown off this site,why do you not explaine "climate change"?To this day I have not met a person that does not deny that the climate changes.The big change came when most of the planet found out that "man made climate change(thank the worlds biggest liar-al gore) went away,and now it is climate change.I do not have a problem with "climate change" as it is a daily,hourly,minute thing,but have a problem with people like you that have taken the liberty to make "climate change" the same scare mongering as "man made climate change".Look at all the false info put out by the us(noah,nasa) australia,uk.about climate,and they have now dissallowed this info.,and throws a  lot of "Known facts" into known lies.(as an example,seen any polar bear severe death/dying off warnings?)Climate change is trying to mean man made climate change,please stop.


----------



## begreen (Nov 18, 2014)

Climate change is not hourly, daily or even monthly. Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Yes, weather varies a lot and it will continue to. Long term changes are occurring that correspond directly with the industrial age and increased usage of fossil fuels. There is a superfluous amount of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere as a result. About 98% of the world's brightest scientists agree on this. That is world wide. 'Nuf said. 

Here's an animation of what remains in the atmosphere as a result of our addiction to fossil fuels. Ponder on this and be thankful for the forests on this planet.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 18, 2014)

begreen said:


> Climate change is not hourly, daily or even weekly. Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Yes, weather varies a lot and it will continue to. Long term changes are occurring that correspond directly with the industrial age and increased usage of fossil fuels. There is a superfluous amount of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere as a result. About 98% of the worlds brightest scientists agree on this. That is world wide. 'Nuf said.


http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/on-pace-to-be-the-warmest-year/37357238


----------



## Wildo (Nov 19, 2014)

begreen said:


> Climate change is not hourly, daily or even monthly. Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Yes, weather varies a lot and it will continue to. Long term changes are occurring that correspond directly with the industrial age and increased usage of fossil fuels. There is a superfluous amount of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere as a result. About 98% of the worlds brightest scientists agree on this. That is world wide. 'Nuf said.
> 
> Here's an animation of what remains in the atmosphere as a result of our addiction to fossil fuels. Ponder on this and be thankful for the forests on this planet.



Very interesting to watch!   Especially seeing the hurricanes, cyclone, & typhoon interaction if you look closely.  It is amazing to see the trees eating it up.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 19, 2014)

I feel like I want to hug a tree now.  Thanks.


----------



## Where2 (Nov 19, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> I feel like I want to hug a tree now.


Plant a forest, or buy an existing one.


----------



## Mt Bob (Nov 20, 2014)

Posted 2 replys here,they did not come up?


----------



## Mt Bob (Nov 20, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> And replies like them won't again either. Rest.
> 
> If you want to rag on a member, do it in a PM.


 Yes sir.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 20, 2014)

superfluous benefit of the industrial and fossil fueled age.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 guess we could add charts for length of life and wealth as well.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2014)

Doug, crop yields were growing exponentially for decades before global warming started to kick in, find a chart going back to 1850.  Ag science actually works.

Ask the farmers in the CA central valley how well they would be doing this year (or last) without irrigation.

We completely agree that the energy services enabled by 150 years of cheap fossil fuel have revolutionized the human condition.  This fact is totally irrelevant to the question of whether emissions from the same FF are about to bite us in the azz in the next 50.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2014)

My 14 yo daughter was asking me (re an energy transformation) about whether there was any precedent for civilization fundamentally changing how it functions, and successfully navigating the transition.

The closest thing I could come up with was slavery.  Before we had FF, we had biomass for heat, draft animals for heavy work AND slaves for everything else.

(Note, I am not trying to single out the US experience....I think many if not most pre-FF societies worked to varying degrees on slavery...all the great ancient empires and even primitive tribes typically had slaves).

The Brits were early anti-slavers, but had their colonies to supply them with proxy slaves.  The US had slave states and non-slave states, but I am sure that there was a lot of interstate trade between the two....the Northerners' society was still powered (at least to an extent) by 'outsourced' slavery.

The idea of abolition obviously cut to the core of slave states' entire political economy that had been in place for _centuries_.  The elite of those states had a deeply vested interest in maintaining the status quo and could not imagine their sophisticated, modern societies continuing to function without slaves, but probably imagined its collapse into an impoverished, less developed state.

Fortunately, FF came to the rescue with a panoply of potent mechanical slaves.

Do I really need to complete this analogy explicitly for us today?  We like to say we ended slavery for ethical reasons.  But the end just happened to occur when an alternative (FF-fueled machines like the cotton gin) came along.  If we know that CO2 pollution damages the future climate in ways that will harm dozens of future generations, is it ethical?  If adequate replacements for fossil fuels (which are superior from a public health POV) are available, why wouldn't we want to switch.

Inertia, vested interests, and lack of imagination.


----------



## semipro (Nov 20, 2014)

bob bare said:


> BrotherBart said: ↑
> And replies like them won't again either. Rest.
> If you want to rag on a member, do it in a PM.


Its easy to get your hand slapped by a mod in here. I think it has happened to most of us.
Its the closest thing we have to a forum on a controversial subject like religion or politics since the Ash Can closed.


----------



## semipro (Nov 20, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> My 14 yo daughter was asking me (re an energy transformation) about whether there was any precedent for civilization fundamentally changing how it functions, and successfully navigating the transition.


Subject matter aside; I think you must have a truly extraordinary teenage daughter and some really interesting dinner table conversations!


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2014)

I suppose.  That was a mutually interesting convo we had.  This morning I was telling her about some stuff that I thought about when I was 14, and she finally looked up at me and simply said, deadpan, "Were you just really weird back then?"


----------



## jebatty (Nov 20, 2014)

Many industries have failed in a changed paradigm environment, some have successfully negotiated the change. The pain of those that failed is real but also is localized. And the new paradigm nearly always bring forth greater wealth and more jobs for more people than the wealth and jobs lost in the failed industries. I would think the same holds true for a major change in the energy paradigm. 

The current economy is based on cheap energy, first coal and now primarily by oil and NG. That energy has fueled incredible wealth, jobs, and well being (ignore the social costs at this time). The new economy similarly will be based on cheap energy, this time solar, wind and other renewables. It too will fuel even greater wealth, jobs and well being, and quite likely will be largely free of the huge social costs of the FF economy. The world runs on energy, and the sun with renewables is the ultimate energy source.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 20, 2014)

jebatty said:


> Many industries have failed in a changed paradigm environment, some have successfully negotiated the change. The pain of those that failed is real but also is localized. And the new paradigm nearly always bring forth greater wealth and more jobs for more people than the wealth and jobs lost in the failed industries. I would think the same holds true for a major change in the energy paradigm.
> 
> The current economy is based on cheap energy, first coal and now primarily by oil and NG. That energy has fueled incredible wealth, jobs, and well being (ignore the social costs at this time). The new economy similarly will be based on cheap energy, this time solar, wind and other renewables. It too will fuel even greater wealth, jobs and well being, and quite likely will be largely free of the huge social costs of the FF economy. The world runs on energy, and the sun with renewables is the ultimate energy source.


so well put, times change. as we progress through this, people will choose sides and eventually compromise. we are at the beginning of this change in energy policy. eventually the difference in our discussion will fall to one side or the other. gw or agw? personally I believe  the globe warms and it cools as determined by nature (which we are part). historically we, time wise, are on the edge of a new ice age. agw tells me we are going to fry due to man's addition, that being roughly 5%/yr of the total add to co2. hell all we may be doing is slowing the cooling.  nature adds the good co2@, our 2-3ppm adds the bad co2.
respect your opinions.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2014)

Not sure I follow Doug....there are large natural fluxes of CO2, that are nearly in balance.  But the annual increment in atmospheric CO2, 2 ppm or so, is about *half* of what humans emit directly.  The ocean adsorbs the other half, which is a whole nother issue.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 20, 2014)

argument is that man"s 5%total addition to co2 is the screwing factor in natural
 balance.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2014)

Seems like a misleading way of stating it.  Humans have increased total CO2 in the atmosphere by an impressive 50% since the preindustrial era, and it continues to rise by an additional 0.5% per year due to the ocean only absorbing half of our emissions.  

The admittedly large natural fluxes _would_ be relevant if it implied that small changes to one side (like the sink side) could readily gobble up all of our puny human emissions.  Based upon the last century plus of data, natural sinks do eat up half our emissions (nice), but that pesky other half just keeps piling up in the atmosphere.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 20, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Seems like a misleading way of stating it.  Humans have increased total CO2 in the atmosphere by an impressive 50% since the preindustrial era, and it continues to rise by an additional 0.5% per year due to the ocean only absorbing half of our emissions.
> 
> The admittedly large natural fluxes _would_ be relevant if it implied that small changes to one side (like the sink side) could readily gobble up all of our puny human emissions.  Based upon the last century plus of data, natural sinks do eat up half our emissions (nice), but that pesky other half just keeps piling up in the atmosphere.


sorry, 3.75ppm would hit the 5% of total emissions from natural and man sources. that is the factor that kicks it over. who measures natures co2 ,who really knows how much it adds? no pretense of being an expert on this always a questioning mind though.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2014)

2 ppm in a single year (human emissions net natural sinks) doesn't 'put it over'.  Over the course of many years, esp considering that it is still accelerating (more than 2ppm/year in the future) we project a problem.


----------



## Cynnergy (Nov 20, 2014)

I suppose the scientific revolution during the 17th/18th centuries might be considered a paradigm shift successfully negotiated.  Although it did have growing pains - e.g. Galileo and the Catholic church.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 21, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Not sure I follow Doug....there are large natural fluxes of CO2, that are nearly in balance.  But the annual increment in atmospheric CO2, 2 ppm or so, is about *half* of what humans emit directly.  The ocean adsorbs the other half, which is a whole nother issue.



Except for the fact that there are other carbon sinks that are not well understood. Not to mention there is a limitation to how much radiation CO2 can soak up since it only interacts with certain wavelengths.


----------



## begreen (Nov 21, 2014)

What is interesting is that strategic entities are mobilizing in realization of the effects of climate change. If southern CA runs dry there is going to be a large shift in population. AZ may become  uninhabitable unless one lives underground. This will affect us all one way or the other.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 21, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Except for the fact that there are other carbon sinks that are not well understood. Not to mention there is a limitation to how much radiation CO2 can soak up since it only interacts with certain wavelengths.



Indeed.  Much of those poorly understood sinks are in the topsoil....and it is not clear (yet) how agricultural practices can make AGW worse, or potentially help sink carbon.  Given that our accounted-for direct emission are larger than the amount of new CO2 showing up in the air every year, and both are still accelerating, it seems unwise to bet on one of those unknown sinks pulling a big save as we barrel down the BAU highway.

The wavelength saturation effect is a thing, but it is not like an on-off switch so much as a gradually diminishing effect of newly added CO2 thing.  If pre-industrial CO2 warmed the earth by +10°F, and humans increasing it by 50% only bumped temps by an additional 1-2°F, you can see the sub-linear response right there.  Good thing its sub-linear too, or AGW would be far worse than currently or predicted (and the climate would be really unstable).


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 21, 2014)

begreen said:


> What is interesting is that strategic entities are mobilizing in realization of the effects of climate change. If southern CA runs dry there is going to be a large shift in population. AZ may become  uninhabitable unless one lives underground. This will affect us all one way or the other.


the Sonora  is not a friendly place .after some natural climate changes in the pdo and amo , 30-40 years the rains will return a snowpack to the west slope of the s. nev. history.http://www.almanac.com/blog/weather-blog/why-dry-reason-california-has-drought


----------



## begreen (Nov 21, 2014)

I suspect in 30-40 yrs neither of us will be around to see if that is right or just one of the factors. Models show a significant warming of the sw over the next 50 yrs.  inclusive of pdo. Warmer will also mean the snow that does accumulate will melt faster. Models point to less moisture there in the future at current rate of emissions.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 22, 2014)

begreen said:


> I suspect in 30-40 yrs neither of us will be around to see if that is right or just one of the factors. Models show a significant warming of the sw over the next 50 yrs.  inclusive of pdo. Warmer will also mean the snow that does accumulate will melt faster. Models point to less moisture there in the future at current rate of emissions.



And the models have been wrong over and over. If the models cannot predict what is occurring over time how can they be considered accurate? Additionally many of the proponents of AGW have also backed off on the long term effects as being catastrophic.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 22, 2014)

Failure of a model to accurately predict an outcome to a level of absolute certainty before a decision is made to act based on the model seems to be very foolish. And it is particularly foolish when the actions which can mitigate AGW not only will be cost competitive or advantageous over FF, but also will have large social benefits in addition to the mitigation effect: cleaner air, less lung and related diseases, less acid rain, less mercury, and less other harmful effects of FF use.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 22, 2014)

TMonter said:


> And the models have been wrong over and over. If the models cannot predict what is occurring over time how can they be considered accurate? Additionally many of the proponents of AGW have also backed off on the long term effects as being catastrophic.



Let's try a different tack TM. 

Consider the idea of the 'Carbon Bubble'.  Here is one link: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_a...ill_the_carbon_bubble_burst_your_pension.html
there are many others.

I suppose that you don't like economy-crashing, financial-crisis-inducing bubbles any more than I do.  What IF the science of AGW is not settled today, and we continue to make investments in FF infrastructure for the next decade or more, assuming plant costs will be amortized over the usual 20-40 years of plant life, inefficient auto fleets will get driven for 15 years, etc.  Then a decade or more from now, the AGW science comes in and it is compelling and bad (worse for us waiting a decade) and a global consensus emerges that we need to reduce carbon emissions FAST.  All of those FF infrastructure investments we made....those oil pipelines are now 'bridges to nowhere'.  All the grannies investing their life savings in safe high-dividend utility bonds.....wiped out.  The largest companies on the planet, whose valuation is based largely on subterranean assets of astronomical theoretical future value....that value is now wiped out as the C stays in the ground.  They are the next round of 'too big to fail' companies.

Why not see a major 'diversification' of energy sources and a big push for efficiency, during a time of declining gas and oil stocks (fracking sources are expected to peak in the next few years, perhaps sooner with the collapse in oil prices) as a financially prudent move for the economy?  In addition to being a new economic sector that creates more jobs than it displaces, and one that is good for your health?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 22, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Let's try a different tack TM.
> 
> Consider the idea of the 'Carbon Bubble'.  Here is one link: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_a...ill_the_carbon_bubble_burst_your_pension.html
> there are many others.
> ...



If  the if happens and it is still if, the best thing that could be done starting today is a major shift in gov't thinking. today gov't throws money in a wide range, hoping something ,somewhere sticks. a much narrower approach in heavy investment is needed in the areas that get the biggest bang for the buck. the Manhattan Project took the nuclear concept and went from weapons to electricity in about 15 years (1939-1954). the recent Lockheed announcement on fusion is interesting and hydrogen has always seemed to be the pot of gold rainbow thing. unfortunately, nobody has found it yet. my guess is that most people would accept and welcome a concentrated approach. now maybe the gov't knows those two examples are just fanciful dreams, well move on and find the biggest bang.


----------



## semipro (Nov 22, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> my guess is that most people would accept and welcome a concentrated approach.


The trick there is knowing what to concentrate on.  Without "throwing money in a wide range" on research how would you ever get enough information about an approach to know to invest more in it.
Related: an interesting TED talk on Trial, Error, and the God Complex. http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford
The speaker suggests that the best approach may be to try many things and see what works best and then move on with that, much like nature.
I'd suggest that humans take a more moderate approach and try a number of promising technologies instead of throwing all investment into one area; pretty much what we are already doing and what you seem to be saying needs to change.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 22, 2014)

We agree on the IF part of the Carbon Bubble scenario.  The Manhattan Project was a very impressive govt project, but the power those reactors produce never got quite as cheap as was hoped, and now looks to be pretty expensive compared to 2014 renewable energy.

I love the 'We Can Do it' attitude, but it seems to run headlong into 'The Govt can't do anything right' and 'The Govt shouldn't try to pick winners' and if we fund all the ideas....then every one that doesn't work will be evidence the whole enterprise was a boondoggle.  You and I are happy to pay for some out-there research like Lockheed's...its not clear our neighbors are.

The good news is that in 2014 we DO know where the energy is going to come from.  PV and Wind.  That's it, we know.  We also know how to make and site both PV panels and giant wind turbines to produce all the power we need cost effectively (i.e. cheaper than nukes). Awesome.  We just need to work out a few kinks regarding personal transportation (EVs), diurnal variations (prob grid storage with batteries) and seasonal variations (prob some locations will need long-distance HVDC from sunnier locations (or offshore wind, if cheaper), combined with superinsulation to reduce winter heating loads). 

Fortunately all of those are being very aggressively researched and developed using both private and govt monies.  We just have to keep at it.


----------



## movemaine (Nov 22, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> If  the if happens and it is still if, the best thing that could be done starting today is a major shift in gov't thinking. today gov't throws money in a wide range, hoping something ,somewhere sticks. a much narrower approach in heavy investment is needed in the areas that get the biggest bang for the buck. the Manhattan Project took the nuclear concept and went from weapons to electricity in about 15 years (1939-1954). the recent Lockheed announcement on fusion is interesting and hydrogen has always seemed to be the pot of gold rainbow thing. unfortunately, nobody has found it yet. my guess is that most people would accept and welcome a concentrated approach. now maybe the gov't knows those two examples are just fanciful dreams, well move on and find the biggest bang.



It will take a govt perspective change and a shift from being a political indicator (are we really still arguing that man can have an impact on the environment?). There's money to be made with renewable and alternative fuels (something Dems & Reps can get behind), but as long as climate change is seen as a progressive only issue, progress will be slow.

Example:
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/...s-2-5-billion-in-scotland-offshore-wind-farm/

"A Norwegian company that planned to build a major wind farm off Maine’s coast, but then pulled the plug last fall after political maneuvering by Gov. Paul LePage, has invested $2.5 billion in a wind project off the shores of the United Kingdom."

Gov. LePage was more interested in the tar sands pipeline that wind investment.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 22, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> We agree on the IF part of the Carbon Bubble scenario.  The Manhattan Project was a very impressive govt project, but the power those reactors produce never got quite as cheap as was hoped, and now looks to be pretty expensive compared to 2014 renewable energy.
> 
> I love the 'We Can Do it' attitude, but it seems to run headlong into 'The Govt can't do anything right' and 'The Govt shouldn't try to pick winners' and if we fund all the ideas....then every one that doesn't work will be evidence the whole enterprise was a boondoggle.  You and I are happy to pay for some out-there research like Lockheed's...its not clear our neighbors are.
> 
> ...


be interesting to see if the solar and wind continue to get the heavy subsidies beyond 2015., my guess is they will. GE alone will probably insure it. my point is the IF. IF it is a crisis then drastic measures are needed now. that's what leads me to think the gov't should do it. hell if the Ivanpahs are the best solution for the southwest throw the money at it and solve it. in the plains wind is solid as is the tech, do we continue to we subsidize there.  this is about the entire grid as it is individual companies. a lot of stuff like that would help the IF people on co2 and those such as myself seeing my electric bill in a stable condition again.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 22, 2014)

Right now, PV in the US, global wind power, and global/US EV sales are all growing exponentially, doubling every 18-24 mos.  While all are subsidized, all look like they have an 'organic' quality to their growth that could continue (perhaps with a hiccup) is subsidies were phased out.

18 month exponential growth is about the fastest adoption that any tech gets anywhere, ever.  While folks are debating the need and the merits and the science of AGW, the RE train is coming down the tracks.  Those Lockheed Mr Fusions are going to have some clean competition when they come on line in 10-15 years.

I agree with you about GE, now that RE has deep pockets, it will be unstoppable for good or ill (perhaps CapeWind and Ivanpah are examples of the latter).  Those 100,000 EVs on US roads....times $7500 per that is $7.5B of (redistributed) fed money invested to retool 0.1% of the US car fleet!

Edit: Ooops.  Had a cup of coffee....that is 'only' $750M


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 22, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Right now, PV in the US, global wind power, and global/US EV sales are all growing exponentially, doubling every 18-24 mos.  While all are subsidized, all look like they have an 'organic' quality to their growth that could continue (perhaps with a hiccup) is subsidies were phased out.
> 
> 18 month exponential growth is about the fastest adoption that any tech gets anywhere, ever.  While folks are debating the need and the merits and the science of AGW, the RE train is coming down the tracks.  Those Lockheed Mr Fusions are going to have some clean competition when they come on line in 10-15 years.
> 
> I agree with you about GE, now that RE has deep pockets, it will be unstoppable for good or ill (perhaps CapeWind and Ivanpah are examples of the latter).  Those 100,000 EVs on US roads....times $7500 per that is $7.5B of (redistributed) fed money invested to retool 0.1% of the US car fleet!


concentrate on the  greater good then. you feel good about your car(you should), take that money and make a whole lot more people  happier with their  electric bill.


----------



## DougA (Nov 22, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Right now, PV in the US, global wind power, and global/US EV sales are all growing exponentially, doubling every 18-24 mos. While all are subsidized, all look like they have an 'organic' quality to their growth that could continue (perhaps with a hiccup) is subsidies were phased out.



In Ontario there are thousands of wind turbines, all very heavily subsidized by the gov't and all very hotly contested during planning stage, all forced through by the gov't and all hated by the locals (except the land owners getting their rent).  I know people living in the affected areas and while nuclear power stations are welcomed, wind turbines are not.  Property values near the turbine fields have plummeted even though property values elsewhere in Ont are at record highs.

So the growth is being forced by gov't, not by the people.  A false growth is very dangerous.

I personally think the idea is good but I don't have them in my backyard.


----------



## dougstove (Nov 22, 2014)

Optomistically, a more distributed system of power generation and consumption might become more resilient, and might help people see the connection between their energy use and supply.
I am fed up with the magical thinking that the low cost electricity fairy comes from a plug in the wall, but no one wants a gas plant, a wind turbine, a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a pipeline, a transmission line etc. anywhere near their house.
I see 200 cars in the parking lot at an anti-fracking community meeting.   So it is OK to convert Nigeria and Alberta to Mordor, but we must not do the same here.
We cannot convert the whole continent to a low-density ex-urbia and block all energy development.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 24, 2014)

jebatty said:


> Failure of a model to accurately predict an outcome to a level of absolute certainty before a decision is made to act based on the model seems to be very foolish. And it is particularly foolish when the actions which can mitigate AGW not only will be cost competitive or advantageous over FF, but also will have large social benefits in addition to the mitigation effect: cleaner air, less lung and related diseases, less acid rain, less mercury, and less other harmful effects of FF use.



It has nothing to do with certainty, it's not even in the same ball park. Look at the IPCC predictions over the past 3 iterations of their reports, they weren't even close.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 24, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Let's try a different tack TM.
> 
> Consider the idea of the 'Carbon Bubble'.  Here is one link: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_a...ill_the_carbon_bubble_burst_your_pension.html
> there are many others.
> ...



The carbon bubble doesn't exist. What the author fails to realize is that the value of these companies is because they produce something people want.

The mistake is to think that government can drive such diversification. Every time it tries you end up with very bad consequences.

The mistake is to push for political solutions based on incomplete science or even bad science.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 24, 2014)

TM, Exxon and other the major oil cos appear to disagree with you. 

They are *all* including a carbon price in their long term future economic projections, and have been for a few years now.  They (like the tobacco companies 40 yrs ago) know the science is not on their side, and it is just a matter of time until some regulation comes along that hits their bottom line.  Good business men, they don't plan to fold up shop and go home, but rather to survive the hit and keep going.  Of course they will be selling some oil for decades more, but the profitability and future volume of that business are not assured.

Another funny thing about those oil majors....they are all keeping out of fracking too.  The oil service cos are selling to the frackers, and the majors might be refining their product, but the upfront money and risk are all held by smaller, independent operators, who were collectively under water even when oil cost $100/barrel.  It seems to me that if there was lots of risk-free money to be made there, the majors would be all in.  Instead, they appear to be happy to make money around the edges of the business, but don't want to be left holding the (debt-filled) bag when the party is over.  It would seem that that they would know best about the relevant geology, fracking tech, oil econ, etc....and they have all chosen the 10 foot pole approach to that business.

So, yeah, we all want oil now, and will need some oil for a long time.  But the market value of that oil IS related to global perceptions of its safety (declining), the availability of alternatives (cheaper and growing exponentially), and the $$ and social costs of oil (bad and getting worse).  Oil could be necessary but largely hated in a few years, as coal is now, and by then a lot of the future profit and current valuation will be written down.

IOW, all markets start with public opinion, and the handwriting is on the wall for fossil fuels:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/21/the-generation-gap-on-global-warming/

Folks on the left support regulating greenhouse gases by about 75 to 25%.  Among folks on the right, those under 49 support regulation about 60 to 40%.  The only hold outs are those on the right 50 and older, and even they are evenly divided.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 24, 2014)

good discussion from each side http://online.wsj.com/articles/does...ve-a-future-1416779351?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 24, 2014)

I don't have a problem with CCS....low carbon emission coal power....it just doesn't exist right now.  We have a few very expensive demo plants being built on govt dimes.  It remans an open question whether it can be cost effective in the future, presumably only in a future world with a stiff carbon price, allowing it to compete with conventional coal, or a high-RE future world that still has some regional/seasonal loads (like New England in winter) that are hard to serve with RE (and thus the RE would be more expensive, shipped in long distance, etc).

Folks get excited because they think this is a retrofit on existing plants, implying rapid adoption, but I am v skeptical of that.  Many of the processes I have seen have the plants running on O2 enriched air, to improve eff and to facilitate the CO2 removal later....not gonna retrofit that on a 40 yo plant.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 24, 2014)

about as close as the experts get to a debate, both sides with techno strides  have their points.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 24, 2014)

Sure.  But the CCS folks have a product with an unknown price, and they have a lot of catching up to do to compete with (much bigger and more proven) wind and solar.  In places where there is a big CO2 customer, like for oil recovery, I suspect you can make the economics work today.  How many of those niches exist?  We don't know yet.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 25, 2014)

begreen said:


> I suspect in 30-40 yrs neither of us will be around to see if that is right or just one of the factors. Models show a significant warming of the sw over the next 50 yrs.  inclusive of pdo. Warmer will also mean the snow that does accumulate will melt faster. Models point to less moisture there in the future at current rate of emissions.


maybe a moderate el nino is coming after a long wait. huge rains predicted for at least 1/2 the state late week and next. if the rains come and the EN pops more natural forces at work.


----------



## jebatty (Nov 25, 2014)

> The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its President Jim Yong Kim.


Ditch Coal


----------



## semipro (Nov 25, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers."


And now the World Bank...
http://www.betawired.com/world-bank-says-its-time-to-turn-down-the-heat-on-climate-change/1418147/


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 26, 2014)

Looks like there is an emerging global effort called the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, which consists of teams in different countries, each trying to design a development pathway to a lower-carbon future that keeps the world on a 2°C warming limit and which tries to 'spread the pain' evenly across countries.

That team has targeted an 80% gross, 90% net CO2 reduction for the US by 2050.  The full report is a fun, wonky read:
http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/deep-decarbonization-pathways/

A nice summary of the results is:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/yes-the-u-s-can-reduce-emissions-80-by-2050-in-six-graphs/

Briefly, all residential energy is electric space heat, HPWH, and somewhat more eff appliances than currently.  Light vehicles are a mix of battery EVs and Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles.  I think they assume renewable energy grid-storage on day timescales, but H2 production using excess RE energy for seasonal storage....and a fleet of FCEVs to eat up that supply.  They also consider, high RE, nuke and coal CCS variants. 

Costs come in at 1±1% of US GDP, mostly in the 2040s, _not_ including savings from externalities like public health.  So if you include those, it is v likely a *net negative cost*.

Oh, and it says that the existing EPA CO2 reduction plan conforms well to the most pressing changes that need to be done in the next decade to realize this 2050 pathway.  This consists mostly of avoiding investments in long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure in the next 10 years, and working out the kinks in present technology.

Dave Roberts pokes his holes (at link above) mostly on the economic growth projections, but I think it is a nice effort.   Their RE portfolio is skewed heavily to wind, presumably due to current costs, whereas I think PV will get much bigger. I also worry about retrofitting existing housing stock, but overall, the maths seems to work ok.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 8, 2014)

Dr. Mann is not happy with Noaa proclaiming the Calif. drought, "not man made ". imagine NOAA getting their own press conference?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-and-the-re_b_6288402.html another take from seth borensteinhttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CALIFORNIA_DROUGHT_WARMING?SITE=ILROR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


----------

