deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[Tinordi]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/13/c...-and-crickets/

Even those of us who are most desperately concerned about the effects of climate change have accepted that nothing can happen here in Canada until after the election in 2015. Even then, though, a new government might not have a mandate to do anything too strenuous if its leaders have been muted in their talk about climate change while in opposition.

And if the Conservatives are reelected — which surely remains a possibility — very little will have been done to push them off their determined intransigence.

This week comes news that the Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing, which will raise sea levels by more than a metre and possibly closer to four metres. Imagine.

My father’s generation made terrible sacrifices to save the world from the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Mine won’t take a point or two cut in GDP to arrest climate change.

One day, my daughter’s generation will look back in anger as they contemplate their compromised lives. And they’ll be right to do so.

[Rubicant]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

This is fantastic if you haven't seen it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

This is fantastic if you haven't seen it.

That makes me want a Tesla so bad.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Number one excuse why I haven't gone solar- Enmax doesn't allow it without paying a huge cost and signing a commitment of over a decade. https://www.enmax.com/home/renewable...s-and-benefits

Compare that to Ontario (Which already uses hydro for a significant amout of their power.)
http://pure-energies.com/free-solar/

You guys know that I am far from being an environmentalist. Even from a "give a hoot- don't pollute" perspective it makes sense to use solar power.

Ontario barely uses any coal these days. Vast majority is Nuclear power and then hydro, natural gas and wind.

http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelect...ectricity.html

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by photon

That makes me want a Tesla so bad.

After reading that, I went and priced one out on the website

[photon]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

After reading that, I went and priced one out on the website

Do they do a TCO type calculation? Where you include the cost of gas vs electricity over a long span? Makes it even harder to not buy one.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by photon

Do they do a TCO type calculation? Where you include the cost of gas vs electricity over a long span? Makes it even harder to not buy one.

Didn't see one, but I am thinking of doing up a simple spreadsheet to compare cost of my current car vs. amortizing the Tesla over 5-6 years....

Edit - found this online:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...CMvtvvAM#gid=0

[Nage Waza]

I have a Chevy Volt, I always think there is something broken when I drive our van (gas ICE).

[Flash Walken]

On Sunday, Germany’s impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion — nearly 75 percent — of the country’s overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the country’s power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International.

In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the country’s electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. “Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year,” Bloomberg reported. Much of the country’s renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germany’s 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013.

Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050.

“Once again, it was demonstrated that a modern electricity system such as the German one can already accept large penetration rates of variable but predictable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar PV power,” said Bernard Chabot, a renewable energy consultant based in France, via email. “In fact there are no technical and economic obstacles to go first to 20 percent of annual electricity demand penetration rate from a combination of those two technologies, then 50 percent and beyond by combining them with other renewables and energy efficiency measures and some progressive storage solutions at a modest level.”

The unprecedented growth of solar PV in particular has been fueled in large part by policies that incentivize clean energy. Germany’s simple feed-in tariff (FIT) policy, which pays renewable energy producers a set amount for the electricity they produce under long-term contracts, has driven the solar power boom. But as installations continued to outpace government targets, Germany announced last year that it would begin scaling back its feed-in tariff.

The FIT is financed by a surcharge paid by utility customers, but a major part of the problem stems from the fact that industry is largely exempt from the renewables surcharge — meaning the burden falls on households. Rather than adjust the industry exemption, the government instead proposed a “PV self-consumption charge” on new photovoltaic systems, something Germany’s Solar Industry Association recently announced it plans to challenge in court.

The equity of the renewables surcharge isn’t the only criticism of Germany’s power transformation. Along with cutting out fossil fuel-generated energy to a large extent, the transition to renewables includes completely phasing out nuclear power. These goals are only achievable in combination with greatly reduced energy demand. Instead, coal imports are increasing in order to meet the country’s baseload power demands. And retail electricity rates are high and rising, putting pressure on lower income individuals in particular.
But many of the criticisms are largely overblown, according to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. The modest uptick in coal-fired generation was substituting for pricier natural gas, not representative of a return to coal as it’s often mischaracterized. In fact, last December, as renewable energy production continued to grow and energy demand shrank, Germany’s largest utility chose not to renew two long-term contracts for coal-fired power.
And while much is made of rising industrial electricity prices, Lovins points out that in fact, “giant German firms enjoy Germany’s low and falling wholesale electricity prices, getting the benefit of renewables’ near-zero operating cost but exempted from paying for them.”

And as for the impact on the consumer, “the FIT surcharge raised households’ retail price of electricity seven percent but renewables lowered big industries’ wholesale price 18 percent. As long-term contracts expire, the past few years’ sharply lower wholesale prices could finally reach retail customers and start sending households’ total electricity prices back down.”

What’s more, “in Germany you have the option of earning back your payments, and far more, by investing as little as $600 in renewable energy yourself,” Lovins writes. “Citizens, cooperatives, and communities own more than half of German renewable capacity, vs. two percent in the U.S.”

Challenges aside, Energiewende — rooted in the acknowledgement that a fossil fuel-based energy system is not sustainable — is remarkable for its scope and its widespread support, particularly in a heavily industrialized country like Germany. “Don’t forget what Germany is doing right now. It’s changing its power supply,” Paul Hockenos, a Berlin-based energy expert and journalist, told Voice of America earlier this year. “The last time when an energy supply was changed was the industrial revolution; this is something that has never been done before.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...nergy-records/

Someone tell me again why Canada can't do this?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...nergy-records/

Someone tell me again why Canada can't do this?

Our provincial and federal governments don't want us to.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Our provincial and federal governments don't want us to.

This currently is a provincial issue and I think clearly they are missing how to truly motivate people to purchase panels. At .25 per KWh you could pay off a $4,000 investment in about 11 years. They could make it even higher if the oil industry was forced to pay it, probably closer to .50.

I don't know the numbers, but if there was a total of 750 sites generating 100 KWh monthly back to the grid, that is about 80 grand per month, at half a buck per kWh the payback is about six years.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Our provincial and federal governments don't want us to.

A lot of voters don't either. In ontario the whining about utility rates since the province started subsidizing solar is incredible.

[Mr.Coffee]

When your economy and lifestyle hinges on a particular industry, you're unlikely to see a major shift in Alberta in particular.

People are 'me first', usually. What is the government doing to subsidize innovation for alternative energy? Oil and gas companies, majors in particular, could maybe be prodded into the direction that hey- maybe you're an energy company, not just an oil and gas company.

[Mr.Coffee]

And another thing. The "west" collectively has had a certain lifestyle that has been at a minimum a ridiculously high rate of consumption per capita.

Now that you have India and China emerging, shifting their lifestyle to a more 'westernized' one with cars, oil, natural gas usage... how exactly are we going to get them to just watch their energy consumption? How hypocritical is that? Oh yeah we just lived the high petroleum life for the last 100 years but you guys? Yeah you guys can't.

Not to mention that with their populations, the magnitude of environmental impact should amount to something much worse looking that North America... particularly with China's rockstar environmental record.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by photon

Makes it even harder to not buy one.

I've had the chance to test drive one. The thing is damn sexy. The constant available torque is amazing, just not sure how it would deal with the Calgary winter overall though.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

And another thing. The "west" collectively has had a certain lifestyle that has been at a minimum a ridiculously high rate of consumption per capita.

Now that you have India and China emerging, shifting their lifestyle to a more 'westernized' one with cars, oil, natural gas usage... how exactly are we going to get them to just watch their energy consumption? How hypocritical is that? Oh yeah we just lived the high petroleum life for the last 100 years but you guys? Yeah you guys can't.

Not to mention that with their populations, the magnitude of environmental impact should amount to something much worse looking that North America... particularly with China's rockstar environmental record.

China's green progress leaves US red-faced
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-plans-america

Environmental progress should spur Beijing to press on
http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/C...ental-progress

The 2014 edition of the annual Environmental Performance Index, compiled by US-based Yale and Columbia universities, said China had made huge strides in slowing the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade.

“Despite high economic expansion averaging greater than 10% annual growth in GDP, China reported a 20% decrease in carbon intensity between 2005 and 2010,” the report noted. This is the amount of carbon emitted for each unit of economic growth.

Reducing the speed at which the world’s largest industrial nation is pumping harmful gases into the atmosphere may not be the same as actually reducing overall emissions, the criterion by which rich nations are judged, but it is a start. The report’s authors are optimistic that the policies that delivered this deceleration will continue to bear fruit and may one day lead China to actually reduce emissions.

Country Rankings:
http://epi.yale.edu/epi/country-rankings

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...nergy-records/

Someone tell me again why Canada can't do this?

...And this is from 2011 data when Energiewende was still very much a darling of politicians and public alike. The Vice Chancellor who oversees Energiewende recetly declared that it is on the verge of failure for various reasons.

What has happened in Germany since 2011? Fukushima happened, Germany turned their Nuclear reactors off (illegally, and are now being successfully sued by the operators), CO2 emission levels have since increased back to 2010 levels because of coal plants being fired up to make up the difference, and their costs to consumers keep rising. Many people have to choose between food and electricity in Germany - it is becoming a luxury. I am sure some people would welcome that reality, but I believe that is a huge step backwards. Not only that, but the FIT incentives governments provide are choking out the viability of legitimate baseload utility generation... the more baseload that comes down, the less reliable the system becomes.

Look, renewables have their place, but if you like being able to walk into a comfortable house with refrigerated food, 99% of the time, you better believe it is because there is stable baseload available 24/7/365.

Wind is intermittent.

Solar is intermittent, and the strength varies by location, throughout the time of day and year, even on sunny days. The most efficient panels will only every be able to capture 29% of the available insolation. [US Solar Insolation Figures]

Neither of these options offer the energy density required to meet demand generated by our population and quality of life.

Unless people are talking about drastically re-imagining the way our societies operate, we need to be generating power supplies that are safe, can be scaled, are economic (not just fiscally, but in terms of their energy return and impacts on environment - the root word ECO means "house" ... we must consider taking care of our entire house when making these choices), and most of all are ACCESSIBLE.

Let's look at solar PV for example. Energy demand is set to increase by 33% between 2010 and 2030. The GAP is ~50 Petawatt Hours of energy (5 X 10^16) to make up the GROWTH in energy demand (not including existing demand).

So let's be generous and assume that the average global solar insolation is 6 kWh/m2 and we can capture 29% of that, 100% of the time. You would need to cover 39.6 million Km2 to make up demand growth in the next 15 years. The earth is 510 million Km2, so you'd be disrupting 8% of the surface of the planet (almost 4x the surface area of Canada) with panels to meet the wedge under the best possible conditions. It's likely that you'd be doubling or tripling that. And then how to you get the power to where it gets used? Scaled solar is just not practical.

Dispersed makes sense for those who can afford it, but it is not inexpensive.

It completely screws with me that people think these technologies are viable at scale, when all other socioeconomic factors are considered.

You all know my position on things, we need to be developing Gen IV nuclear as a transition to fusion. Gen IV technologies, molten salt reactors in particular meet all of the required criteria and offer a wonderful transition away from Coal while giving the prospect of greatly IMPROVING the quality of life for billions on earth.

The first two pages of this thread made my head explode.

Alberta does charge a tax on carbon emissions. It is $15/t emitted beyond a defined threshold on a project basis. We take the funds and purposefully re-invest them into clean tech only (CCEMC). This tax will surely increase because we are learning that the true "cost of carbon" after looking at sequestration or scrubbing/re-use technologies is somewhere between $50-150/t. You better bet that if the public and therefore policy makers are serious about creating a disincentive to emit, the carbon emission penalties will increase to some amount higher than the cost of the "desired alternative". I've heard many rumours that Alberta will be increasing the tax rate to $45/t within 3 - 5 years. Producers are planning for this - look at Suncor's ridiculous over investment in co-generation at their recent firebag expansion, for example.

Furthermore, the government provides many tax breaks and grants for organizations who are willing to actually pursue action, as opposed to sitting around and griping about things and waiting for the "government" to fix things. If we really want things to change, people need to take responsibility, educate themselves about the alternatives available to us, make choices about the lifestyle we want to have and TAKE ACTION. Government will only ever be able to provide methods of support - policy makers in Canada almost always look to industry led initiatives on matters related to Energy. The answer needs to come from within.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Which cities would be most impacted by 3m of rise in sea level?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ea-level-rise/

[photon]

Thanks for that, I couldn't remember where but I knew I'd read something about Germany and that their success of solar isn't a simple story.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

...And this is from 2011 data when Energiewende was still very much a darling of politicians and public alike. The Vice Chancellor who oversees Energiewende recetly declared that it is on the verge of failure for various reasons.

What has happened in Germany since 2011? Fukushima happened, Germany turned their Nuclear reactors off (illegally, and are now being successfully sued by the operators), CO2 emission levels have since increased back to 2010 levels because of coal plants being fired up to make up the difference, and their costs to consumers keep rising. Many people have to choose between food and electricity in Germany - it is becoming a luxury. I am sure some people would welcome that reality, but I believe that is a huge step backwards. Not only that, but the FIT incentives governments provide are choking out the viability of legitimate baseload utility generation... the more baseload that comes down, the less reliable the system becomes.

Look, renewables have their place, but if you like being able to walk into a comfortable house with refrigerated food, 99% of the time, you better believe it is because there is stable baseload available 24/7/365.

Wind is intermittent.

Solar is intermittent, and the strength varies by location, throughout the time of day and year, even on sunny days. The most efficient panels will only every be able to capture 29% of the available insolation. [US Solar Insolation Figures]

Neither of these options offer the energy density required to meet demand generated by our population and quality of life.

Unless people are talking about drastically re-imagining the way our societies operate, we need to be generating power supplies that are safe, can be scaled, are economic (not just fiscally, but in terms of their energy return and impacts on environment - the root word ECO means "house" ... we must consider taking care of our entire house when making these choices), and most of all are ACCESSIBLE.

Let's look at solar PV for example. Energy demand is set to increase by 33% between 2010 and 2030. The GAP is ~50 Petawatt Hours of energy (5 X 10^16) to make up the GROWTH in energy demand (not including existing demand).

So let's be generous and assume that the average global solar insolation is 6 kWh/m2 and we can capture 29% of that, 100% of the time. You would need to cover 39.6 million Km2 to make up demand growth in the next 15 years. The earth is 510 million Km2, so you'd be disrupting 8% of the surface of the planet (almost 4x the surface area of Canada) with panels to meet the wedge under the best possible conditions. It's likely that you'd be doubling or tripling that. And then how to you get the power to where it gets used? Scaled solar is just not practical.

Dispersed makes sense for those who can afford it, but it is not inexpensive.

It completely screws with me that people think these technologies are viable at scale, when all other socioeconomic factors are considered.

You all know my position on things, we need to be developing Gen IV nuclear as a transition to fusion. Gen IV technologies, molten salt reactors in particular meet all of the required criteria and offer a wonderful transition away from Coal while giving the prospect of greatly IMPROVING the quality of life for billions on earth.

The first two pages of this thread made my head explode.

Alberta does charge a tax on carbon emissions. It is $15/t emitted beyond a defined threshold on a project basis. We take the funds and purposefully re-invest them into clean tech only (CCEMC). This tax will surely increase because we are learning that the true "cost of carbon" after looking at sequestration or scrubbing/re-use technologies is somewhere between $50-150/t. You better bet that if the public and therefore policy makers are serious about creating a disincentive to emit, the carbon emission penalties will increase to some amount higher than the cost of the "desired alternative". I've heard many rumours that Alberta will be increasing the tax rate to $45/t within 3 - 5 years. Producers are planning for this - look at Suncor's ridiculous over investment in co-generation at their recent firebag expansion, for example.

Furthermore, the government provides many tax breaks and grants for organizations who are willing to actually pursue action, as opposed to sitting around and griping about things and waiting for the "government" to fix things. If we really want things to change, people need to take responsibility, educate themselves about the alternatives available to us, make choices about the lifestyle we want to have and TAKE ACTION. Government will only ever be able to provide methods of support - policy makers in Canada almost always look to industry led initiatives on matters related to Energy. The answer needs to come from within.

I appreciate the response, but it didn't touch a single bit on why energy alternative are not promoted by the government.

Why aren't renewable energy alternatives for consumers subsidized to the same degree as conventional energy?