deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[Tinordi]

Read the post above mine. A poster said that the other major economies are not doing anything. Patently false. I don't know how many times this has been discussed but had Alberta gotten out infront of the environmentalists back in say 2003 and did real GHG policy the industry would not find itself where it is now. The die is cast however. Nothing is going to let up on the oil patch in Alberta. Not the enviros, not the global demand outlook for oil, not the sinking oil price. The party is over, the cd's skipping.

Addressing your point, there are good ways to reduce GHGs without handcuffing your economy such as what has been proposed, a carbon tax. It's a false choice what you're saying. We either do nothing or handcuff our economy is not based in a rational assessment of issue.

[Enoch Root]

I was referring to your ongoing posts that China is 'doing things'. If one person said that - whatever. The larger argument is whether we should be handcuffing our economy to the extent we are. Because other countries - specifically China and the US (the one that matter) - are not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Bottom line is that there's nothing to debate on climate science, the problem is real and the problem needs to be urgently addressed.

I think that means that solutions need to be all encompassing, however.

Nothing left to debate? There is more to debate than ever.

(Please note: I am not arguing that climate change doesn't exist, or things don't need to be done - they do.)

The picture below (posted earlier) sure looks ominous (and it is). But let's take a closer look to add some perspective.

It is a range of -5C to +5C. And it implies a move from the bottom, to the top of that range. In fact, the total move is actually just over 5 degrees (-4.3 to 0.8 give or take).

First of all, it started at the bottom of a cycle, ignoring the fact that temperatures prior to the illustrated range would have been higher and declining, because - narrative.

Second, almost the entire move happened in the first 15,000 years (due to the natural cycle of temperatures, post ice-age). By 5,000BC, the temperature was about +0.6 or 0.7 (currently +0.8).

Since then, the earth actually cooled about a degree before starting to climb again.

Now, the really important thing is that, in the last 150 years or so, temperatures have risen about 1.1 or 1.2 degrees. Which is alarmingly fast, and a real cause for concern and action.

Then the graphic presents 3 possible projections.

The aggressive projection adds more than 3 degrees to the overall temperature by the end of this century. Pretty frightening.

And only a fool would say that can't or won't happen. But it is also far from certain.

So, to suggest that there is nothing left to debate is almost as foolish. There is much to debate. There is more to debate now than ever.

Originally Posted by Izzle

Spoiler due to length:

Spoiler!

I know some people will interpret my post as me denying climate change. I am not, so please spare us that false retort.

I merely wanted to reply to MrCoffee's comment, and to add some perspective to that graphic.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Addressing your point, there are good ways to reduce GHGs without handcuffing your economy such as what has been proposed, a carbon tax.

The problem is the carbon tax that has been proposed does not actually address the issues. It just raises the price of using energy. What should be happening is there should be increased costs, and those extra costs end up being tax breaks for those who use green solutions. A few examples:

- Tax incandescent light bulbs, have that money offset the cost of LED bulbs. So essentially you have incandescent bulbs costing $2.50 and LEDs cost $2 each.
- Tax gasoline and provide rebates for hybrid vehicles.
- Tax electricity use, and provide rebates for those who install solar panels.

The current carbon tax will do very little to have people reduce their use. It is simply another tax.

[burn_this_city]

I dunno Ken, Ontario has done an admirable job reducing usage by forcing the poor and elderly to forgo electricity due to spiraling costs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle31835620/

[Lanny_McDonald]

@Enoch

You may not think that a +/- of 5 degrees is a lot, but consider what happens to a human being if they experience a +5 degree difference in temperature. A person will die from a fever that high for an extended period of time. Now consider that on smaller organisms that are part of the biosphere and food chain. A lot of them cannot survive a swing of that degree and will die out, greatly impacting the biosphere.

Another issue to consider is the heat within the oceans. That is more dire than anything as the sea levels rise accordingly. Most importantly for our oceans is they act as a natural carbon sink. The amount of carbon the oceans are absorbing is changing the acidification of the water and killing off large swaths of life.

I appreciate your desire for debate, but the time for debate is long past. We Ned to act before the patient suffers more damage.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Read the post above mine. A poster said that the other major economies are not doing anything. Patently false. I don't know how many times this has been discussed but had Alberta gotten out infront of the environmentalists back in say 2003 and did real GHG policy the industry would not find itself where it is now. The die is cast however.

No, because in reality there's nothing that could be done to satisfy the loudest environmental groups who protest to shut down perfectly working nuclear power plants which have the lowest CO2 emissions other than hydro. A single barrel of oil is still too much for them.

Many of these groups want nothing more than the complete deindustrialization (and therefore collapse) of modern human civilization.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The myth that other countries aren't doing anything just will not die.

The simple problem is what countries are doing are puny, and even doubling of a very small number is still a very small number.

This article highlights the scale of the problem.

http://euanmearns.com/electricity-an...gy-in-the-g20/

In particular, this graph showing the energy usage by type by the G20 nations over time.

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The problem is the carbon tax that has been proposed does not actually address the issues. It just raises the price of using energy. What should be happening is there should be increased costs, and those extra costs end up being tax breaks for those who use green solutions. A few examples:

- Tax incandescent light bulbs, have that money offset the cost of LED bulbs. So essentially you have incandescent bulbs costing $2.50 and LEDs cost $2 each.
- Tax gasoline and provide rebates for hybrid vehicles.
- Tax electricity use, and provide rebates for those who install solar panels.

The current carbon tax will do very little to have people reduce their use. It is simply another tax.

I agree the "Tax" doesn't fix the issue but if the money raised by this "Tax" is used for public green energy projects then it does. Governments could build a public green energy solutions but it will require large amounts of capital will be needed. Additional taxes do assist with this.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Dirty Mr. Clean

I agree the "Tax" doesn't fix the issue but if the money raised by this "Tax" is used for public green energy projects then it does. Governments could build a public green energy solutions but it will require large amounts of capital will be needed. Additional taxes do assist with this.

Unless it's spent on green energy projects that don't work, like German solar.

The better solution is to return the money back to the population on a per-capita basis and let them decide. The carbon fee and dividend approach.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by accord1999

No, because in reality there's nothing that could be done to satisfy the loudest environmental groups who protest to shut down perfectly working nuclear power plants which have the lowest CO2 emissions other than hydro. A single barrel of oil is still too much for them.

Many of these groups want nothing more than the complete deindustrialization (and therefore collapse) of modern human civilization.

To me this is the main issue in a nutshell. Our standard of living is thousands of times better than ever before in human history. Much of that is due to the use of fossil fuels, and the steady reliable source of energy we have as a result of their use.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by accord1999

No, because in reality there's nothing that could be done to satisfy the loudest environmental groups who protest to shut down perfectly working nuclear power plants which have the lowest CO2 emissions other than hydro. A single barrel of oil is still too much for them.

Many of these groups want nothing more than the complete deindustrialization (and therefore collapse) of modern human civilization.

Huh. Well I ain't never heard of that. Who exactly are these many groups that want "nothing more than the complete de-industrialization"?

What are they called?

If they do exist, I have no idea why anyone would take them seriously and make any sort of environmental policy with them in mind. They wouldn't/aren't/shouldn't be part of any discussion on the issue.

[GGG]

The best solution for Canada to make its contribution without handcuffing ourselves would be to apply carbon tarriffs on all goods consumed in Canada based on the lifecycle carbon emissions. Anything for export would be exempt unless that nation had a similar policy.

This ensures our industry competes on a level playing field and doesn't just shift the emissions the same way we shifted slave labour from local to oversees. If we just tax locally it makes it more economical to import from jurisdictions with no tax so just moves emissions.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Carbon neutral Hydrogen and synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will be produced as a means of chemical energy storage and distribution on a great scale in a matter of 20 years.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Carbon neutral Hydrogen and synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will be produced as a means of chemical energy storage and distribution on a great scale in a matter of 20 years.

Synthetic hydrocarbons seems like an industry we should be getting into. What's the feed stock theoretically look like for these things?

[Fuzz]

The only way that works is to capture any emmisions you are burning and recycle them back into synthetics. Otherwise you may was well just get it out of the ground, as far as emmisions are concerned.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Carbon neutral Hydrogen and synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will be produced as a means of chemical energy storage and distribution on a great scale in a matter of 20 years.

I think one of the biggest questions left for the energy transition is what will happen with energy storage? Will a dominant cheap technology(ies) emerge like as has been the case with wind and solar or will storage remain relatively expensive and therefore niche technologies will be deployed based on the specific characteristics of the systems that use them.

What alot of the analysis is starting to point to is that we are probably over estimating the amount of storage we need and overemphasizing how important cheap storage is to the energy transition.

For example, reducing the costs of solar PV has a significant impact on the amount of storage you need. This NREL study estimates that if the cost of solar PV increases from 3 cents per kWh to 5 cents per kWh then you need 45% more storage capacity.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66595.pdf

Point being that driving down the costs of generating technologies also tends to drive down the need for storage.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by GGG

Synthetic hydrocarbons seems like an industry we should be getting into. What's the feed stock theoretically look like for these things?

The inputs are synthesis gas (syngas), heat and catalysts.

Syngas is a mix of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Currently, it is typically made by blasting a hydrocarbon like sweetened natural gas/methane, coal or biomass with steam to break it down into the constituents. But really, all you need is H2, CO, CO2, heat and catalysts. You can get H2 from water using oxide fuel cells or good old electrolysis. CO and CO2 you can strip from the air, or take it off the back end of an emitting industrial process.

These are several well known and proven processes that can produce a variety of end products ranging from hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, naphtha, diesel, ethane (C2), light gasoline, LPG and transportation gasoline.

Let me say that again - you could make hydrocarbon fuels that contribute net zero carbon to the atmosphere by using water and air as the inputs. And you can do it economically provided you have the requisite energy, and the inputs cost you less than the outputs. The last time I checked water and air are fairly available, the key is where you get the energy at a cost that makes it work.

So yes, I think this is something that humanity should be getting into, and it has indeed been getting into it. Some of those process variants have been running since the 1920s. Virtually any country with chronic fuel shortages have been able to import/use local coal or gasoline deposits to fabricate their oils (Germany, China, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa...)

The shift will really come when we have Gen IV small modular nuclear reactors commercially available in 10 years or so, it will be foolhardy to not produce as much of our chemical fuels in this fashion. We will be able to produce virtually carbon neutral chemical fuels extremely close to their markets at very low economic costs, which will severely reduce the need to do costly and damaging exploration and distribution of the same products the way we do it today. It will also avoid the need to shift our entire vehicle fabrication capacities to EVs. Indeed, the oil industry will literally become a manufacturing operation and renewables will find it exceptionally difficult to compete against such alternatives except in the most niche applications.

People might not like how it's done, but its hard to argue that the result isn't what people want and is miles ahead of where we are today.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I think one of the biggest questions left for the energy transition is what will happen with energy storage? Will a dominant cheap technology(ies) emerge like as has been the case with wind and solar or will storage remain relatively expensive and therefore niche technologies will be deployed based on the specific characteristics of the systems that use them.

What alot of the analysis is starting to point to is that we are probably over estimating the amount of storage we need and overemphasizing how important cheap storage is to the energy transition.

For example, reducing the costs of solar PV has a significant impact on the amount of storage you need. This NREL study estimates that if the cost of solar PV increases from 3 cents per kWh to 5 cents per kWh then you need 45% more storage capacity.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66595.pdf

Point being that driving down the costs of generating technologies also tends to drive down the need for storage.

Thanks for the link Tinordi, I will read the report. Specifically, the issue I have had with these studies in the past is that the LCOE calculations for wind and solar do not include the investments in transmission or storage required to get the power to market. So the argument of the costs of renewables "dropping like a rock" is not really surprising (the fuel is free, afterall) nor all that relevant - because what use is power generation if you can't consume it? It does not cost the same to get a kWh of power from a windfarm in Pincher Creek to Calgary as it does from the Sheppard combined cycle gas plant, for example, so comparing LCOE and leaving it at that is a red herring in these analyses. Could you help me out and let me know what the authors include in the LCOE assumptions of this report? The point of the study seems to want to examine the magnitude of additional costs associated with storage, which would say to me that both transmission and storage are omitted from the LCOE figures.

Anyways - storage is an interesting term. There are several projects aiming to use excessive generation from renewables to produce chemical storage like hydrogen. Does it have to be Li batteries? Electricity is only roughly 30% of the consumption demand of a modern society. And the limits of what RES can contribute to that are seriously being questioned (both practically and economically). What about the balance that cannot be supplied by RES? What about transportation fuels (short of converting all production and transportation infrastructure to EVs)? What about industrial heat and power requirements?

These are serious hurdles that need a mix of the best technologies available to provide a solution.

[troutman]

SeeGeeWhy makes such solid contributions to this thread, and gives me hope for the future.