Climate change: The Critical Decade

[adoucette]

Cheap LED lights. Cheap and efficient refrigeration. Increases in motor efficiency.

Maybe I'm not being clear.
There are ~1.5 Billion people on the planet who have ZERO access to electricity today. Giving these people electricity, even if they use it on LED lights and efficient refrigeration will still significantly increase our energy needs and thus our CO2 production. Then there is the additional 2 Billion people we are going to add by 2050.

Yes. That's the problem. I've listed several potential solutions.

See charts on Coal use, that's REAL WORLD and coal plants have a long life expectancy.

Because local generation incurs less transmission losses, and very local generation can be used as a cogeneration heat source. (We do that here, run our A/C off the waste heat from our gas turbine generator.)

Sure, but so what? That technology is well known and heavily used where it makes sense to do so today.

No. Load side control would (for example) reduce power to electric water heaters when demand for power was greatest but demand for hot water was lowest (i.e. 5pm on a hot day.) Or it might throttle back a pool pump when there was a spike in demand.

All that does is make the cost of generation go down by reducing the amount of extra generation capacity.

Yep. Which is better than 100% more than we are producing today. Still, we can do better.

How can we do better?
Those numbers I posted are already far better than what the nations of the world are currently planning on doing.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

You once again deliberately misrepresent the question. You pretend that your attempted framing - nukes or fossil fuel - is the reality rather than the matter under discussion. After a few dozen repetitions of that rhetorical tactic, it earns the label of trolling.

BS, other posters understood.

In small and fortunate areas - such as inside greenhouses - often. In the larger world of real life agriculture, that ideal is seldom achieved - the corn and soybean crops in the US this year, for example, are not limited by access to CO2. They have other difficulties, more primary and significant.

Just your assertions but Free Air experiments show that non C4 crops benefit from higher CO2 levels.

Not the US. Slow going here.

BS

The largest solar power installation in the world is the Solar Energy Generating Systems facility in California, which has a total capacity of 354 megawatts (MW).

The Blythe Solar Power Project is a 968 MW solar thermal power station under construction in Riverside County, California.
The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is a 392 MW solar power facility is under construction. It will consist of three separate solar thermal power plants in south-eastern California.
The Solana Generating Station is a 280 MW solar power plant under construction near Gila Bend, Arizona

New solar electric installations in 2010 totaled 956 megawatts (MW) to reach a cumulative installed capacity of 2.6 gigawatts (GW). Utility PV installations more than tripled in 2010 to reach 242 MW, up from 70 MW of new installations in 2009. The solar heating and cooling (SHC) market grew, as 29,500 solar pool heating systems and 35,500 solar water heating systems were installed in 2010 alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Solar_Industry_Year_in_Review

78 countries used direct geothermal energy by early 2010, up from 72 in 2005 and 58 in 2000. The United States leads the world for installed capacity, with just under 13 GWth, followed by China (9 GWth), Sweden (4.5 GWth), Germany (4.2 GWth http://www.adeniumcapital.com/industry-overview.aspx

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

One of the reasons I love living in NZ.
Currently 4% of our power comes from wind (as opposed to the US 3.6).
Some estimates have suggested that in NZ this could rise to as much as 20% in the next 20 years.
There was a study done that suggested that if we used 1% of our available land area for wind generation, we could generate twice the amount of power we currently use - this is because of our unique situation of being the only land mass in the roaring-40's.

The downside, of course, is that because iof our small size, it's possible (and happens) for a high presure system to sit over the entire country, meaning nobody anywhere gets any wind of any significance.

The flip side of that is that the only reuirement for storage of wind generated electricity is better management. To whit - electricity generators that operate both hydro and wind (which I think is most, or all of them, or it will be in short order) are reducing their hydro output when their wind out put is high, allowing the accumulation of water in their reservoirs, with the net result of storing surpluss energy generation, to be used at a later date when the weather is less co-operative.

 

[adoucette]

While we have the most wind power installed in the world as of 2010, Wind power in the US is stil only about 1% of our electricity, and electricity only represents about 40% of our energy, so we are a long way from getting 3.6% of our power from the wind.

 

[iceaura]

You once again deliberately misrepresent the question. You pretend that your attempted framing - nukes or fossil fuel - is the reality rather than the matter under discussion. After a few dozen repetitions of that rhetorical tactic, it earns the label of trolling.
”
BS, other posters understood.

Of course. Better than you plan. And they understand that, as well: you are not subtle, and everyone sees your third consecutive employment of that tactic.

A good joke, if you weren't serious.

Not the US. Slow going here.
”
BS

Your graphs are of the slow US going. Your point is what?

Just your assertions but Free Air experiments show that non C4 crops benefit from higher CO2 levels.

They can, if the other more commonly limiting nutrients and circumstances are taken care of. To repeat: the soybeans in the US this year are not limited by CO2. Neither is the cotton. Neither are the oranges and grapes and pulp lumber and hard spring wheat.

 

[adoucette]

Your graphs are of the slow US going. Your point is what?

Since the US leads in Wind, Biofuels and GeoThermal and is one of the leaders in Solar, so clearly we have not been slow in the renewable field.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

They can, if the other more commonly limiting nutrients and circumstances are taken care of. To repeat: the soybeans in the US this year are not limited by CO2. Neither is the cotton. Neither are the oranges and grapes and pulp lumber and hard spring wheat.

Based on WHAT evidence do you make this statement?

 

[Trippy]

While we have the most wind power installed in the world as of 2010, Wind power in the US is stil only about 1% of our electricity, and electricity only represents about 40% of our energy, so we are a long way from getting 3.6% of our power from the wind.

Sorry, yes, you're right, the 3.6% is from all (other) renewable resources in the US. -_- I think I need more coffee.

 

[iceaura]

They can, if the other more commonly limiting nutrients and circumstances are taken care of. To repeat: the soybeans in the US this year are not limited by CO2. Neither is the cotton. Neither are the oranges and grapes and pulp lumber and hard spring wheat.
”
Based on WHAT evidence do you make this statement?

On the published estimates of the effects of the droughts and floods and planting season weather. Every week or so in the newspaper.

Since the US leads in Wind, Biofuels and GeoThermal and is one of the leaders in Solar, so clearly we have not been slow in the renewable field.

We have been so ridiculously slow that some people are talking about resurrecting nukes as an option to handle the coming power demand.

Why are you bothering about whether the US "leads" or not? Slow is slow. Snail race leaders are snails.

 

[Trippy]

We have been so ridiculously slow that some people are talking about resurrecting nukes as an option to handle the coming power demand.

Why are you bothering about whether the US "leads" or not? Slow is slow. Snail race leaders are snails.

Part of my point was that the US only leads when you consider absolute, total production.

Consider it as a proportion, an New Zealand is far and away ahead of the US.

As of June 2011, NZ had 615 MW of wind power generation installed. There is a 7 MW plant due to come online in December of this year, and there's an additional planned 4,400 MW of wind generation capacity in various stages of approval around the country.

Imagine if the US grew its wind turbine capacity by a comparable proportional rate.

 

[adoucette]

On the published estimates of the effects of the droughts and floods and planting season weather. Every week or so in the newspaper.

That doesn't prove that the increased CO2 didn't increase the crop growth.
One impact of higher CO2 for plants is increased ability to handle drought.

We have been so ridiculously slow that some people are talking about resurrecting nukes as an option to handle the coming power demand.

Why are you bothering about whether the US "leads" or not? Slow is slow. Snail race leaders are snails.

Because you posted: Not the US. Slow going here.

With the implication that it was fast going elsewhere.

The truth is we are a leader in renewable energy.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Part of my point was that the US only leads when you consider absolute, total production.

Consider it as a proportion, an New Zealand is far and away ahead of the US.

As of June 2011, NZ had 615 MW of wind power generation installed. There is a 7 MW plant due to come online in December of this year, and there's an additional planned 4,400 MW of wind generation capacity in various stages of approval around the country.

Imagine if the US grew its wind turbine capacity by a comparable proportional rate.

Nope.

US is 62 times the population of NZ

62 * 615 = 38,130 MW

As of Dec 2010 we had 40,180 MW of wind (and quite a bit more by June of 11)

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp

So, actually I don't have to imagine.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Because you posted: Not the US. Slow going here.

With the implication that it was fast going elsewhere.

The truth is we are a leader in renewable energy.

Arthur

Is the US likely to achieve installing an additional 250,000 MW of wind power generation in the next 5-10 years?

Is the US likely to achieve installing an additional 820 TWh of wind turbines in the next 20 years?

Because proportionately that is what New Zealand is doing.

 

[iceaura]

Because you posted: Not the US. Slow going here.

With the implication that it was fast going elsewhere.

No such implication, troll. That was your claim.

That doesn't prove that the increased CO2 didn't increase the crop growth.
One impact of higher CO2 for plants is increased ability to handle drought

Depends on the plant, and the circumstances. It isn't working, for US cotton and beans and so forth. They're getting toasted. Or flooded, depending.

 

[Trippy]

Nope.

US is 62 times the population of NZ

62 * 615 = 38,130 MW

As of Dec 2010 we had 40,180 MW of wind (and quite a bit more by June of 11)

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp

So, actually I don't have to imagine.

Arthur

But that wasn't what I said - was it?

What I said (or implied) that NZ power generation will increas from 615 MW to 5015 MW - a planned increase of 4400 MW, in varying stages of approval, approval and construction should take no more than 5-10 years.

If all of this capacity is installed, this is the same as the US instaling an additional 250,000 MW of wind generation capacity in the next 5-10 years.

And whilst you may be able to show that you generate more per capita than we do, we still generate more wind power as a percentage of our total generation than you do from all non hydro renewable power sources (1.7% of your total) or than you do from all non hydro renewable power sources including biomass (3.4%).

Of course, if you want to talk total renewables, including Hydro for the US then that's 9.8% of US power generation, however in NZ we generate 61% of our electricity from wind and power alone.

In 1975, 90% of NZ's power generation came from renewable resources, which fell to a low of 66% in 2005, but this had risen back up to 74% in 2010, with the aim of getting that back up to 90% by 2025.

That's a growth of 10% of the total market share in 5 years - or the equivalent of the US doubling it's renewable power generation capacity over a period of five years.

 

[Trippy]

Nope.

US is 62 times the population of NZ

62 * 615 = 38,130 MW

As of Dec 2010 we had 40,180 MW of wind (and quite a bit more by June of 11)

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp

So, actually I don't have to imagine.

Arthur

Just on the percapita aspect of this.

Yes, you generate generate 5.3% more wind power per capita than we do.
However, as of 2008, you also consume 2.1 times more oil, per person, 2.25 times more natural gas than we do, and 40% more electricity than we do, per person.

:shrugs:

Over all, I would suggest that New Zealand is still leaps and bounds ahead of the US in this regard.

 

[adoucette]

Is the US likely to achieve installing an additional 250,000 MW of wind power generation in the next 5-10 years?

Is the US likely to achieve installing an additional 820 TWh of wind turbines in the next 20 years?

Because proportionately that is what New Zealand is doing.

Well let's see where we are in 5-10 years before we start beating our chests, ok?

Because at THIS point in time the US has more Wind Power proportionately than NZ does.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Just on the percapita aspect of this.

Yes, you generate generate 5.3% more wind power per capita than we do.
However, as of 2008, you also consume 2.1 times more oil, per person, 2.25 times more natural gas than we do, and 40% more electricity than we do, per person.

:shrugs:

Over all, I would suggest that New Zealand is still leaps and bounds ahead of the US in this regard.

I would suggest the US is by FAR a larger manufacturing based economy then NZ is.

There is no NZ equiv of Boeing or GM or Alcoa or .....

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

Because at THIS point in time the US has more Wind Power proportionately than NZ does.

Wind power remains mostly a side issue.

If the corporate shills can steer the public discussion into a choice between coal, nukes, and windmills, they win.

 

[billvon]

Wind power remains mostly a side issue.

??? Wind power is one of the best sources of renewable power we have; we could easily provide all the energy the US needs via wind power. (Of course, relying solely on wind power would be foolish - hence the discussion of alternatives like nuclear, solar, hydro etc)