For myself, it seems very difficult to sympathise with the view that what we do is immaterial because of "India&China". It is somewhat arbitrary where you draw a catchment to then describe a subset of the 8B people we have on Earth. You could say a district China needn't do anything because its emissions are immaterial in comparison to "the western world" or whatever. Like I said, we as the UK public have political power over many of the most egregious excessive emitters in the world https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/uk-is-worst-private-jet-polluter-in-europe-study-findsIf, in the UK we were to demonstrate that we could implement a prosperous zero-carbon economy, then people in India and China (and elsewhere) would take note and might endeavour to emulate that.
Quote from: stone on March 15, 2024, 09:34:18 amTidal has the catastrophic issue of the bimonthly neap-tide spring-tide cycle.Getting a bit off topic, but why is this catastrophic? Naively, I'd assume that a constant power output is the ideal but output that is predictable with confidence over long-ish time spans is also pretty good i.e. you turn down the arc furnaces when it's a neap tide then turn em back up again on a spring.
Tidal has the catastrophic issue of the bimonthly neap-tide spring-tide cycle.
If you truly believe the developing world inc. China and India don't want economic/societal progress that we've enjoyed and are prepared to forego that, for the sake of 'the EU and UK are cutting their emissions more than us so we better follow', then you're even more naïve. Much of the west isn't even following the good leadership examples! US/Canada/Aus for e.g..
Quote from: ferret on March 15, 2024, 08:39:26 amI’m in the US so (like with many things) [...]For profit entities are not dynamic or interested in the greater good as much as keeping shareholders happy. They knock up another wind farm while band aiding their existing non renewable facilities together waiting to see which direction energy production will take. .A lot of developers in the US are not the same companies that own the fossil generators (although some are) - those would generally love to smash out more projects but grid interconnection is a big (and growing) issue as you say. Pete - of course onshore wind isn't essential, but it is likely to be important in the context of delivering a decarbonised grid at anywhere close to the lowest cost. As an example, the power and economics team at our parent company does some modelling on this - the grid they think is optimised for the lowest cost in Europe as we move away from fossil fuels has a bewildering amount of wind in it. But maybe people will be prepared to pay to put it offshore, or pay more for a higher % of solar (needing more storage)? There was an interesting paper in nature where they adjusted LCOEs with a non-financial fudge to produce a model that could predict the past few years of installations (how much wind vs solar vs gas etc), and that predicted a huge amount more solar and less wind than is likely to be the lowest cost solution, so to some extent we're on that trajectory already.
I’m in the US so (like with many things) [...]For profit entities are not dynamic or interested in the greater good as much as keeping shareholders happy. They knock up another wind farm while band aiding their existing non renewable facilities together waiting to see which direction energy production will take. .
If your underlying goal however is to end capitalism in the west (which I suspect you and many love the notion of, in theory) as an ideological win, with the benefit of eventually - within 100 years say - have halted global warming then yeah it makes sense. But that's a whole other topic.
Chapter 6, 'Understanding the Environment'.I'll post pics of the relevant pages here, I think it's important enough to understand the issue and the numbers to do a bit of freeloading. The rest of the book is amazing and worth buying.
His discussion of global warming was cavalier to the point of angering me. Most of it focused on "who discovered global warming," to make the point that we have known for a long time, with the secondary focus being on the fact that we need some GHG's to keep the earth from freezing. Eventually he gets to discussing the effects and threats, beginning with the non-story that we will still have enough oxygen to breathe. This is followed by assurance that rising demand (due to rising incomes and population) threatens fresh water supplies by much more than global warming does. Unless you have wondered about comparative supplies of blue, green and grey water, the discussion is not very illuminating.Eat less meat, but other than that, we will have to make do and get more efficient in order to keep feeding the planet. That is his conclusion. Beyond a few allusions to hysteria in predictions, and a single paragraph in which he acknowledges temperature rise and coastal inundation, most of his discussion is useless.In the final section he addresses climate policy and prognosis. He correctly observes that we are leaving immense benefit on the table by ignoring the financial benefit of insulation and other conservation, benefits that are already available with no subsidies or other policy changes if people would respond. He takes an additional swipe at SUVs, well-deserved in my view, He concludes that we probably cannot avoid passing the mark of 1.5 degrees Celsius that delimits the amount we can absorb without catastrophic effects.He wastes considerable ink on the uncertainties of prediction, with snide comparisons to Covid and our failures to respond to the threat with preparedness, and, almost in so many words, concludes that no predictions of global warming effects should be taken seriously because the problem of decarbonization is difficult and the uncertainties too substantial. After all, as he observes, greening has increased the net amount of vegetation, serving as a carbon sink.
with the benefit of eventually - within 100 years say - have halted global warming then yeah it makes sense.
I've got sympathy with the notion that setting an example and leadership matters. But you're naïve.
If the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.
QuoteI've got sympathy with the notion that setting an example and leadership matters. But you're naïve. It's not naive, it's pragmatic. That's the only course of action we have open. Taking a step back, a 'fair' approach would be to work out the overall carbon budget we can allow humans to release, divide it by people alive in that period. In the west we've already burnt through our allowance. India and China haven't. We already have a higher standard of living. So, yes, the onus is on us to lead. Meanwhile, their journey to greater affluence will be a lot less polluting than ours, so they'll have the moral high ground for a while yet.
Quote from: petejh on March 15, 2024, 10:21:59 amIf the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.What would your answer be?
It's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it.
It's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it. So it isn't pragmatic at all, it's ideological nonsense that will fail the reality test in terms of making the required reductions in ghg to slow and then halt warming by 2050. In my opinion.
Even while other countries were locking down, people told me 'it won't happen here, we wouldn't stand for it'. Turns out we absolutely would. People are quite capable of making big changes that require limiting personal behaviour, and surveys show the sentiment is already there. Most people are ready to change, they just need leadership and confidence that they aren't making pointless personal sacrifice.
Quote from: abarro81 on March 15, 2024, 10:40:10 amQuote from: petejh on March 15, 2024, 10:21:59 amIf the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.What would your answer be?Dyson sphere
Wait, you just told me we don't need to worry too much about optimizing the grid for costs, but are also saying people won't accept going green (presumably because it will cost them money). Surely these are in contradiction?
The obvious difference here is that people were largely prepared to lock down on the basis it was temporary. I certainly was, and began to chafe against it very fast. I am unconvinced there is a widespread sentiment for permanent change to peoples quality of lives.
QuoteIt's the pragmatic approach academically. But it isn't pragmatic socially, and it isn't going to work. Because people won't accept it. So it isn't pragmatic at all, it's ideological nonsense that will fail the reality test in terms of making the required reductions in ghg to slow and then halt warming by 2050. In my opinion. ...Look forward to your answer to Alex. 'There's no point in acting' is incredibly short-termist.
Quote from: Dingdong on March 15, 2024, 11:11:08 amQuote from: abarro81 on March 15, 2024, 10:40:10 amQuote from: petejh on March 15, 2024, 10:21:59 amIf the question is 'how does the UK best contribute to the effort of reducing ghg emissions sufficiently to slow and then halt climate warming', the optimal answer surely isn't 'focus on onshore wind power in the UK'.What would your answer be?Dyson sphereI'm guessing you're joking but really there is plenty of dithering attributable to people waiting for techno-fixesI'd much rather we stuck to relatively pedestrian technology and just cranked it out by duplication and learning-by-doing. That was what enabled the USA to build all those battle ships in WWII (despite not having the shipyards nor the trained workers at the start) and enabled the Messmer Plan in France in the 1970s.I just remembered about this awesome set of presentations for anyone with any interest in energy transition issues https://science-and-energy.com/les-houches-2016/
Alex, easier if you just read something like Smill's pages on what's possible, than me type endless pages.Then I'd add to his conclusions that the way we think about the financial system will need to change. In ways currently incompressible. Money and financial cost were a root of the problem of climate warming, and are currently at the root of the hurdle we need to surmount to solve the issue. But money is a construct, not a fundamental reality, and so 'cost' in monetary terms is a construct not a fundamental reality. None of that has ever mattered before except in minor ways during the fundamental reality of huge wars which require suspension of normal monetary policy. But climate is a fundamental reality on global scale, and I think a key to solving the engineering problem will be decoupling the concept of money/cost from the problem of climate. While trying not to destroy wider societies' faith in the concept of money. Because it's so powerful a positive force for society.
But doing that, without destroying all of the beneficial parts and faith in the illusion of money... ?
I'm actually far more extreme in my views than you -
I'm in favour of 'acting' far more than we (UK, the west, the world) are doing.
Money and financial cost were a root of the problem of climate warming, and are currently at the root of the hurdle we need to surmount to solve the issue. But money is a construct, not a fundamental reality, and so 'cost' in monetary terms is a construct not a fundamental reality. None of that has ever mattered before, we've allowed the illusion to work for our benefit, except during the fundamental reality of huge wars which require a minor suspension of normal monetary policy. But existential risk from the climate is a fundamental reality on global scale, and I think a key to solving the engineering problems will be decoupling the artificial concept of money/cost from the fundamental problem of climate.
While trying not to destroy wider societies' faith in the concept of money. Because it's so powerful a positive force for society.
