Mar 172008

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS

At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.

This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.

(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)

 

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

  1. Brute, how much cheaper do solar systems need to get for solar power to be competitive without all the subsidies?

    Max,

    Difficult question………I’m not certain that I’m providing the answer to the question that you’re asking. Solar power is more than twice as much as conventional power at market prices.

    Solar Energy Costs/Prices

    http://www.solarbuzz.com/statsCosts.htm

    Solar Electricity Price Index verses US Electricity tariff Price Index (US cents per kilowatt hour

    http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm

    Understanding the Cost of Solar Energy

    http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

    xxxxxxxxxxx

  2. All of Britain covered by snow

    nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

  3. Brute, Reur 8922 wherein you wrote:

    “No need to be embarrassed [Bob_FJ]………I’ve researched and fooled around with “alternative” power sources for years……primarily due to my anger with public utility rates and my self sufficient attitude (as well as personal interests). After crunching the numbers, I discovered that the electric/gas rates that I pay are a pretty good deal…”

    Thanks Brute for your words of comfort, but I still remain embarrassed from those silly greenie investment decisions of mine about 10 and 25 years ago.

    Also, although since I officially retired ~16 years ago, I’ve paid very much less tax…. Zero income tax but 10% GST (Goods and Services Tax). Nevertheless, I resent the imposition on younger taxpayers (such as my son) to fund assistance for grossly uneconomic PV systems for those few that are conned into believing it is a good thing to install.

  4. Slightly tangential, but this should amuse most of you…

    http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2010/01/monbiot-penultimate-chance.html

  5. Brute

    Tried posting this, but it apparently got stuck in the filter because of links. Am sending links separately this time.

    Regarding nuclear power, you wrote:

    if the goofy Frenchmen can do it, then anyone can.

    I would certainly agree that Americans have every bit as much “can do” spirit as the French (where a giant power monopoly, EDF, runs the show, and Paris is the “center of the Universe”).

    But there is another problem that you have to overcome.

    The USA has one lawyer for every 265 inhabitants, while this ratio in France is 1:1,403 (in the UK it is 1:401).
    (Link 1)

    China has announced that it was “going nuclear”. It now has 11 nuclear plants and has announced that it will build 20 more. With a lawyer ratio of 1:10,000 (and even more of a centrally-controlled “top down” system than France), they should have no problem.

    Now I don’t want Robin to think I have anything against lawyers (they are very handy, when you need one and usually very entertaining at dinner parties), but together with eco-activists, they have killed construction of new nuclear power plants in the USA (and in Germany, where the ratio is 1:593 and there is a strong Green Party)..

    In Switzerland the ratio is 1:1,032, and there is also a fairly active “green movement” (including a minority Green Party). Currently 39% of its power comes from nuclear plants, with 56% from hydroelectric and just under 5% from thermal plants (including imported natural gas, waste incineration and wood fired plants). The Swiss government has decided to cover its future demand growth primarily with new nuclear capacity (by refurbishing, modernizing and enlarging its four existing nuclear plants, to get around the permit problem), with some gas-fired plants and purchases from France to fill the gap. But, unlike the UK and USA, Switzerland has no local coal or natural gas. Less than 0.5% of Switzerland’s power comes from “renewable” sources: biogas, wind and solar. This segment is growing, but is not expected to account for a significant percentage any time in the future.

    Brute, do you think your new administration will have the courage to push for expansion of nuclear power, despite the “green” opposition (coming mostly from the “left”, I believe), or do you think it will chase the illusion of covering the demand growth with “renewables”?

    [BTW, the District of Columbia has 277 lawyers per 10,000 population or a ratio of 1:36.]
    (Link 2)

    Looks like it could be an uphill battle.

    Max

  6. Brute

    Here is a case study of a home solar system in southern California, the same size as the one my friend has (6 kW).
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/house.html

    This family ended up paying around half of the total investment cost ($18,500 out of $36,000).

    They then spent another $25,000 to make their 1960s home as energy efficient as possible (insulation, windows, new heating system, etc.).

    These guys figure that they are saving $6,000 per year in gas and power costs, so it’s about a 7-year payback, with all the subsidies included. Without the subsidies, it would have been a bit more than a 10-year payback. (A lot of their total investment was for the energy efficiency improvements, i.e. the kind of stuff you built in, which makes good sense in any case.)

    They estimate that their solar system will annually offset around 21,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.

    Let’s do a quick “reality check” on this estimate. 21,000 pounds = 9,500 kg.

    One kWh power generated in the USA is estimated to generate 1 lb CO2 on average, so the 6kW system operating around the clock (8760 hours/year) should “offset”:
    6*8760*0.454 = 23,900 kg
    http://www.stewartmarion.com/carbon-footprint/html/carbon-footprint-kilowatt-hour.html

    But the system only generates power when the sun shines, which in SoCal is 37% of the time, so that makes 8,800 kg CO2 offset (and the homeowner’s estimate of 9,500 kg is close enough)

    There are an estimated 110 million households in the USA and roughly 2/3 of these are homeowners. And let’s say that over time 2/3 of these install a home solar system (48 million total).

    These systems have a combined installed capacity of 48,000,000* 6 = 288,000,000 kW = 288 GW.

    At 37% on-line factor, they generate 288*1000*0.37*8760 = 934 million MWh (average US on-line factor is probably below the SoCal figure of 37%).

    The investment cost (individual plus taxpayer) would be $36,000*48,000,000 = $1760 billion.

    This equals 1,760,000,000,000/934,000,000 = $1,884 per MWh generated.

    151 proposed and new coal-fired plants, generating 90 GW are estimated to cost $145 billion investment.
    http://cmnow.org/NETL%20New%20Coal%205.2007.pdf

    So the unit investment cost per MW is $1,600 plus another 10% for distribution (grid, etc.) or $1,760 total, and for 288,000 MW this would be $506 billion

    These plants usually operate between 8,000 and 8,500 hours per year (let’s say 8,250), so 288 GW installed capacity would generate:
    288000*8250 = 2,380 million MWh

    And the investment per MWh generated would be: 506,000,000,000/2,380,000,000 = $213 per MWh generated.

    So what is the “environmental impact” of this added investment?

    Using the homeowner’s estimate, the amount of CO2 “offset” = 48,000,000*21,000/2,205 = 458 million tons (0.46 GtCO2)

    Let’s say the US domestic solar program moves very rapidly, so that this total average annual CO2 “offset” is effective for 75 of the remaining 91 years from today until year 2100.

    The cumulative CO2 offset from this program would then be 0.46*75 = 34.5 GtCO2

    The atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt, so this equals 6.7 ppm(mass) or 4.4 ppmv reduction in the year 2100 atmospheric CO2 level.

    Without this decrease, we are estimated to reach a level of 560 ppmv by 2100, so with this effort the level will only be 555.6 ppmv.

    IPCC tells us that 2xCO2 causes 3.2°C and the correlation with CO2 is logarithmic, so this reduction in atmospheric CO2 would cause a reduction in net warming of:

    555.6 / 560 = 0.9921
    ln (0.9921) = -0.00789
    ln (2) = 0.6931
    3.2*(-0.00789/0.6931) = -0.036°C

    The extra investment cost required to achieve this net theoretical reduction in global warming is:
    $1,760 billion = $506 billion = $1,254 billion or $1.25 trillion

    So, even if the California homeowner gets a payback for his investment and “feels good” about the carbon “offset”, the theoretical impact on global warming of switching US households to solar is negligible, and the cost is significant.

    But, hey, there are big bucks to be made by some (and to be paid by the rest) and we can all feel good about it.

    Max

  7. Interesting post today on Paul Hudson’s blog, with mention of Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi and his forecast of the current northern hemisphere freeze back in September.

    Read the last few paragraphs as well. Even a year ago I don’t believe Paul Hudson would have felt secure enough to write the sort of thing that he’s writing now. But the climate has been changing.

  8. Sorry, my link went haywire! Not sure what happened there.

  9. Alex, Reur 8933/8934:
    Your embedded link worked fine for me, (on my somewhat hated Vista and its IE, version 8), and here is that link fully extracted:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml#comments
    Interesting! Thanks!
    Also your 8914…. great stuff!

  10. Barelysane, Reur 8921:

    “…What’s your internet poster type?
    http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
    It’s amusing to read through the profiles and start thinking about a few of the people who make posts…”

    Immensely entertaining, and I’ll discuss a “Grenade” type incident below:

  11. Max,
    I see that Chris Colose is back and has allowed four posts through his site moderation, including your major contribution, AND this “Grenade” from Blous 79: (See link in following post)

    “Here is an alternative description of the greenhouse falsification which makes no reference to G&T.
    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

    I think at first reading, although very interesting, that it may be controversial in parts. For instance, Timothy Casey has referred to EMR as a type of HEAT, which it definitely is not. A photon (EMR) stream either considered as a wave or a particle flow (duality) is not HEAT, just as the energy quanta in electrons or phonons are not HEAT in energy transfer in conduction through solids. None of these quanta are HEAT unless they are absorbed, (and raise the KE, and thus temperature) in molecules of matter. However, he may be talking in a “colloquial manner“.
    I need to read some of Casey’s references before further reviewing and forming any stronger impressions. Meanwhile, I’m intrigued to wait and see if Chris, or via referral, RC or Tamino etc may make a rebuttal. I notice that Marco, (is he RC regular Mark?), has bypassed the “Grenade”

  12. Max, Re my 8937 and various earlier discussions strong from you.
    Please go to the left pane on Casey’s site (per link in 8937) and click on ‘Volcanic CO2’.

    Here are three “Grenade” gems that I’ve extracted.
    I guess you don’t need me to elaborate? and I‘ve resisted emphasising key text.

    Those Mysteriously Fuming Oceans of Acid
    Archer (2009, pp. 114-124) describes the chemistry of CO2 acidification of seawater and proposes that ocean acidification will stress marine fisheries and may cause the destruction of coral reefs. However, it remains a mystery as to why, if atmospheric CO2 is acidifying the oceans, it is not acidifying inland water reservoirs – particularly fresh water reservoirs in lakes, dams, ponds, billabongs, swimming pools, and aquariums that are not formed as part of a volcanic province (Eg. The Blue Lake in the crater of Mount Gambier is acidifying due to volcanogenic CO2 input – which shows that Mount Gambier [SE Oz] is not quite so dormant as you may have been lead to believe)

    Plimer Strikes Again: 139,000 Intraplate Volcanos Leaking CO2 into the Ocean
    This is a rather lengthy section, so please refer to the site.

    Conclusion: Three Million Volcanoes “Can’t be Wrong”
    Irrespective that other authors may neglect to allow for volcanogenic CO2, volcanoes represent an enormous CO2 source that is mostly submarine, and this is strongly supported by the isolation of water acidification to only those seas, oceans and reservoirs with direct volcanic input. Furthermore, volcanic activity beneath both ice caps and localised to the regions of most intense melting has demonstrated an obvious cause of stronger Spring melts at the Poles. The NorthWest Passage was evidently opened up by powerful volcanic activity under the Arctic Ice along the Gakkel Ridge (Sohn et al., 2008; Reves-Sohn et al., 2008), while West Antarctic melting (as opposed to thickening of ice throughout the rest of Antarctica) can be explained by recent volcanic activity beneath the ice (Corr & Vaughan, 2008). Moreover, there are simply too many volcanoes to deny that the atmospheric concentration of the most erupted gas next to water is predominantly controlled by the balance or lack thereof between volcanic activity and photosynthesis.

    I must say that I feel vindicated that my earlier musings on the geology of the Antarctic Peninsular, and its alignment with similar geology in Patagonia, and the deep subduction between them, (as seen from space), tectonics, volcanoes, annat; has some agreement from a geologist.

    Funny how some applied scientists such as geologists, engineers, biologists et al seem to be able to see the the wood from the trees, compared to some academics!

  13. There’s a remarkably balanced blog (about the Met Office failure to predict the current cold winter) by the BBC’s Paul Hudson here. I wonder how how he gets stuff like this past the BBC Establishment.

  14. Max,

    Brute, do you think your new administration will have the courage to push for expansion of nuclear power, despite the “green” opposition (coming mostly from the “left”, I believe), or do you think it will chase the illusion of covering the demand growth with “renewables”?

    Obama has never so much as operated a hot dog stand…..he’ll stick with the “renewables” illusion. Obama is adhering to the Cloward Piven strategy.

    These guys figure that they are saving $6,000 per year in gas and power costs

    6K per year sounds high…….even for California.

  15. Bob, thanks for your #8935 – re the embedded link, my optical mouse probably had some sort of fit and selected the wrong bit of text to link from!

    Re the BBC, it seems that we have groups of people singing from at least three different hymn sheets:

    1) AGW faithful (Roger Harrabin, David Shukman, Richard Black, Susan Watts), 2) a more sceptical and adversarial approach (Andrew Neil, Stephen Sackur, perhaps Kirsty Wark), and 3) ostensibly AGW-faithful but displaying some promising heretical traits (Paul Hudson.)

  16. Things are not looking so good for IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri – see this (from India Today). Imagine the horror and outrage if it was revealed that a prominent AGW sceptic had been on the boards of three big energy companies, all of which (as India Today notes) “by the very nature of their business contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions, according to the IPCC, are adding to the country’s growing carbon footprint and hastening climate change“.

  17. Now we know it officially, from U.S. White House press secretary Gibbs:
    Worldwide Record Cold Is The Result of “Climate Change”
    http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/01/robert-gibbs-worldwide-record-cold-is.html

    Ouch!

  18. Bob_FJ

    The Casey paper you cited does lend credence to the claim by Ian Plimer in his recent book that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human sources.
    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    I estimate 139,096 active submarine volcanoes worldwide. If we are to assume that Kilauea is a typical mid oceanic plate volcano, with a typical mid oceanic emission of 870 KtCpa (Kerrick, 2001), then we might estimate a total submarine volcanogenic CO2 output of 121 GtCpa. Even using the Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991) assumption that we’ve only noticed the biggest to curb our estimate accordingly, we still have 24.2 GtCpa of submarine volcanic origin. This would certainly go some way to explain a mysterious acidification of the oceans that is as yet not observed in reservoirs isolated from volcanic input.

    24.2 GtCpa translates into 88.7 GtCO2 per year, or around 3 times the current annual human contribution.

    The last sentence is particularly relevant. It tell me that ocean acidification is only observed in reservoirs near volcanic input, but not elsewhere.

    It looks like Plimer may have been right, after all, despite the cries of outrage from the AGW faithful (including PeterM), which considered only known volcanoes over land.

    Interesting. Science marches on.

    Max

  19. Brute

    Regarding US President Obama’s fixation on illusionary “global warming” solutions, I just read up on the Cloward Piven strategy, you mentioned (8941):
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html

    Sounds scary (but not new).

    Variations have been around (Lenin, Hitler, Mao, etc., to mention a few 20th century examples).

    Max

  20. Bob_FJ

    In discussing geologists, such as Casey and Plimer, you wrote:

    Funny how some applied scientists such as geologists, engineers, biologists et al seem to be able to see the wood from the trees, compared to some academics!

    How true.

    Many of these “academics” are caught in their own trap.

    It is hard to see things very clearly when you are wearing “doomsday colored” glasses and already have your mind firmly made up that your theory of “imminent man-caused disaster” is right, regardless of any observed data to the contrary.

    Max

  21. Robin, re your #8943, “Patchygate” indeed appears to be gaining momentum. Richard North at EU Referendum is promising more revelations in his next Sunday Telegraph article.

    Plenty of irony also to be appreciated in this October 2009 news item on newKerala.com.

    Gandhi this man is not.

  22. Max

    I took my son back to Cambridge Uni yesterday after the Christmas break.The predicted snow mayhem promised by the Met office on the journey there on Saturday and back today didn’t materialise-glad they got it wrong but they did get it VERY wrong yet again.

    Anyway at the welcome lunch I was sitting next to a volcanologist who confirms the number of volcanoes is many times greater than was thought even two years ago So Plimer could be right after all with his co2 claims although he should have referenced the sources in his book as it looked as if he made a statistical mistake.

    In particular the number under the arctic has been substantially underestimated so they might have a part to play in arctic ice melt after all-something ridiculed in the last IPCC report.

    tonyb

  23. Max,

    In post 8784 I asked some a couple of questions about the natural GHE and the argument that this violated the second law of thermodynamics. You answered “not me” – meaning, I presume, that you were disassociating yourself from such nonsense.

    So what do you do when you see this sort of argument in various blogs? We all know you are quick to call the IPCC alarmist. I guess you’d like us to think that your prime motivation is that they get their science correct.

    But if this was the case wouldn’t you have same desire to see the more neanderthal of the climate sceptics get their facts straight too? I’d say your near silence on this issue shows that your prime motivation is political and not scientific at all.

    But, hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you can show me examples of where you’ve taken on these guys in the same way I’ve taken on some of the those, who you may consider to be on ‘my side’, on the nuclear power issue?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha