Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Next
Comments 4401 to 4450:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:22 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan and others,
The following CBC News item seems to capture the main points about how EVs and grid generation get discussed.
With Nova Scotia's reliance on coal, are electric vehicles the greenest option?
The main points are that even the Nova Scotia grid with a fairly high fossil fuel percentage, and a significant amount of coal, makes EVs a good choice. And it highlights the added reason that the grid will get better quickly.
The following NPR News item ties back to the Shell Game problem, but more precisely to the harmful misleading marketing part of the Shell Game.
Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States
The main point in the USA is the ways that harmful promoters of misinformation are delaying the improvement of the electricity generation, delaying he benefits of EVs.
A final point not in either article is that everybody who wants an EV in the next few years will be unable to get one because the production has to ramp up. However, in 10 years time there will be a massive percentage of EVs on the roads everywhere.
A final point is: I find it very disingenuous, almost harmfully biased, to claim that the problem is a developing nation like China (and potentially India would be named next, and maybe the entire continent of Africa) because of some 80-20 made-up rationalization. I agree with targeting the 20% causing 80% of the problem. That would be the 20% of the global population that is the highest personal impacting portion of the population. That would include some people in India and China (likely many among the richest). But it would include a higher percentage of the population of the more advanced nations, because many of the richer people in the more advanced nations failed to reduce how harmful their ways of living and profiting were through the past 30 years, while others were simply developing up to match their examples. The 'legacy harmful leaders by example' are the ones to be targeted for correction. Those legacy richer more harmful people deserve to be targeted ahead of the 'new rich harmful' people who followed the bad examples.
A closing comment. Fossil fuels are a dead-end technology. Future generations cannot continue using a non-renewable technology even if it was not producing other harmful impacts. The ultimate requirement is for policy to be developed and implemented 'everywhere' that will reduce the 'consumerism materialism madness'. The policy needs to be especially focused on correcting and stopping harmful developments even if they are 'cheaper or more profitable or more popular' than more sustainable alternatives. That harmful driving force has created the climate, biodiversity, and other Human Impact threats to the future of humanity. There is no future for that misleading marketing fuelled pursuit of personal desires or competition for impressions of superiority relative to Others.
-
Charlie_Brown at 09:16 AM on 30 March 2022SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
This is a very good discussion of radiant energy transfer. I have only a couple picky technical distinction quibbles with it. I do appreciate your providing a commonly observed example of radiant energy. Very similar to your example is the function of smudge pots in fruit orchards on cold, clear nights. It is not the heat of the smudge pots that keeps the fruit from freezing.
You say that since “the upper atmosphere is also much colder than the ground, so infrared energy absorbed high in the atmosphere is only weakly re-radiated back to the ground.” All energy that is absorbed high in the atmosphere will be re-radiated, half upwards and half downward. More importantly, as CO2 increases, a smaller amount of IR energy is radiated toward space. This is because more energy that would otherwise escape directly is absorbed and half of it gets re-radiated downward. Without greenhouse gases (GHG), the energy doesn’t get absorbed and all of it goes toward space. Thus the “trapping” occurs by not letting as much energy that exits toward space out the top of the energy system.
Clouds don’t store (accumulate) energy unless the cloud is getting warmer. Cloud droplets either reflect radiant energy or absorb and re-radiate it back toward the Earth. Also, greenhouse gases don’t absorb more radiation than they receive, other than any slight imbalance which is manifested as a temperature change. This brings the temperature of GHGs in equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere. GHGs re-radiate energy of specific wavelengths back to the ground. As greenhouse gas concentrations increase, more energy is returned to the ground, warming it. To bring the system back into balance with a warmer ground, more IR is emitted by the ground and all wavelengths. Some of it will be at wavelengths that are transparent to IR and will escape to space. All of this is observable using an atmospheric radiation model. The key is the energy balance. Be mindful of the understanding of stored or accumulated energy.
Forgive me for dwelling on esoteric distinctions. I appreciate the opportunity to practice writing about them. I hope that trying to understand them could prompt others to think about them also. -
Eclectic at 09:08 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan , from your posts #72 and #73 , I discern two points where you could provide useful information to readers.
(A) With regard to the Pareto Principle ~ please describe what you believe are the 20% of necessary changes which will produce an 80% reduction in fossil fuels CO2 emissions . . . and that reduction being over a suitably short time span, of course.
(B) Please clarify why you think making small or marginal benefits in emissions reduction [are] not worth attempting. Here, I realize that your clear explanation of point (A) may well provide your explanation of (B) .
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan
I find your posts good value, but I agree with Eclectic its a bit hard following what you say. It would be helpful if you summarised your views briefly in plain language, and without all the detailed numbers and jargon.
Trying to understand the numbers. Surely you dont need 100% renewables grid for EVs to have lower lifetime emissions than an ICE car? So what is the proportion of renewables you need?
I'm guessing that you would need a grid with at least about 20% renewables and 80% fossils fules for an EV to have lifetime emissions lower than an ICE car. That you would need at least 20% renewables to effectively cancel out the embedded carbon in manufacturing the EV. What would you say?
But its not all about emissions. Personally I will buy either an EV or PHEV in a couple of years parlty for climate reasons but also because of reliability and low running costs.
In an ideal engineering world the numbers of EVS and the grid should be in perfect harmony but the "cat is effectively out of the bag" and people might decide they just want EVs right now, and government's can't really tell auto manufacturers how many EVs to produce. The grid would then have to run to catch up with the EVs.
I do vaguely understand your grid stability concerns when lots of people are suddenly charging cars. Frequency and voltage issues and stuff like that.
But perhaps its all somewhat academic. I mean that in a plausible and likely real world scenario, renewables will expand gradually to hopefully be 100% by 2050 or probably a bit later, and EV's will gradually expand as well in approximate synchronisation with the energy grid. I'm picking about 100% by 2050 or maybe even later. It takes time for auto manufacturers to build new plant and most people find EVs a bit expensive. So the natural course of things will control the potential chaos. China will be an outlier because its not really a free market economy.
Sorry if my points arent too clear. Hopefully you get what I'm saying. -
jan21405 at 00:09 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@ Eclectic #71
thank you. Could you be pls. more specific regarding the:
but many of the points you mention are somewhat discursive and without clear focus.
it will help me to better understand your point. I decided to provide my answers in sections, according to the logical units in the communication to which it follows = to increase clarity.
-----------------------------------------
Community conversation improvement (for this portal operator):
the backend of this portal was modern in 2005. If I could suggest, there are already clearer forms that run on OpenSource such as XenForo and similar systems. 3 years ago, I co-launched a portal for Synology users (independent from the Vendor). It costs just 300USD/y (extended license fee). However, it is possible to create different groups, private messaging, resources/blogs, automated quotations, edit the post after sending, notify users, advance search, the moderator can create immediately new thread when the discussion has crossed another topic and no one loses the messages, .... link - when you like to check the conversation improvements for the SkS (I'm not a sw coder).
If you are interested, I can help you with that.
-
jan21405 at 23:42 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@ALL
here is a single slide explanation of Trasport emissions core from last year: GHG CO2 - Part 02 - Transport race to zero emissions analysis in a single page; link
Based on the last EDGAR V6 dataset, nothing is dramatically changed in the Transport emissions. Few interpretations for EU27 countries:
- Germany is responsible for 20.45% of emissions. Germany's 2000-2020 emissions growth is -18% (negative), but during the 2010-2019 period it was +6% increase (the 2020 pandemic year we can't take into account)
- 66.62% of emissions are produced from 5 countries (27 total) - Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland (sorted by emissions)
- Germany is responsible for the same value of emissions as Italy + Poland together
- Poland is growing +37% in the period 2010-2019
The energy mix in these countries is different (2019):
- Germany 78% from Fossil fuels (zero Nuclear from 2023), high carbon grid
- France 48% from Fossil fuels
- Italy 79% from Fossil fuels (zero Nuclear), high carbon grid
- Spain 72% from Fossil fuels, high carbon grid
- Poland 89% from Fossil fuels (zero Nuclear), high carbon grid
So when these 5 countries responsible for 66.62% of EU27 emissions from transport will migrate during a single day all of their ICE vehicles to EVs and on the same day they will migrate energy production to the low-carbon grid, we will get max. 0.9% savings from the Total world CO2 fossil fuels emissions (35,962.87Mt in 2020); based on EDGAR Dataset v6/2021. The Low-carbon methodology used in the NREL study - was mentioned in my posts.
Which doesn't happen.
Btw: the value from the entire EU27 Transport emissions is 695Mt CO2. In comparison with China's Energy fossil fuels emissions 4794Mt CO2, it's just a 14.5% share.
Saving 10% of China's Energy emissions will bring -479.4Mt CO2, which is 69% of the Total Transport EU27 Emissions = or ZERO Transport emissions in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. China grows YoY 2%.
Think about it, if you still think that the uncontrolled exchange of ICEs to EVs is a good idea for reducing Climate change.
That's why I prefer to set a strategy for eliminating emissions through the Pareto principle - look for 20% of sources that will solve 80% of the problems.
However, from some answers here at SkS site, I feel that shooting into the dark aka 80% of the sources, which will solve only less than 20% of the problems, is the only thing I learned here.
No one has invented anything good through chaos yet.
-
Eclectic at 22:26 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @70 and prior :
Thank you Jan, you have made many statements in this thread ~ but many of the points you mention are somewhat discursive and without clear focus. I mean, to a casual reader such as myself.
For the benefit of the casual reader, would you please be so kind as to condense your overall message into a single paragraph containing the main point (or two) which you wish to present & educate us with. Some of what you have said is self-evident and is not really in dispute; some is already widely known; and some is not very pertinent to this thread.
I would be grateful to learn the point (or points) which you consider particularly valuable to the readers of this thread, in moving the discussion forward.
-
jan21405 at 19:50 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Philippe Chantreau #67
this is my response continued from #69
Section 6 ---------------
Your opinion:
Hall and Lutsey found in 2018 that in all studied European countries, EVs lifecycle emissions over 150,000km were less than ICE, except perhaps in Germany.
Back to the study wording:
As a result of the high efficiency of electric motors and the ability to generate electricity from low-carbon sources, electric cars typically have lower emissions in the use phase compared to similar internal combustion engine vehicles.
They use the term “low-carbon sources” based on their own research: INTEGRATING ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITHIN U.S. AND EUROPEAN EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS (Lutsey, 2017); link. I found there some discrepancies:
a) there is no available term like “low-carbon sources” or “low-carbon”
b) just the “average European grid” or country-specific grid values (Netherlands, Germany, UK, France, Norway)
If I'm referring to something, I should follow the wording.
However, the “low-carbon sources” term was used first time in the NREL study based on a previous study (Brinkman, 2015), which was mentioned by me here #40: Emissions Associated with Electric Vehicle Charging: Impact of Electricity Generation Mix, Charging Infrastructure Availability, and Vehicle Type (McLaren, 2016); link
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ev_emissions_impact.pdf
where the Daily profile of the low-carbon grid (sources) is based on:
- 97% from ZERO Emissions Fuels
- 3% from the Natural Gas
- 0% from the Coal.
In a timeline, it fits, because in 2016 the NREL study was issued and in 2018 they used the term “low-carbon sources” in the study by Hall and Lutsey, 2018.
So yes, I must agree with the study (Hall and Lutsey, 2018), that:As a result of the high efficiency of electric motors and the ability to generate electricity from low-carbon sources, electric cars typically have lower emissions in the use phase compared to similar internal combustion engine vehicles.
Anyway, the study (Lutsey, 2017) compares the mentioned countries - Netherlands, Germany, UK, France, Norway. And this comparison confirmed my analysis and conclusion that we need to compare apples to apples - energy mix by country and not by continents and never by the single global number. See page 7, Figure 4. Electric and conventional vehicle test-cycle and upstream fuel-cycle emissions in Europe …. Where France and Norway have they have fundamentally different values of CO2 emissions (g/km) for EVs (up to 4-5x less than the Netherlands or Germany or UK). Reason:
Electric vehicles have particularly low CO2 emissions in France and Norway due to the high share of nuclear power in France and hydropower in Norway.This is another example of why we can’t use a single emission number as a useful strategy.
Section 7 ---------------
Your opinion:One could say that just the benefit of cutting on particulates would be enough to give EVs an advantage if CO2 life-cycle emissions are comparable. One could also, as was done earlier, argue that waiting until the generation mix is more favorable is counterproductive in the perspective of a large scale transition. As the generation mix improves, the CO2 equivalent/km of a given EV will decrease over the lifetime of the vehicle.
You need to consider that electricity for 100% transition from ICEs to EVs needs to be produced – it doesn’t exist now.Then you need to calculate complex variables:
- you must create a plant to achieve Carbon Neutral till 2050. I have never seen a complex worldwide plan based on UN IPCC outcomes.
- you must calculate the common energy consumption growth in each country (w/o EVs impact). This will mean that you will need to replace much more energy by 2050 than we produce today. And China is in this area mandatory variable again.
- you must calculate fossil fuels energy production YoY growth in fundamental countries, i.e. China. What will make a heavy impact on your Carbon Neutral calculations.
- you must calculate the energy production for EVs in each country. This energy doesn’t exist now. Note – not just for the passenger cars.
- You must calculate energy production for the transition of combustion energy sources (biomass) to clean energy sources – this energy doesn’t exist now also.
- You must calculate that Climate change has an impact on the possibility to keep efficiency or sustainability for some RES. Then you need to plan exactly what kind of RES you will use where. You can’t do it without Nuke.
- You must calculate that this planet has limited sources for croplands and the population will grow to huge numbers (where).
To be sure – biomass has so negative impact on emissions than fossil fuels.Section 8 ---------------
Your opinion:In China, just the benefits of cutting particulates emissions from numerous discrete sources close to people (like cars) is certainly enough to argue in favor of EVs.
My point:
China is the High-carbon electricity producer - according to the mentioned NREL study. Is there exact evidence that China's electricity production is falling with emissions? Unfortunately, I did not find one from the official Chinese Energy Portal. If I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. -
jan21405 at 18:22 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Philippe Chantreau #67
I will divide the answers to your post #67 into several logical sections to make them clear.
Section 1 ---------------
Your opinion:I'm not sure I'm sold on the "driving is regional" argument. In Europe, one can go from the UK to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany in one day of driving, although rail would be a better option.
My point:
Sure, you are right in this premise. However, from a scientific point of view, we must look at the following aspects:
a) What is the mileage ratio in the region defined by the country vs abroad ratio
b) For the individual car segments (passenger cars, local trucks, foreign trucks, agricultural vehicles,…). This can give us a much better view of the basis of this hypothesis (chaotic or controlled migration from ICEs to EVs). The mentioned Dutch study focused only on passenger cars. I quote: "The car class we focus on is the compact 5-seater. It includes the Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus, Renault Megane, Toyota Corolla and Opel Astra. We compare EV configurations to a regular petrol car, diesel car, parallel hybrid car and SHEV."
c) What is the current energy mix that is created in each country (starting point of the research). This was taken into account in the Dutch study. It should be borne in mind that some countries are heavily dependent on electricity imports from neighbouring countries. For example, the Netherlands had imports at 18% of their consumption in 2020 (19.8 from 111 TWh); link Then you need consider the import Power sources also.
For a quick look at the energy mix in individual EU countries, you can see this link. However, this source uses older data from 2018. Or in detail on Eurostat datasets – more precise.d) What is the plan of individual countries in terms of the energy mix in the distribution network in short-term and long-term planning. This was taken into account in that Dutch study very lightly. And as I wrote today's reality in the Netherlands is entirely different - so the scenarios from that study are out of real range. The benefit of such a study is therefore only in the idea, not in its conclusions.
e) What is the state of individual parts of the energy distribution grid region (Transmission lines capacity, distribution lines, terminal stations, transformers capacity - their age and efficiency impacts). This is essential for defining sustainable transition ICEs to EVs. It is not possible to connect sources of such huge quantities anywhere. The physically impossible without affecting the sustainability of the Power grid.Every single mentioned information (from a to e) is publicly available. But I understand that it is easier for someone to create an "average value" of emissions in Europe than to do fundamental research. It is impossible to say that every EV can be charged because an electrical outlet is enough what you need for it. Without analyzing the inputs mentioned above, this mistake is just a mistake and a chaotic approach.
Section 2 ---------------
Your opinion:
The European Union is a very integrated region, where the electrical grid is essentially one system.
Partly answered above:
- Yes, in terms of network quality regulation. I mentioned in # 33 that the EU was 1/2021 near Blackout due to the power supply failure that is suspected of having originated in Romania disrupting the Continental Europe Synchronous Area. Its frequency dropped to 48.75 Hz (target frequency 50Hz), which caused the South-East area to be separated from the rest of the grid.
- Not, because of the fundamentally different inputs of energy production sources at the country level. I mentioned the example in # 34 or in Section 1.
These parameters cannot be separated and generalized. Therefore, this is not a scientific approach to analyzing and interpreting a hypothesis.Section 3 ---------------
Your opinion:
Establishing standards can not be done only at the scale of one small country like the Netherlands, and the overall benefit is what must be considered.
My point:
100% agree, but the “overall benefit is what must be considered” must be qualified strictly regionally without the usage of “strange” average fixed value per continent. The UC Berkeley science philosopher Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), observed that scientists frequently tend to ignore data that does not fit into their scientific paradigm.Section 4 ---------------
Your opinion:Furthermore, the one thing that really matters is global emissions; whether we like it or not, that is what makes the radiative forcing.
100% agreeSection 5 ---------------
Your opinion:Any way to lower global emissions is beneficial.
My point:
From a prime perspective, I agree with you.
However, if we really want to heal this planet and we really want to achieve the conditions for a permanent reduction in emissions, then we cannot just generalize it and not deal with it chaotically at all because it suits us in the discussion. If we pretend that there is only one way to reduce emissions and ignore others, we can reach the blind alley stage.
If you are interested, study my latest analysis carefully: GHG emissions problems in a dark box - Part 05 - Population, Land, Food, Emissions and data disaster
link (btw reviewed by 3 independent persons at Academia.edu)Maybe some context will open up your eye. Because the problem is complex. I looked at the dependencies of population growth, emissions generation, the food systems, the agriculture sector and linked them into one story. The biggest problem I am constantly discovering is the inconsistency of the data used for the research. For example, I am in direct touch with the European Joint Research Centre, which manages the EDGAR Emissions Databases for the UN. We have concluded that they will adjust their datasets so that divergent and even inappropriate interpretations of their emissions data do not arise. Unfortunately, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) and their FAOSTAT do not communicate at all. There is a heavy data mess.
I don't force anyone to follow my thoughts.
I'll finish the rest of your post later. -
jan21405 at 16:10 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Bob Loblaw #66
when you will read all my posts in this thread you will understand my point to Ivar Giaever.
Especially in a portal which is about the science, as appears SkS also it's necessary read entire thread. Science is (should be) about a complex information gathering. Otherwise, one gets into a situation where he evaluates only part of the available information, which must lead to a wrong conclusion.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:02 AM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
I'm not sure I'm sold on the "driving is regional" argument. In Europe, one can go from the UK to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany in one day of driving, although rail would be a better option. The European Union is a very integrated region, where the electrical grid is essentially one system. Establishing standards can not be done only at the scale of one small country like the Netherlands, and the overall benefit is what must be considered. Furthermore, the one thing that really matters is global emissions; whether we like it or not, that is what makes the radiative forcing. Any way to lower global emissions is beneficial.
There are more recent studies than Vliet et al.
Hall and Lutsey found in 2018 that in all studied European countries, EVs lifecycle emissions over 150,000km were less than ICE, except perhaps in Germany.
One could say that just the benefit of cutting on particulates would be enough to give EVs an advantage if CO2 life-cycle emissions are comparable. One could also, as was done earlier, argue that waiting until the generation mix is more favorable is counterproductive in the perspective of a large scale transition. As the generation mix improves, the CO2 equivalent/km of a given EV will decrease over the lifetime of the vehicle.
In China, just the benefits of cutting particulates emissions from numerous discrete sources close to people (like cars) is certainly enough to argue in favor of EVs. The overall benefits of switching to EVs stand, whether on a regional or global level. Of course, electric trains and any/all "wedges" should be used as well. EVs are not a panacea.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:30 AM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @64:
And I don't care if the document was peer-reviewed because:
- We have scientists like Ivar Giaever and similar creators hereI don't consider Ivar Giaever to be a reliable source:
https://www.desmog.com/ivar-giaever/
- you can choose peer-review as a service from your defined contacts, even in reputable journals.
Ah, the old "Pal Review" myth. It sure works well for the fake skeptics. Covered elsewhere here at Skeptical Science.
-
jan21405 at 01:59 AM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
correction in my text in #64
posted:
it means that there was no such significant coal damping as the study mentioned for 2015 = 55%; it's actually less.
valid:
it means that there was no such significant gas boosting as the study mentioned for 2015 = 55%; it's actually less.
-
jan21405 at 01:53 AM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@michael sweet #61
I will continue to use the facts only:
1. in my post #40 you can read:
Vehicles operation is not global but regional. It follows that we cannot use global emissions from cars as a tool to calculate emission reductions with the introduction of EVs, but strictly regional, per country. It will be mathematically correct (the global data approach), but you will not be able to put it into practice.
What was the purpose of my discussion regarding the largest producer of GHG emissions with the largest EVs market in this world (+50%) with +70% of Power production from fossil fuels (and it grows). I don't like Global Math Averages. In principle, the arithmetic mean is the least accurate indicator of reality. I presented you with the NREL study, which may not fit into your concept, but it cannot suit everyone. However, if the comprehensive study by The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is not enough for you, it is difficult to look for anything more accurate.
So we can check your mentioned study about the EVs better emissions for Global strategy:
2. Your study (Vliet et all, 2011) mentioned in #61 contains a different statement (page 7):
"We find that EVs charged using electricity from coal do not have significantly different GHG emissions from driving in regular cars."
and as you wrote here:
"We find that EVs charged using [100%] electricity from coal do not have significantly different GHG emissions from driving in regular cars."
the value [100%] was defined on the basis of your own interpretation?
link to the study to confirmation of the mentioned wording (page 7)
following the study you need to take into account:
- study is from 2010 (published)
- it is about the Netherland's specific conditions only, you can't take it as the holy grail for each country
- also specific conditions for Power production must be taken into account - the NGCC technology is more predominant in this country = lower emission factor than coal-fired plants (you can see the differences in Table 4.: Electricity generation capacity in the Netherlands)
- you will find there also an increase in the pulverised coal-fired plants for the 2015-2030 period (Table 4)
- and finally - Summary and conclusions (Page 11) ... read carefully:
WTW GHG emissions from electric driving depend most on the fuel type (coal or natural gas) used in the generation of electricity
for charging, and range between 0 g km−1 (using renewables) and 155gkm−1 (using electricity from an old coal-based plant). Based
on the generation capacity projected for the Netherlands in 2015, additional electricity for EV charging would largely be generated
using natural gas, emitting 35–77 g CO2eq km−1. In the Dutch context, emissions vary little with charging patterns, and are unlikely
to change much before 2030.And here is a summary from the IEA report 2020:
In 2018, TPES came from natural gas (42%), oil (37%), coal (11%), biofuels and waste (5%), and small shares from nuclear, wind, solar, hydropower and geothermal. The Netherlands is still one of the largest gas producers in Europe; however, domestic gas supply and gas exports are rapidly declining as production from Groningen is being phased out. Domestic oil supply is small, especially in comparison to the large oil demand. All coal is imported and is used primarily for electricity generation and steel production. The electricity supply is also heavily reliant on fossil fuels. In 2018, electricity generation came primarily from gas (52%) and coal (27%).
it means that there was no such significant coal damping as the study mentioned for 2015 = 55%; it's actually less. And even worse for 2021:
The current energy mix in the Netherlands is natural gas (38%), oil (35%), coal (11%), biofuels and waste (5%), and 11% from nuclear, wind, solar, hydropower and geothermal.
Following reality, the mentioned study is out of a doable plan. I like data and I would like to listen more than personal attacks, rather more deep-dive information from my base education in Energy engineering. I'm the proud owner of a small PVe and Solar water heating, so you really don't have to swear at my fossil fuels lobby. I understand energy - from its production, distribution to consumption.
That's why I'm researching anything related to emissions. Not everyone will like this option - but I'm not a friend of extreme solutions or chaos.
Finally, I'm sending a link to one peer-reviewed study from The Nature - A plant-by-plant strategy for high-ambition coal power phaseout in China. link
If you will find at least 3 fatal mistakes that should not appear in The Nature or any peer-reviewed studies, you have passed the Energy engineering exam. Otherwise, we can no longer talk about Energy engineering from the position where you want to be a professor.
I judge people by what they write about and how they write. I don't care what their education is. And I don't care if the document was peer-reviewed because:
- Energy engineering is my native domain
- We have scientists like Ivar Giaever and similar creators here
- you can choose peer-review as a service from your defined contacts, even in reputable journals.Each of my documents contains data only from scientific sources and/or national sources from which I drew (defined). I don't like bending data. I do not have time for this.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:50 AM on 28 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
I don't understand what Jan is talking about at 54. The problem of how the electricity is generated is such a basic consideration that it has been studied enough to draw conclusions. Multiple studies have shown that the life cycle carbon footprint of EVs is lower than that of ICEs even if they are charged with electricity produced with coal. The battery production process is carbon intensive but that is compensated by the superior efficiency over the lifetime of the car. In pure mpg equivalent over only road use, it more than compensates, even with FF produced electricity.
It takes only 2 years on average for the balance to tilt in favor of EVs. Location and driving habits make it vary. However, when comparing EVs to ICE, it is always possible to reach a mileage where the whole vehicle life carbon emissions become lower for the EV and it is always a realistic number of miles. It just takes more miles when using electricity that has a lot of fossil fuel in the production mix and batteries made in Asia.
CarbonBrief has looked at this in details:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change
Unfortunately, a vehicle is a big purchase. I already have a hybrid that I bought only a few years ago so no EV for me in the near future. Would help also if they became a little less expensive...
-
Hal Kantrud at 02:33 AM on 28 March 2022SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
"Because CO2 is diffuse, its effect is felt slowly, over many decades."Yes like about 700 to a thousand of them, beginning with farming and grazing by domestic animals?
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted.
Several times recently, people have started talking about agriculture, etc., in threads where it is off-topic.
If people want to discuss veganism and/or agriculture, there are two possible threads here at Skeptical Science that might be more suitable. You can also use the Search box to find suitable posts.
If you are to comment on those threads, make sure to read the original post, any following comments, and make sure that your comments are on topic.
https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm
-
michael sweet at 23:57 PM on 27 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Eric @58,
The articles you link at 58 are discouraging. This article from Carbon Brief, from Sept 2021, titled "How World's coal-powered pipeline has shrunk by three-quarters" since 2015 offers me more hope. The data is similar to the data in your articles but is looked at from a different angle. I see two primary issues with coal plants:
- Fossil interests have tremendous political power.
- It takes 10-15 years to plan and build a large fossil fuel plant.
We all need to work hard to overcome the political power of fossil fuel interests. The market will eventually build out a lot of renewable energy since it is cheaper, but the power of fossil fuel iterests can delay that for a long time.
All the coal plants being built world wide were planned before renewable energy was the cheapest power. The article I cited indicates that many coal power plants are being cancelled since they are no longer economic. It takes the market a lont time to reset completely now that renewable energy is cheapest. The political power of fossil fuels slows down the transition.
Statements upthread like "we will know where to target policies and programs ($$$) to help leapfrog the cheap coal electricity phase" are simply incorrect. Coal electricity costs more than renewable energy. Less developed countries would be better off going straight to renewable than to build out expensive coal plants now. Even if coal were cheaper today, in a few years developed countries will institute carbon fees on imports that will make coal power even more expensive.
It is often hard to be optimistic when politicians respond so slowly. I take hope from the fact that 10 years ago politicians were not even talking about trying to reduce carbon emissions in most countries. Hopefully the turnaround will be soon enough to avoid the worst consequences.
In many poor locations people are purchasing small off grid PV to charge phones, power lights, run refrigerators and other domestic uses. I saw a picture of solar panels that powered a water pump to irrigate opium poppies in Afganistan. This is chepaer than large central generators with long transmission ines, and the transmission lines cannot be cut by war.
-
michael sweet at 23:14 PM on 27 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan@54
I am sorry, I thought that you had done your homework and that I did not have to do your work for you.
The debate about wether it is worthwhile to drive an electric car using power from coal power stations was resolved over 10 years ago in the peer reviewed literature. Newbees who try to do their own calculations simply are wrong.
This peer reviewed paper published in 2011 states:
'We find that EVs charged using [100%] electricity from coal do not have significantly different GHG emissions from driving in regular cars"
Since the efficiency of electric cars has improved since 2011, it is now more efficient from a release of CO2 standpoint to drive an electric car than using an ICE car, even if 100% of the electricity comes from coal. In China, since 30% of the energy is renewable, it obviously is better to drive electric cars. Evan, using at least 50% wind energy, is way better than an ICE car. You are simply uninformed. I do not like being lectured to by people who do not know what they are talking about. I note that you have cited exactly zero peer reviewed papers in your posts here at Skeptical Science while I have cited papers to support my position.
Since electric cars release less CO2 no matter how the electricity is generated, it is best for everyone everywhere to try to purchase an electric car. Waiting until more renewable electricity is being generated results in more CO2 being emitted. Many other reasons also result in the conclusion that it is best to buy an electric car as soon as possible.
Simply looking at the efficiencies I cited in my previous post it can be concluded that it is more carbon efficient to drive an electric car powered by coal electricity than to drive an ICE car. The fact that ICE cars are less than 20% efficient in converting the energy in the gasoline into kinetic energy is the critical factor. Electric cars are about 90% efficient at converting electricity into kinetic energy. I can provide the calculations for you if you want to see them.
In the future as much transportation as possible needs to be converted to electric because electric motors are so much more efficient than ICE motors.
Your claim that we should wait to purchase electric cars until more renewable energy is being generated is simply fossil propaganda. The more electric cars there are the less demand for gasoline there will be.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please tone it down a bit.
-
Haiburton42 at 19:34 PM on 27 March 2022SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
I wrote this in my climate change dream journal at 12:24 am Ogden Utah Time. Light pollution makes it hard to see the stars and I thought the less stars the easier is to make a connect the dots picture — the clouds are the peaceful alternative — and I thought what about a sky polluted no stars shown through and I couldn't make a connect the dot picture that would be a very sad time for me. And a very sad world.
So, I think that when an entire town decides not to drive a car for a week in a row and the stars get brighter and we all go for a walk it can be a very good thing.
And now I'm promoting Take Back the Night brought to us by the Women's Center at WSU because ever since they helped me when I needed it I made a vow to take back the night whenever I can until we no longer have to.
But have I just been off-topic, political or ad hominem in my rhetoric?
Moderator Response:[BL] This does seem to be rather off topic.
-
nigelj at 12:09 PM on 27 March 2022SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
Its intriguing reading a thread of comments like this. Because reading them in their entirety its obvious dudo39 is just highjacking the thread to push an agenda. The article was obviously using clouds at night an an analogy only, and said quite clearly "Although the greenhouse effect is active 24/7, it is most apparent at night, " but dudo39 still rambles on @1 about the article not addressing clouds during the day and then the rest of the comments posted drift on from that, and the main issue gets forgotten.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 20:33 PM on 26 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
nigelj @59, thanks, that sounds promising.
-
nigelj at 17:10 PM on 26 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Eric (skeptic) @58, just something fyi:
"Chinese President Xi Jinping recently announced at the UN General Assembly that China “will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad”. Shortly after this, the Bank of China said it would no longer finance new coal mining and power projects abroad for the last quarter of 2021." Here.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 11:28 AM on 26 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
michael sweet @50
The poor are building out renewable energy in many locations. Why build a coal generator when renewable energy is much cheaper? Why build out central facilities wheen distributed generation (like PV) is much cheaper? You guys need to read the literature and give up on the fossil fuel propaganda.
I assume you mean undeveloped countries? Or people who are actually poor? Coal is being built out because, apparently, it's been easier to get the financing for them from China:
Perceptions of coal for baseload reliability and low cost seem to be the driving factors, but biased by the availability of financing for coal.
I looked through the Connelly link you provided, but that solution was for wealthy Europe. Then clicked from that page to Jacobsen: Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes
Seems like that would speak to your claim which I quoted above. Haiti is poor and would have less than 10 cents average electric cost with 65% solar PV (nameplate, table 2). Table 3 shows Haiti with a mainly flexible load (my point earlier). Seems practical and fairly reasonably priced. But "much cheaper"? I don't see that.
Please note I am not promoting coal, just stating the facts of where coal is headed (e.g. as shown by endcoal.org).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:38 AM on 26 March 2022The FLICC-Poster - Downloads and Translations
David-acct @4,
Here is a Follow-up regarding your unjustified attack on NPR reporting:
The following Nature article "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggest" appears to rather conclusively prove that you have allowed yourself to be misled about the certainty that COVID-19 came from a lab ... perhaps because of a penchant for the reporting by sources like Fox News. And that bias may apply to other beliefs you have developed a liking for. You really should investigate if your developed bias, everyone has bias and can learn to change it, is causing you to be harmfully misled.
That Nature report has been referred to in NPR reports, including this one "How the false Russian biolab story came to circulate among the U.S. far right"
-
Evan at 09:02 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
OPOF@53 Sobbering comments. It's scary to know the marketeers know how to get into our heads and how to apply leverage to people who other might object to the kind of harms to which you're referring.
OPOF@56 Very interesting, sad education you're providing. I knew enough about the tar sands to know we did not want to burn anymore of it than we have to. You only deepen my resolve.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:46 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Evan @55,
All things considered, burning gasoline from the oil sands is indeed potentially worse then using Minnesota's electricity to power a car.
One big harm, hidden from many people by the Shell Game, is that upgrading heavy crude (like Alberta's Western Canada Select) produces a by-product called 'coke'. Coke is like a very crappy coal (very high ghg emissions for the heat units obtained, and other crappy emissions from burning the stuff). Some places are OK with dirtier cheaper stuff to burn. They will burn Coke. It has been burned at oil sands operations in Alberta. But, to reduce emission in Alberta, the materials are often now exported as heavy crude (Western Canada Select) which exports the impacts of upgrading, including coke, to the importing nation. And the upgrading facilities in the USA producing the gasoline for Minnesota likely export the coke they produce to be burned somewhere else in the world (so the coke is not counted as a USA waste or ghg impact).
The more you know the more there is to dislike about extracting and burning up the oil sands stuff, and other heavy oils, and coal (and sour natural gas - note that WCS is also a very sour crude - lots of sulphur). Those all really should be the first fossil fuels terminated no matter how many investors lose perceived wealth because 'their assets ended up stranded - unusable'.
Note that the Shell Game includes Alberta Oil Sands promoters claiming it is More Ethical Oil (amusing note Shell sold its oil sands assets).
-
Evan at 07:49 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan@54 another reason I bought an EV. In Minnesota about 90% of our gasoline comes from tar-sands oil. That alone drove me to want to minimize my use of gasoline. IMO, just about anything is better than burning tar-sands oil.
One thing you should consider is that if you want to buy an EV today, you might end up waiting a long time because of supply-chain issues. This is the reality of how long it may take to switch from ICE's to EV's. Even if EV's only operate at break-even GHG emissions in some places because of high usage of fossil fuels, it is worthwhile to start switching manufacturing towards EV's, because the transition will likely take a very long time, given real-world distribution factors.
-
jan21405 at 07:21 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@michael sweet #50
The car's energy conversion efficiency is one thing; electricity consumption per 1km is the second point. You have to recharge the consumed energy somewhere. And 70 kWh of electricity will always be only 70kWh of electricity, no matter what source you use for recharging. This has nothing to do with energy conversion efficiency while driving in a car. This is the energy (not the capacity) you need to return to the battery. You need also calculate another big impact - batte charging is a Power factor and dirting of the power grid. When you don't understand this basic energy principle, then I'm here by mistake.
When you got the arguments and accused me of fossil fuels propaganda, neither of us understood anything. Nice. -
One Planet Only Forever at 07:17 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Evan @48,
Agreed that it is not helpful if the presentation gets too complicated or triggers unjustified reactions.
Another way to address the marketing problem is to describe how it affects every aspect of the diagram (competition game/system) without presenting it as part of the image.
Marketing is about raising awareness and trying to influence what people think about things. Marketing is helpful when it raises awareness and fully informs regarding the awareness being raised. It can be especially helpful when it does that regarding Harm Being Done. But marketing almost never gets done that way because the pursuit of reward and benefit (popularity and profit) powerfully motivates what is done.
That pursuit of reward limits what is Investigated.
- It can keep scientists from looking into the potential harm of developed activities, especially activities that are popular and profitable (because who is going to fund or reward the investigation into the potential need to limit, change or stop popular and profitable activities).
- It can tempt scientists into focusing on research that appears to have the potential to be profitable or popular, because that is more likely to be funded and be rewarded with patents.
- It certainly discourages consumers from investigating if what they are tempted to desire is harmful.
- Engineers have a fairly powerful motivation to limit harm done. But even they can be tempted to participate in developing more harmful results due to the potential for more reward to be obtained that way (or get less reward if they won't play the 'behind the curtain' game that way). And some of them push for 'lower minimum standards', or push to not have standards, because that gives them cover/excuses for participating in producing riskier more harmful results (what they did did not contravene any established requirements - that they were aware of).
Undeniably, the potentially harmful marketing angles of the Industry (pursuers of profit) and Political (pursuers of popularity) players are the most dangerous drivers/motivators of the game/system. And the most dangerous condition is when there is no clear separation of Industry from Government.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:14 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Evan @48,
Agreed that it is not helpful if the presentation gets too complicated or triggers unjustified reactions.
Another way to address the marketing problem is to describe how it affects every aspect of the diagram without presenting it as part of the image. Marketing is about raising awareness and trying to influence what people think about things. Marketing is helpful when it raises awareness and fully informs regarding the awareness being raised. It can be especially helpful when it does that regarding Harm Being Done. But marketing almost never gets done that way because the pursuit of reward and benefit (popularity and profit) powerfully motivates what is done.
That pursuit of reward limits what is Investigated.
- It can keep scientists from looking into the potential harm of developed activities, especially activities that are popular and profitable (because who is going to fund or reward the investigation into the potential need to limit, change or stop popular and profitable activities).
- It can tempt scientists into focusing on research that appears to have the potential to be profitable or popular, because that is more likely to be funded and be rewarded with patents.
- It certainly discourages consumers from investigating if what they are tempted to desire is harmful.
- Engineers have a fairly powerful motivation to limit harm done. But even they can be tempted to participate in developing more harmful results due to the potential for more reward to be obtained that way (or get less reward if they won't play the 'behind the curtain' game that way). And some of them push for 'lower minimum standards', or push to not have standards, because that gives them cover/excuses for participating in producing riskier more harmful results (what they did did not contravene any established requirements - that they were aware of).
- Undeniably, the potentially harmful marketing angles of the Industry (pursuers of profit) and Political (pursuers of popularity) players are the most dangerous drivers/motivators of the game/system. And the most dangerous condition is when there is no clear separation of Industry from Government.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @38.
I was wanting to know your academic qualifications to see if you had any relevant to the issues. I'm reluctant to commit time to reading very long articles by people if they have no relevant qualifications at tertiary level. Your engineering degree is definitely very relevant. I believe that a person with an engineering degree could definitely do "science". However calling yourself a scientist could cause confusion and I think you are unwise doing that, fwiw. And I see no need for you to do so.
----------------------------------------
Jan @40, ok we seem to be roughly in agreement, and I get your point about China: They are actually expanding their EV fleet much faster than its expanding renewables which is out of step. However China is non typical with its autocratic government having huge control over EV production. However there are other reasons they are pushing EVs really hard, namely to reduce high levels of particulate and nitrous oxides air pollution in their cities.
Yes the data speaks loudly. I had a friend who always said when arguing about contentious issues, and opining on them, always go back and look at what the basic data says. Regardless of the issue and field of enquiry.
-
michael sweet at 06:30 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan,
I think you have the incorrect assumptions behind many of your calculations. This results in your conclusions being in error. In general, whenever I see someone relying on their own calculations instead of published calculations I figure their conclusions are incorrect. I see very little peer reviewed data in your posts.
For example, many published studies describe how to get 100% renewable energy. See this description of Connelly et al 2021 for a starter. I note that you have no problem with "baseload" power sources that require emergency back up power every day to provide peak power but you are concerned that renewable energy might have problems providing peak power. Why is it OK for "baseload" sources to require back up but not renewables? Most of the pumped hydro storage in the USA was built to store power from nuclear power plants at night to use for peak power during the day. Plans like Connelly et al describe how to provide 100% renewable energy. You are wrong to suggest it cannnot be done. Providing 80% renewable energy using existing fossil gas peaker plants as storage is easy and cheaper than fossil power.
Your anaylsis of EV cars seems to me to be completely off. Even if the grid is 100% coal there are benefits from EV. You do not consider that baseload coal power plants are about 40-45% efficient at generating electricity form the heat of the coal. Gas combined cycle plants are over 60% efficient. EV cars are about 90% efficient in using electricity. By contrast, internal combustion cars are only about 20% efficient at using the energy in the oil they burn. When you consider the comparable emissions of carbon dioxide, an EV with electricity from a 100% coal electrical system releases comparable carbon to internal combustion engines. Since the electricity for Evan is over 50% from wind, his EV releases much less CO2 than a comparable ICE car.
According to Our World in Data China gets about 30% of its electricity from renewable sources. It seems to me that when you consider the efficiency of EV cars compared to internal combustion cars the EV's release less CO2 than ICE. Since almost all coal systems use gas for peak power the release of CO2 is even less from EV cars than ICE cars. My brother has solar panels on his roof that recharge his EV car. How much CO2 does his car release?
This peer reviewed paper says that the best thing to do for the next ten years is to build out renewable energy sources as fast as possible and switch to EV's at the same time. If we wait on EV's until we have more renewable energy we will not be able to switch fast enough from ICE's. Your argument that we should wait for more renewable energy to be built is completely incorrect. Please cite a peer reviewed paper that suppports your wild claims. I think your calculations are incorrect as described above.
I note that the people engaging in this conversation are citing their own calculations and not peer reviewed documents. I see many claims that I think have been demonstrated as false in the peer reviewed papers I have read. It seems to me that many of the claims made here are simly fossil propaganda against renewable energy. I want to remind posters that this is supposed to be a science based site. You must support your claims with peer reviewed data.
The poor are building out renewable energy in many locations. Why build a coal generator when renewable energy is much cheaper? Why build out central facilities wheen distributed generation (like PV) is much cheaper? You guys need to read the literature and give up on the fossil fuel propaganda.
-
BaerbelW at 05:42 AM on 25 March 2022New resource: myth deconstructions as animated GIFs
The initial 9 animated myth deconstructions have now been added as notes to the related rebuttals:
Does cold weather disprove global warming?
Are glaciers growing or retreating?
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
How reliable are climate models?
How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone
-
Evan at 05:33 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
OPOF@46 and 47. Very interesting example. It's easy to market these feel-good stories, because it's what people want to hear. Thanks for sharing yet another concrete example of the Shell Game.
-
Evan at 05:32 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
OPOF @45 Yes, this chain is not complete, but hopefully it conveys the idea without getting too complicated. The inclusion of government might conjure up images of corruption and the like, but every well-functioning society relies on some form of governance to set policies, standards, etc.
Marketing is somewhat implicityly in the industrial segment, because they are the ones manufacturing and selling the products. I'll try to weave in your ideas, but am afraid that the complexity will grow.
There's that growth problem again. :-)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:11 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
I missed an important aspect of the Shell Game example I shared @46.
I am not able to find the total power demand for the Server Farm. It appears that it may be higher than the 400 MW contract for power from the new Solar Farm. And that power demand will be 24-7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. So there may even need to be added non-renewable power in Alberta to meet the added power demand for this "new improvement in Alberta".
And the Shell Game sales pitches continue with the glowing presentation by Calgary Economic Development that also mentions all the 'homes Amazon will supposedly be powering with renewable power'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:25 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Here is an Alberta Example of the Shell Game.
The largest Solar Farm in Canada is now being built in Alberta. Read the following article about it, and note the statements regarding the 'number of homes it would power'.
CTV News - Canada's largest solar project under construction in Vulcan County
Now read the following article from a different news source published on the same day.
Global News - Southern Alberta firm signs massive solar power deal with tech giant Amazon
Note how the second article tells about the the 'new benefit for Alberta of the Amazon server farm' that is going to consume almost all the power from the new solar farm.
What happened is an added energy demand in Alberta that fully consumes a renewable energy generating facility. Essentially, no improvement. But lots for Albertans, and Others, to be pleased about.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:11 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Evan @35,
A suggestion related to my comments @33 and @37 that relates to both the Consumer and Science Disconnect.
The image under Science Disconnect should be expanded to indicate “marketing” (pursuing popularity and profit) behind the curtain and connected to Industry and Politics.
And it would be helpful to have a way to represent “Helpful Governing: The pursuit of learning about the harm of what is developed and effort to limit harm done”. That feature has different values in front of and behind the curtain.
- In front of the curtain there is some interest in self-governing in pursuit of learning to limit harm done, but it is not the ‘governing’ interest.
- Behind the curtain there is a powerful ‘anti-interest’ including attempts to block investigations into potential harms. That drives the development of misleading marketing to cover-up or excuse the harm that cannot be kept hidden. And that marketing over-promotes potential benefits, promotes harmful misunderstanding, and encourages people to be dismissive of the harm or risk of harm (because the benefit has to be worth it).
It would also be helpful to present an "External Influence" - Governing what is going on by pursuing learning and education about what is harmful and implementing policy and laws to limit harm done through education, regulation, restriction and legal penalty.
External Helpful Governing to limit harm done, and change the developed system, is the Key Requirement. Expecting the pursuit of more benefits and higher status to be Self-Governed to limit harm done is obviously absurd. Without external governing effectively limiting harm done the "Science (learning) - Consumer (pursuit of benefit)" system will produce an endless stream of harmful “popular and profitable results”. It will also produce a bunch of harmful results that fail to be the most popular and profitable, but still get to compete in the market. And less harmful developments will have a competitive disadvantage because they will be "less rewarding", require more effort and be more expensive than more harmful alternatives.
Without effective external helpful governing the “solutions developed by the competition for status system” are almost certain to be more harmful and less helpful than they needed to be (like the madness of global geo-engineering experiments, only able to be fully understood after being implemented, to "solve the avoidable global geo-engineering experiment climate change problem that has been caused by the belief that the pursuit of new technology that is highly desirable and profitable will effectively develop The Required harm limiting Solution").
-
Evan at 02:46 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan@43 What is your point? I am well aware that Minnesota gets over 50% of its power from renewable energy. Shall I not drive an EV until that number reaches 100%. Great River Energy, MN, is pushing hard to generate renewable energy. Shall we stand by and watch and wait until they get the grid to 100% renewables and then buy EV's?
I think now is the time to push, because coops like Great River Energy are doing the kinds of things we need.
-
jan21405 at 02:37 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Evan #42
thank you for the feedback.
Just last post and I will keep this group in the previous stage.
Follow the EIA.gov data for Minnesota state energy (power production sources):
43% share is based on fossil fuels (coal + natural gas)
-
Evan at 01:31 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan@41, a friendly admonition.m:-)
I would say that you are somewhat falling into the shell game of which I'm writing.
There is this myth that we are going to orderly, neatly, and in a highly controlled manner transition into a green-energy world. Kind of like what is talked about on Star Trek when they refer to how humans lived before the big societal transitions.
I am an engineer and well aware that a promise of supply by renewable energy is not a guarantee of purity. But I know the utility behind this promise, and they are credible. I also know it is a step in the right direction.
The transition will be messy and far from the utopian path many climate scientists envision. Such is the nature of the real world.
So all I mean to say is that we need to push hard. I will not wait until the perfect EV is available and charged from the perfect energy source. By then it will be too late.
-
jan21405 at 01:24 AM on 25 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Evan #31
Many power utilities will certify that they use "green energy credits" to ensure the power used for cars comes from renewables.
People are often subject to tempting keywords. 100% certainty that your electrical outlet is currently supplying electricity from "green sources" is only if your house is off-grid + connected to your PVe/Wind/Hydro power production system. Otherwise, your distribution company supplies a mix of energy from sources that are currently providing this energy. Just to be sure.
Also, getting a lot of EV's on the road sends the right signal to the company's making them and to the company's powering them. Hard to know where to start, but I think we need to just jump in and get things going whereever we can.
Shouldn't this discussion be scientific? This is just a chaotic shooting into a dark approach. No hypothesis verification.
I think they call this the chicken or the egg problem. :-)
For common people - yes.
If you want to run a stable distribution grid you need:
- the stable source of energy production for 24/7/365 operation (any time, any weather conditions). Today they are - Nuclear, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro (dams). You can't control the sun (irradiation, clouds) or wind (atmospheric pressure).
- for unstable energy sources you need storage with sufficient capacity. More unstable weather, more capacity for the storage.
- all the sources must be able to deliver power quality conditions (Variation in voltage magnitude, frequency, transient voltages and currents, harmonic content for AC)
- solve challenging demands for the transmission losses. More warm conditions = more losses = need more energy production. Note: I have done a study in Slovakia power grid how weather conditions have a heavy impact on the transmission losses (in period 1964-2019). And I can responsibly say that this is a very modern power grid vs UK or US.
So, we have heavy challenges:
- transform existing energy production from the fossil fuels, including YoY increment of energy production
- upgrade the obsolete power grids to keep existing power demand
- in parallel create new energy production capacities for new electric charging points (EVs, trucks, busses, ...). You can't build up these points anywhere.
- create new power grids for the new energy sources, including new transition stations, ...
- and keep it all orchestrated to achieve a sustained power supply. This is really tricky now (see below)
- and in Europe, we have an additional heavy variable - to cut off from Russia natural gas - one of the important resources for Europe power production and power grid sustainability.
Finally yes - it is about chicken or the egg:
- you can't decrease emissions with EVs charged from Coal, Oil or Natural gas power plant energy sources.
- stabilize the obsolete power grid or new demand in the existing obsolete grid.
It's similar to enjoying a healthy diet that you're preparing on a coal fire stove.
Power production needs an order. No chaotic solutions.
Some useful information:
- Jan/2021 - Europe was near heavy Blackout due to power supply failure that is suspected to have originated in Romania disrupted the Continental Europe Synchronous Area. Its frequency dropped to 48.75 Hz (target frequency 50Hz), which caused the South-East area to be separated from the rest of the grid. This disruption and a lack of operating reserves in France nearly caused a Europe-wide blackout. Luckily, the automatic activation of power stations throughout Europe and the automatic initiation of contracted load shedding in Italy (1000 MW) and France (1300 MW) kept the grid stable and prevented a blackout. This incident shows the fragility of the grid and the real possibility of a Europe-wide blackout, which we need to prevent.link
- IPCC AR6 - The latest IPCC report suggests that average wind speeds over Europe will reduce by 8%-10% as a result of climate change.
- UK’s renewables share drops to 35.9% in Q3 2021 on slow winds
- Spain's solar energy crisis: Thousands os Spaniards bankrupt after investing in solar panels
-
jan21405 at 19:42 PM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@nigelj #30
your opinion:
I disagree partly. You do actually have to start using some EVs even if the energy source is only about 10% renewables. You have to phase in EV's gradually. Otherwise we would have a situation where we get say 30 years down the road and the grid is say 75% renewables, then we have to start building EVs and everyone driving them which would probably be another 30 years because scaling them up is inevitably a slow process. By then the climate is totally cooked.
My note:
You read this sentence from my essay for masses: No More Good News on Global Warming; linkWhen you will read deeply my document: GHG [CO2] emissions problem in a dark box - 1st part of the Global warming series; link
you will get more answers to my point of view.
Step by step to your opinions:“You do actually have to start using some EVs even if the energy source is only about 10% renewables.”
My point: YES
“You have to phase in EV's gradually.”
My point: YES
“Otherwise we would have a situation where we get say 30 years down the road and the grid is say 75% renewables, then we have to start building EVs and everyone driving them which would probably be another 30 years because scaling them up is inevitably a slow process.”
My point: YES – from the Global level only. But this is the wrong attitude. Reason:
Vehicles operation is not global but regional. It follows that we cannot use global emissions from cars as a tool to calculate emission reductions with the introduction of EVs, but strictly regional, per country. It will be mathematically correct (the global data approach), but you will not be able to put it into practice.
An example:
Slovakia - Electricity generation by source: almost 80% comes from Carbon Zero technologies (mostly from Nuclear, then Hydro, partially PVe) and just 20% from the fossil fuels (mainly Natural gas, partially from coal which will be terminated 2023 and thin part from oil and biofuels). Then according to the study from NREL (2016): Emissions Associated with Electric Vehicle Charging: Impact of Electricity Generation Mix, Charging Infrastructure Availability, and Vehicle Type; linkSlovakia has a Low carbon average Daily profile of electric grid carbon intensity. This will be changed from the autumn of 2022, as another 471MW reactor in the new NPP will be launched to operation, which will bring the next 3.7TWh to the grid. It will cover fully coal, oil and almost 50% of the natural gas power production in the country = ready to immediately switch off. Then Slovakia will achieve from the beginning of 2023 near to 90% of green electricity. So, not gradual, but the fastest possible strategy of exchanging combustion engines to EVs seems to be workable.
But then we have a country like China. Its share in the EVs market is 53% (car sales according to IEA.org). The Chinese government’s official target is for electric cars to reach a market share of 20% for the full year in 2025, and their performance in 2021 suggests they are well on track to do so. link
If China had up to 270M passenger cars in 2020 and in 2025 it expects the number of EVs to be 54M EVs (270M x 25%) and in 2035 it expects 100% EVs, then it will need to produce 618TWh of energy in its electric grid, which does not exist today. In the same year, 50% of fossil fuel energy sources from Todays near 5 PWh (2021) will have to be transformed. So China needs to build a capacity for 6PWh/annually power production infrastructure and also distribution grids upgrade by 2035 (you can't generate electricity at point A, which is thousands of miles away from point B consumption. It's inefficient.) What's hard to achieve because China by 2025 will rise with coal fire power plants construction. Plus, energy consumption is growing - no one expects it to freeze. When it puts into a comprehensive analysis – so, China will need a miracle or something to do.
You can find more in my analysis: GHG CO2 emissions - Part 01 China Power production, race to zero analysis;link
I like to talk about exact data, analysis. Opinions are one thing, but the data shows something else. When thinking about such complex things as energy production and distribution, we need to be purely pragmatic and not subject to immediate results, but to look for ways to long-term sustainable solutions.Ready for a discussion. But especially here we need to use more facts than opinions.
-
jan21405 at 18:25 PM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Eric (skeptic) #36
you are right in your approach. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.
Regarding my note #28 - this is my approach; when I read something, I examine how those conclusions were made and what data was used and what methodology was used to examine the data. It is more arduous, but it helps me use only sufficiently reliable data in my hypothesis tests.
Quite often, I get into a position of devil's advocate, which provokes a discussion in order to get better outputs. It's nothing personal. If I can find something more useful, I'll send it to you. Because I also have suggestions on how to do things better.
-
jan21405 at 17:44 PM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@nigelj #30
regarding your reques to my background:
Slovak technical university, Faculty of electrical engineering
I am glad that you are interested in the reason why I focus mainly on energy, which is so fundamentally involved in emision issues.
Btw: Who is actually a scientist?
In the simplest sense- it is an investigator of topic based on scientific approach (observation, research, hypothesis, test, analysis, conclusions.
I do not divide people according to titles, number of published papers, articles, ... but according to the description of what methods they use, what sources influence their interpretations of results and what conclusions their activities bring. After all, it is the basis of science. Otherwise, we would very easily be subject to the fact that a scientist is only the one who has many titles before and after the name. In some cases, it comes as far as the absurdity that the Nobel Prize winner is a scientist, but he speaks without a scientific approach. Just look at Ivar Giaever's statements on Global warming. Is it necessary to continue this topic?
Or will we look at useful long-term sustainable ways to reduce the impact of emissions on ongoing climate change?
Especially in a small circle of scientists, we should use the justification of our doubts about other proposals based on knowledge, not based on opinions only. I have a deep research about the topic of EVs, what exactly and why and on what basis is your doubt based? We can meet, I prefer face to face discussion than just offline (such this one). I can easily setup a video call.
Btw: I communicate openly, you can see who I am, where I am from, I make public contacts. I only know your nickname about you.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:45 PM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Evan @33,
People who powerfully resist learning that they had developed a liking for being harmful and related harmful misunderstanding do not have to have their minds changed. They just need to be kept from being as harmful as they would like to be. They need to be kept from significantly influencing policy makers.
A potential effective solution for the challenge of limiting the harm done by people who do not care that their pursuits are harmful is the Development and Implementation of Policies that limit the harm done (through public education efforts and penalty or refusing permission - think about COVID policies).
Getting that done for climate change harm limitation requires the majority of the winning policy makers to be people who actually will do that. That is not an easy task. But it is a way to solve the problem. However, it exposes why the problem has become so large and challenging today. There was a lack of popularity for the required changes due to the popularity of harmful misunderstandings (and better science presentation was/is helpful but not a solution).
The root of the problem is harmful political game players who are not, or cannot, be penalized for making harmfully incorrect claims or be denied permission to make such claims. The actions and regional popular support of the Putin Group and Trump Group are evidence of how harmful it is for people to have, or choose to have, the information they are aware of limited to misleading marketing that promotes harmful misunderstandings, or hides or fails to discover and expose harmful things that people should be aware of.
As you say, the distraction by misleading presentations of the Positives (harmful misunderstandings) is a serious part of the problem (as is the distraction of attention grabbing entertainment including sports).
My hope is that people who become more aware that they have been harmfully misled into believing harmful misunderstandings are unlikely to fall back into believing the nonsense. But I am well aware of the power of the need some people develop for their 'developed identity community' to draw them back into the fold of harmful misunderstanding. Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, presents how that is more likely, but not certain, to happen to people with Libertarian or Conservative personality traits.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 12:40 PM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Quote from Jan@28:
To be completely clear. The importance of examining the impact of using Biomass fuels is essential. But it is much more important to use data that will not ruin the whole effort.
Jan, thanks for examining my sources and for your corrections. I would like to know which populations are moving away from unhealthful conditions (e.g. indoor biomass burning) to electric cooking. Or to renewable biomass in a stove. Or moving from home coal fires to biomass fires or other energy source. Or still stuck with one of those awful energy sources.
Once we understand those populations, we will know where to target policies and programs ($$$) to help leapfrog the cheap coal electricity phase. That might mean helping with cultural shifts to match energy demand with renewable energy supply. Renewables are quite cheap when demand can be matched with supply. Shifting the supply curve is very expensive (e.g. Germany's pumped storage) but shifting the demand curve may be much more realistic for countries without Germany's wealth.
Also very high birthrates are often correlated with the poverty typified by the indoor cooking and heating fire and subsequent childhood mortality. So while the numbers are not as high as I thought, it is still a significant source of future energy demand represented by rapidly increasing population.
One alternative to leapfrogging is a program like India to take the population from 30% electrified to close to 100% in the past two decades. That's amazing progress from a health view (eliminating indoor burning), but terrible for global CO2. That's somewhat of a red herring, but being actively pursued in many countries. Also I should not pick any other country without acknowledging our own lack of energy efficiency and other easy targets here. But I am talking about the future shape of the top curve in fig 4.
That's my main focus in my discussion above. My overall argument is that we need not be pessimistic, but think globally and promote realistic global energy solutions. Also provide lots of funding of R&D for tomorrow's cheap renewable energy.
-
Evan at 09:23 AM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
OPOF@33
There are likely many people who know they are doing harm, and don't care. No idea how to solve that one.
-
prove we are smart at 08:58 AM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Australia plays the climate shell game very well.. "This is little more than a wealth transfer. People can think of this as welfare payments for the undeserving". www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/insider-blows-whistle-on-australias-greenhouse-gas-reduction-schemes/ar-AAVpXoK?ocid=ACERDHP17&li=AAgfYrC
I stopped feeling guilty about buying my only 4k oled smart tv 3 wks ago after reading this...www.miragenews.com/ranked-how-many-properties-do-australian-545566/
Thanks Evan for simplifying to some of the bottom lines. Many years ago I stumbled onto Skeptical Science which began my AGW learning, now of course commonly called climate change. Yes, the overshoot problem with 80 million people extra every year on a finite earth isn't helping.
I try to use many different media sources to reduce bias but with a lot of my friends many are not so caring. Thanks Jan@18 for hitting the nail for me. When I pulled my head out of the ground to educate myself, it was a fruitful exercise but lately it seems the doomer in me is growing stronger. Is that why so many wilfully delude themselves-I think in this media world people need to see the high status/leaders showing integrity and sacrifice( because it's needed now)- just don't hold your breath..
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:55 AM on 24 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Evan, nigelj,
I am still pondering all of this, so thanks for the feedback.
Another observation (like a question), but this time directly linked to a specific point of the presented information.
The question is: Why is there a lack of rigorous effort to investigate potential harm of developments, and lack of related leadership actions and policy implementation, to limit harm done?
In the Science Disconnect image there is something missing. 'The scientific investigation of the potential harm of new developments' is missing. The people pursuing profit and popularity understand that many people who developed by being immersed in the pursuit of benefit from new developments (consumers) are only potentially interested in 'personal harm'. Harm to Others, especially future generations is irrelevant to them. And, even if there is risk of personal harm, many people seem OK with that if the sales pitch for the new thing seems to be 'promising enough potential personal benefit'.
It is obvious that serious investigation into the potential harm of new developments is not something that the power players in the developed competitions for perceptions of status care about. In fact, it is pretty apparent that the power players likely have powerful motivations to stifle any potential investigation into the potential harm of what they benefit from. And there is powerful knowledge of misleading marketing power that is at their disposal to fight against that type of investigation happening or its results becoming common sense understanding among their captive audience of compliant, desperate, easily manipulated consumers.
That leads to another question: What will effectively un-brainwash people who have learned (developed a way of thinking) driven by liking what they perceive to be personally enjoyable, thrilling, or beneficial? What will change the mind of someone who will passionately rely on misunderstanding to defend and excuse what they like to believe against evidence that it is harmful? Older people can still learn. But they have developed many beliefs that can be hard to over-turn (the mind builds those short-cuts through learning). And if they sense personal benefit is obtained by preserving a harmful misunderstanding (meaning they will have to give up personal benefit if they give up the harmful misunderstanding) they are likely to passionately insist on more harmfully misunderstanding things (they get angrily resistant when pushed toward corrected understanding that they sense they will not personally benefit from).
How to be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi, presents an interesting understanding based on the origin of the term racism being the 'race (or competition) for superiority; the development of artificial and likely unjustified hierarchies of people. And he mentions the problem of climate change several times in the book as a harmful result of persistent harmful misunderstanding. His conclusion is essentially that the solution requires institutional, systemic, policy changes. And the policy changes require the people who 'care to address the problem' to have the power to make the policy changes happen.
A related understanding is that "everybody's actions add up". Regarding climate change, that obviously is why the problem continues to grow. More people are continuing to cause more harmful impact thta adds up. And the solution is people acting helpfully to limit the harm done. And the policy changes required need to equitably limit everybody's harmful contribution. The less fortunate should be the only ones who 'temporarily' benefit from harm done (not any of the most fortunate). And the more fortunate, all of them, especially the most fortunate, need to lead the rapid correction of what has developed. Any more fortunate people 'freer to believe and do as they please' makes the future situation worse than it needs to be, including the bad example they set for others to aspire to develop towards.
