Some Questions/Observations on Climate Craziness

zuutroy

I have a few questions and observations from what I've read around the place that I'd like to hear peoples' opinions on.

Firstly, a recent paper in Climate Change from the University of Utah inherently links energy production and by extension CO2 emission to economic growth and goes as far as to provide a Watts per Dollar figure. The paper suggests that as efficiency increases, so does economic growth which nulls any benefit, so nothing short of global economic collapse would stop the level of CO2 growth unless a nuclear reactor's worth per day of 'green' energy is added for the foreseeable future. To me this suggests the whole energy efficiency thing is a bit of a false dawn.

That leads me onto the question of what is the advantage of cutting back on fossil fuel consumption? It is undeniable that all of the world's oil is going to be used up. Has anyone shown that there will be less damage done by spreading this consumption over 100 years rather than running out on current pace in say 50 years. If its a case of, 'well we're going there anyway', whats the use in suffering the ramifications of conservation (purely from a CO2 point of view)

Coupling the above with the recent controversy over data, the 10 years of no temperature increase (I know 10 years is very little) and a non-zero chance that recent climatic changes were naturally variations, is choking the economy worth it?

djpbarry

zuutroy wrote: »

That leads me onto the question of what is the advantage of cutting back on fossil fuel consumption? It is undeniable that all of the world's oil is going to be used up. Has anyone shown that there will be less damage done by spreading this consumption over 100 years rather than running out on current pace in say 50 years. If its a case of, 'well we're going there anyway', whats the use in suffering the ramifications of conservation (purely from a CO2 point of view)

I think the best argument against rampant fossil fuel consumption is the concept of a smooth transition over to alternative energy sources. We could just go hell for leather and consume all fossil fuels in a short space of time, but I imagine the sharp transition to other sources will result in economic fluctuations of some sort. Furthermore, there’s still a whole lot of coal out there – it would be some time before we manage to use all of it (the best estimates escape me at the moment).

Then of course there’s the fact that consuming a given amount of fossil fuels in a shorter period of time will lead to a greater increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would probably not be a good thing.

zuutroy wrote: »

Coupling the above with the recent controversy over data, the 10 years of no temperature increase (I know 10 years is very little) and a non-zero chance that recent climatic changes were naturally variations, is choking the economy worth it?

A balance between sustainability and economic well-being obviously needs to be struck. But looking at it on a local, Irish scale, continuing our reliance on imported oil, in particular, is not sound economic policy – the more we diversify, the more resilient we will make ourselves to economic ‘shocks’ in the future.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

A balance between sustainability and economic well-being obviously needs to be struck. But looking at it on a local, Irish scale, continuing our reliance on imported oil, in particular, is not sound economic policy – the more we diversify, the more resilient we will make ourselves to economic ‘shocks’ in the future.

Currently we have only two options to satisfy our energy requirements, fossil fuels and nuclear power, if we exclude importing electricity from elsewhere.

The problem with "sustainable" forms of power production are, currently, too many to be able to rely on them for power required in our economy.

e04bf099

auerillo wrote: »

Currently we have only two options to satisfy our energy requirements, fossil fuels and nuclear power, if we exclude importing electricity from elsewhere.

The problem with "sustainable" forms of power production are, currently, too many to be able to rely on them for power required in our economy.

That is contentious, I think. Britain has a more sophisticated energy grid, with the population that made it cost effective to "tech-up", thus making it feasible for renewables to be accomodated on the grid, without the fluctuations that come with most renewables causing complications.

Our grid is extremely inefficient and out-dated and the fluctuations and unreliable nature of renewables, like wind, would be much more complicated for us.

Unfortunately, we are at the fag-end of a Russian gas pipe-line. That is not a good situation. A nation and a government that is supposed to be culpible and responsible to a population, should, for the purposes of independence and democratic representation, be energy independant as much as possible. That is the motivation behind both most of the political classes and a hell of a lot of the business classes, to remain passive quietists on the subject of the corruption of the peer-review process.

Soooo, to answer the OP's question, in my view, it is important to reduce our carbon usage. But not because of anthropogenic change. I can say nothing about that subject. I have no opinion either way, except for the assertive determination not to be compelled by the herd-mentality like our resident mod.

We also should use the oil for the other products in order to keep our mindless consumerism going. That is good for the economy.

Now, as far as nuclear goes, it isn't feasible for us to go nuclear. But we could link up with Britain, thus dumping our renewables onto their grid when we have a surplus, and drawing power when we need to. We would most likely come out of that deal in the green, unless at some point the British decided to act like less than decent Europeans and hold us to ransom in some fashion. But the way that globalisation is going, I see no sign of that being an issue for a good long time.

One thing is clear though. We really souldn't be dependant upon oil and coal. It isn't good for our economic security.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

Soooo, to answer the OP's question, in my view, it is important to reduce our carbon usage. But not because of anthropogenic change. I can say nothing about that subject. I have no opinion either way, except for the assertive determination not to be compelled by the herd-mentality like our resident mod.

Surely, having already received three infractions, you would know better than to come out with something like that?

auerillo

e04bf099 wrote: »

One thing is clear though. We really souldn't be dependant upon oil and coal. It isn't good for our economic security.

I disagree. Without oil and coal, our economy would shrivel up and die, and so we are dependant on them. Whether or not we should be dependant on them is another matter, as quite clearly it's not ideal. But we are where we are, and renewables really have little contribution to make to ouir energy security.

maniac101

zuutroy wrote: »

I have a few questions and observations from what I've read around the place that I'd like to hear peoples' opinions on.

Firstly, a recent paper in Climate Change from the University of Utah inherently links energy production and by extension CO2 emission to economic growth and goes as far as to provide a Watts per Dollar figure. The paper suggests that as efficiency increases, so does economic growth which nulls any benefit, so nothing short of global economic collapse would stop the level of CO2 growth unless a nuclear reactor's worth per day of 'green' energy is added for the foreseeable future. To me this suggests the whole energy efficiency thing is a bit of a false dawn.

Could you please provide a link to the above paper? There's a lot of work showing that all energy efficiency gains have been cancelled by increased economic activity, but very little that explores the relationship between the two. I'd be of the view that economic growth drives efficiency rather than the other way round, but this ultimately leads to the same conclusion. I believe that reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, as proposed by Stern for instance, would require us to enter a period of prolongued economic decline. If you apply the findings of the University of Utah to this scenario it would also entail a dramatic deterioration in efficiency.

That leads me onto the question of what is the advantage of cutting back on fossil fuel consumption? It is undeniable that all of the world's oil is going to be used up. Has anyone shown that there will be less damage done by spreading this consumption over 100 years rather than running out on current pace in say 50 years. If its a case of, 'well we're going there anyway', whats the use in suffering the ramifications of conservation (purely from a CO2 point of view)

The radiative forcing, or global warming effect, of the more common greenhouse gases deteriorates with time, (although there are exceptions). So if you subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming then a slower release of the same quantity of gas over a longer period of time will have lesser effect on the climate.

Coupling the above with the recent controversy over data, the 10 years of no temperature increase (I know 10 years is very little) and a non-zero chance that recent climatic changes were naturally variations, is choking the economy worth it?

I think that a unilateral approach by a country like Ireland specifically to combat climate change would put us at a competitive disadvantage, and would not be perceived internationally as setting a positive example. However, I also believe that our reliance on diminishing quantities of fossil fuels that are owned by others is an even greater threat to our economy and that we need to find ways of reducing our dependence on them.

e04bf099

auerillo wrote: »

I disagree. Without oil and coal, our economy would shrivel up and die, and so we are dependant on them. Whether or not we should be dependant on them is another matter, as quite clearly it's not ideal. But we are where we are, and renewables really have little contribution to make to ouir energy security.

Really?

Ok, with due respect, I believe that renewables can suppement quite well the energy needs of Ireland, although I laid out some obvious issues before. I have 500 watt wind-turbine and solar panels. DKIT have a massive turbine that produces almost all of the electricity for their campus. They would be making money on it right now but the ESB will only let them dump the load, they won't pay for it. Obviously I gave reasons why these installations are complicated for this country, but those technical issues should not stop us from persuing something that will provide benefits of independance from the countries that sell the coal and oil. Why was the Iraq war fought? So Europe would find it harder to strike off on its own. Thats from Chomsky, but I won't try to quote him. Why would we wish to be tied to Russian gas or German coal when, as much as possible, we could provide our own.

Energy-efficiency and cleverly reduced production/consumption (i.e. using technology like upgrading the national gris, as opposed to people's habits) coupled with renewables, in my view, is extremely viable. The village close to my home, if my Dad could ever muster up support, could build a dam and a wind-turbine, which could power the entire village. They wouldn't even need to drop the load into the grid because the ESB the dam would regulate the flux. Villages around Britain this NOW.

So, obviously coal and oil are necessary consumer for any large scale industry. Does that mean that domestically we need to be dependant also?

That is just my understanding of things. I don't believe we need 90% of energy to be produced by imported fossil fuels. Providing a market for technological advancement would be far more secure than that, even if we didn't manage to produced all of the required energy production.

I think that a unilateral approach by a country like Ireland specifically to combat climate change would put us at a competitive disadvantage, and would not be perceived internationally as setting a positive example. However, I also believe that our reliance on diminishing quantities of fossil fuels that are owned by others is an even greater threat to our economy and that we need to find ways of reducing our dependence on them.

+1

zuutroy

maniac101 wrote: »

Could you please provide a link to the above paper?

Here you go:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf

auerillo

e04bf099 wrote: »

Really?

I have 500 watt wind-turbine and solar panels. DKIT have a massive turbine that produces almost all of the electricity for their campus. They would be making money on it right now but the ESB will only let them dump the load, they won't pay for it.

+1

I wonder how DKIT and yourself power your tv and fridges and freezers and electric lights when the wind isn't blowing?

It would be interesting to learn what their energy requirement is, and to see what the output from their windmill is. My understanding is that the best windmills in Ireland are still for 66% of the time and turning for 33% of the time. This means they only produce electricity for 8 hours out of every 24. And thats the best ones.

e04bf099 wrote: »

Really?

So, obviously coal and oil are necessary consumer for any large scale industry. Does that mean that domestically we need to be dependant also?

That is just my understanding of things. I don't believe we need 90% of energy to be produced by imported fossil fuels. Providing a market for technological advancement would be far more secure than that, even if we didn't manage to produced all of the required energy production.


+1

I guess it means we are dependant. To wean our society off oil and coal is not simple, and it's a nice idea to think we can do that by switching to renewables, but there are practical problems which are enormous hurdles to get over before we can consider becoming dependant on renewables in the way we are currently dependant on oil and coal.

e04bf099

auerillo wrote: »

I wonder how DKIT and yourself power your tv and fridges and freezers and electric lights when the wind isn't blowing?

DKIT supplies all of its power when the wind is blowing, which is the majority of the time (except some spa built a huge hotel to the east which causes turbulence and inefficiency, but that is not a big factor). It cost 1.1million euro as far as I know. They'll pay for that in 6 years, which is fantastic. They dump the load at night and when they have too much power. Fridges, freezers and electric lights are all well looked after. They draw power when necessary, but they save far far more than they pay for.

It would be interesting to learn what their energy requirement is, and to see what the output from their windmill is. My understanding is that the best windmills in Ireland are still for 66% of the time and turning for 33% of the time. This means they only produce electricity for 8 hours out of every 24. And thats the best ones.

As I said, I have a wind-turbine and it produces electricity most days. We use it for our fridge, TV, and energy efficient lights. That is more than half of the days in winter and less in summer. All energy produced is saving money because there are very little (if any) costs after installation. My Dad built ours though. He wouldn't trust the Chinese imports.

I guess it means we are dependant. To wean our society off oil and coal is not simple, and it's a nice idea to think we can do that by switching to renewables, but there are practical problems which are enormous hurdles to get over before we can consider becoming dependant on renewables in the way we are currently dependant on oil and coal.

Its not simple, but that is not a reason not to do it. I would not say it is necessary to become dependant upon renewables. The point is that we need alternatives. If you only eat potatoes and then something happens to the potatoes then you are in bad shape. But if you are allowed to eat other types of food with your potatoes then you have a back-up. With the renewable industries, the investment can go into new technologies, on which they are dependant. So, over time, battery technology (way in the future, if even feasible) and other new ways of storing energy, like massive glacial valleys filled with water and contained with huge dams, can be researched. But we should give renewables a hand up, in case we have a kind of oil famine.

auerillo

e04bf099 wrote: »

DKIT supplies all of its power when the wind is blowing, which is the majority of the time (except some spa built a huge hotel to the east which causes turbulence and inefficiency, but that is not a big factor). It cost 1.1million euro as far as I know. They'll pay for that in 6 years, which is fantastic.

That suggests that, if they can run their wind turbine for 33% of the time and match the best performance so far recorded in Ireland (which is doubtful in a built up area), their ESB bill would be in the region of €183333.33 per annum. Thus, the saving would be €61111 per annum.

If the saving is €1.1 million over 6 years, then that suggests their ESB bill, over 6 years, might be €3.3 million (if the achieve running 33% of the time), or their current annual ESB bill might be €550 000 without the turbine, or €1506 per day.

Wow!

e04bf099

auerillo wrote: »

That suggests that, if they can run their wind turbine for 33% of the time and match the best performance so far recorded in Ireland (which is doubtful in a built up area), their ESB bill would be in the region of €183333.33 per annum. Thus, the saving would be €61111 per annum.

If the saving is €1.1 million over 6 years, then that suggests their ESB bill, over 6 years, might be €3.3 million (if the achieve running 33% of the time), or their current annual ESB bill might be €550 000 without the turbine, or €1506 per day.

Wow!

That could well be in the right ball-park in terms of a saving. But you're over-simplifying things when you say that they only turn 33% of the time. They turn at different rates and obviously there would be environmental conditions such as drumlins and buildings that would cause turbulence and reduce efficiency. Are you possibly confusing the figure of 33% efficient in terms of energy conversion from wind power to electricity with the average time the turbine is spinning? That would sound more likely. But wind is all free so the 33% efficiency level is just a technical issue.

Safe to say, in the right conditions they are extremely viable. But the right conditions are not easy to find.

And remember, this is an IT, not some major international organisation like Greenpeace or a University like UCD. It is just a mino campus with some cool people working there that took a chance against the prevailing winds of opinion, so to speak.