CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[Stanley]

I agree. Let's add 'Wastrel' to "Let the polluter pay". The big problem is that electricity distribution is the biggest wastrel of them all and the only place the penalty could be applied is to the consumer. Bit like fines on banks, guess who pays in the long run.....

[Tizer]

As some of us keep pointing out, the one thing we can do immediately is to use less energy and fuel but we need to do it on a national scale, not rely on the goodwill of the individual. Ideally it should be international but we need to set an example by showing we take climate change seriously and are willing as a nation to make sacrifices.

[Pluggy]

I agree. Let's add 'Wastrel' to "Let the polluter pay". The big problem is that electricity distribution is the biggest wastrel of them all and the only place the penalty could be applied is to the consumer. Bit like fines on banks, guess who pays in the long run.....

I wouldn't consider 7.7% distribution losses excessive. Its about what British Gas put their prices up every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_G ... %29#Losses

I don't think I'd notice 7.7% on my electric bill. It'll probably drop by 50% when my daughter and granddaughter move out.

[Stanley]

Pluggy, I was referring to the part distribution plays in their overall thermal efficiency of well below 20%.

[Pluggy]

Pluggy, I was referring to the part distribution plays in their overall thermal efficiency of well below 20%.

Evidence Stanley. If the most inefficient coal power plant that is only 33% efficient (the better ones are pushing 40%) and it loses 7.7% of what it produces in distribution, its overall efficiency is a long way north of 20%

If the power station is 33% efficient and we use the Grids worst case scenario of 12% losses. I make the overall efficiency just over 29% Most coal stations will do a lot better than 33% and gas plants are typically much higher (60% is fairly normal).

They could further improve the distribution efficiency by pushing the distribution voltage higher. we currently use 400,000 volts maximum, the yanks have 665,000 volts on some of their pylons. A new grid they're currently constructing in India will run at 1,200,000 volts. The distribution distances are much higher in the states and India over the comparatively compact UK however.

[chinatyke]

The distribution distances are much higher in the states and India over the comparatively compact UK however.

That's the key, GB is too small. But what difference does it make when you connect it to a tungsten filament bulb with only 2% visible light efficiency?

By-passing the town where I have an apartment are 500 kv HVDC lines taking power from Guizhou to Guangdong, 960 km away. It is only economically viable to transmit in dc over long distances, I think the break-point is about 600 miles (or was it 600 km? Not sure). The dc line runs alongside an ac power line. The insulators hanging from the pylons are awesome if you appreciate this sort of thing.

[Stanley]

My figures may be out of date (Old age!) but it's still grossly inefficient. Far better when we had power stations in cities using low pressure steam exhaust for district heating instead of wasteful cooling of exhaust to condense it and give vacuum. That's why CHP plants in say swimming pools can be so efficient.
Rolls Royce spent years trying to improve the efficiency of diesel engines. They were trying to better the 50% of the Gardner engine. The result was the 'Eagle' which was just about the same. Don't know what they have reached now but it won't be a lot better. Compare with the efficiency of the latest 'A' class condensing gas boilers for CH.

[Tizer]

Guardian online, 19 May 2015
`Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF'
Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change. Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.” LINK

The IMF brief summary: LINK

[Stanley]

As you say, quite shocking and an example of how badly we run our world. Even breathable air is a luxury now in some cities. I caught part of the programme on ITV about pollution in London last night.... Perhaps we really are all doomed!

[Tizer]

On the bright side, there are wonderful opportunities for Britain to lead the world in renewable energy technology, energy saving and other means of defeating the effects of climate change while creating employment for many folk. See the Anglesey energy project on the OG energy thread, for instance. We just have to get on and do it!

[Stanley]

What amazes me is that economists like Stiglitz prove beyond doubt that investment in these technologies is by far the most productive use of capital. Problem is that as the results are a public good it's easier to get profit out of polluting than improvements and so only public funding can make a real difference. Instead, as we see from the report you mentioned the other day, we out trillions of public money world wide into subsidising the polluters. You couldn't make it up......

[Tizer]

Scientists reported in recent weeks that they'd got enough data to confirm the start of a new El Nino event. They don't know how severe it will be but you can bet that such events are going to get worse as the climate overheats. This article looks at the possible effect of the coming El Nino on food supply. LINK

[Stanley]

I am reminded of Chaos Theory, El Nino is a bit more powerful than a butterfly flapping its wings.....

[Tizer]

As well as reminding us about the disappearing ice in Antarctica this report is a nice example of how scientists are sceptics and don't immediately accept new information but look for further evidence.
`Antarctic Peninsula in 'dramatic' ice loss' (BBC, 22 May 2015)
"Satellites have seen a sudden dramatic change in the behaviour of glaciers on the Antarctica Peninsula, according to a Bristol University-led study. The ice streams were broadly stable up until 2009, since when they have been losing on the order of 56 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean. Warm waters from the deep sea may be driving the changes, the UK-based team says. The details of the satellite research are published in Science Magazine. They include more than 10 years of space observations of a broad swathe of coastline roughly 750km in length, on the south-western sector of the peninsula."
LINK

They've used two different ways of measuring the loss of ice and the results of the two methods agree. However, if we read further down the article we find that these new results differ dramatically from those reported by other scientists in 2014, who found much lower losses. These groups of scientists will now work hard to prove each other wrong, which in the end gets us closer to the truth. Battle begins!

[Stanley]

And meanwhile effective action is delayed because the sceptics can point to the disparity and question the whole basis of the evidence. It all reinforces me in my belief that until we are sure we should be taking 'worst case' actions, the Precautionary Principle. Unfortunately I don't think that any of this will do any good, I have this terrible feeling that we have passed the tipping point and it's only a matter of time before the inexorable affects start to take their toll. Nature's time scale may be too slow to present us with incontrovertible evidence in time. In other words we are looking at the train crash happening and not recognising it.

[Tizer]

Unfortunately I agree with you! A lot of damage has already been done to the atmosphere. People think that it we slow down the increase in CO2 emissions now, all will be well in the future: wrong, even if we start decreasing CO2 emissions now it would take a long time for the CO2 to fall back. A proportion of the `extra' CO2 we've put into the atmosphere will be there for centuries. It's time the world governments started admitting this and raising awareness in their populations of the need for drastic action now to prevent conditions being even worse. Civilisation as we know it (forgive the cliche) depends on very finely balanced Earth systems which provide the `magic' combination of conditions that allows not only life, but the intelligent human life that we enjoy. We are stressing those systems to the limit, like stretching an elastic band and assuming it will never break.

[plaques]

Stiglitz touched on this subject in his latest book, 'The Great Divide', His comments were that prior to the Iraq war America had embarked on a process to 'drain' the US of its hydrocarbons. This was done in the hope that technology would find an answer to the clean energy problem. They had clearly done this to keep their economy running at full tilt. What was happening to the climate didn't enter the equation. When they eventually run out of their own domestic supply they will sit round the table and say " what can we do to reduce pollution". Until they reach this point nothing will happen.

[Tizer]

I expect they'll soon be forced to start recognising and tackling the problem. Water shortage will become critical, hurricanes and tornadoes more devastating, winters colder, summers hotter, infectious diseases spreading in from overseas.

[Stanley]

P is right and in the process some of the biggest mistakes have been made because US politics is controlled by massive financial interests.
It's a double whammy because the deterioration (Events Dear Boy) will force even more pressure on the systems.

[Tizer]

The unpredictability and turbulence of the US weather is shown in a current news story - the biggest floods in recorded history in Texas and Oklahoma...
Rain deluge brings floods to Texas and Oklahoma
"A deluge of rainfall has burst rivers and brought flood warnings to several southern US states, with Texas and Oklahoma the worst hit so far. Two people died in weather-related accidents in Oklahoma and a man died in San Marcos, Texas. Parts of Texas saw up to 10 inches (25cm) of rain over a 24-hour period, with more predicted across the region. There were numerous rescues on Sunday after banks burst, and hundreds of homes were destroyed in central Texas. Warnings and alerts stretch from Colorado through to Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and eastern Kansas." LINK

[Stanley]

I've been listening to the reports this morning. The tornado in Mexico was particularly surprising. The first thing that came into my mind was El Nino.... But that's just a suspicion, not evidence based.....

[Tizer]

The Antarctic ozone hole would have been 40% bigger and a hole over the Arctic would have opened by now if ozone-depleting chemicals had not been banned in the 1980s. LINK
It didn't happen because scientific research showed the need for immediate intervention and the politicians and regulators acted quickly...now we are faced with climate change but those politicians and regulators aren't acting quickly enough.

[Stanley]

We are all doomed......

[Tizer]

Well, the FIFA news should cheer you up no end!

[Stanley]

Not really. A corrupt administrator and his henchmen rip off a money rich system for their own profit and their eventual fate makes world wide news. The same thing happens on a far larger scale to our environment and we do virtually nothing. How many have died already? How many more will die? I can only surmise that football is more important than survival... It's a funny old world isn't it.